A Quality Model for Actionable Analytics in Rapid Software Development

Background: Accessing relevant data on the product, process, and usage perspectives of software as well as integrating and analyzing such data is crucial for getting reliable and timely actionable insights aimed at continuously managing software quality in Rapid Software Development (RSD). In this context, several software analytics tools have been developed in recent years. However, there is a lack of explainable software analytics that software practitioners trust. Aims: We aimed at creating a quality model (called Q-Rapids quality model) for actionable analytics in RSD, implementing it, and evaluating its understandability and relevance. Method: We performed workshops at four companies in order to determine relevant metrics as well as product and process factors. We also elicited how these metrics and factors are used and interpreted by practitioners when making decisions in RSD. We specified the Q-Rapids quality model by comparing and integrating the results of the four workshops. Then we implemented the Q-Rapids tool to support the usage of the Q-Rapids quality model as well as the gathering, integration, and analysis of the required data. Afterwards we installed the Q-Rapids tool in the four companies and performed semi-structured interviews with eight product owners to evaluate the understandability and relevance of the Q-Rapids quality model. Results: The participants of the evaluation perceived the metrics as well as the product and process factors of the Q-Rapids quality model as understandable. Also, they considered the Q-Rapids quality model relevant for identifying product and process deficiencies (e.g., blocking code situations). Conclusions: By means of heterogeneous data sources, the Q-Rapids quality model enables detecting problems that take more time to find manually and adds transparency among the perspectives of system, process, and usage.Comment: This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of a paper to be published by IEEE in the 44th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA) 2018. The final authenticated version will be available onlin

A quality model for actionable analytics in rapid software development

Accessing relevant data on the product, process, and usage perspectives of software as well as integrating and analyzing such data is crucial for getting reliable and timely actionable insights aimed at continuously managing software quality in Rapid Software Development (RSD). In this context, several software analytics tools have been developed in recent years. However, there is a lack of explainable software analytics that software practitioners trust. Aims: We aimed at creating a quality model (called Q-Rapids quality model) for actionable analytics in RSD, implementing it, and evaluating its understandability and relevance. Method: We performed workshops at four companies in order to determine relevant metrics as well as product and process factors. We also elicited how these metrics and factors are used and interpreted by practitioners when making decisions in RSD. We specified the Q-Rapids quality model by comparing and integrating the results of the four workshops. Then we implemented the Q-Rapids tool to support the usage of the Q-Rapids quality model as well as the gathering, integration, and analysis of the required data. Afterwards we installed the Q-Rapids tool in the four companies and performed semi-structured interviews with eight product owners to evaluate the understandability and relevance of the Q-Rapids quality model. Results: The participants of the evaluation perceived the metrics as well as the product and process factors of the Q-Rapids quality model as understandable. Also, they considered the Q-Rapids quality model relevant for identifying product and process deficiencies (e.g., blocking code situations). Conclusions: By means of heterogeneous data sources, the Q-Rapids quality model enables detecting problems that take more time to find manually and adds transparency among the perspectives of system, process, and usage.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Software engineering for AI-based systems: A survey

AI-based systems are software systems with functionalities enabled by at least one AI component (e.g., for image-, speech-recognition, and autonomous driving). AI-based systems are becoming pervasive in society due to advances in AI. However, there is limited synthesized knowledge on Software Engineering (SE) approaches for building, operating, and maintaining AI-based systems. To collect and analyze state-of-the-art knowledge about SE for AI-based systems, we conducted a systematic mapping study. We considered 248 studies published between January 2010 and March 2020. SE for AI-based systems is an emerging research area, where more than 2/3 of the studies have been published since 2018. The most studied properties of AI-based systems are dependability and safety. We identified multiple SE approaches for AI-based systems, which we classified according to the SWEBOK areas. Studies related to software testing and software quality are very prevalent, while areas like software maintenance seem neglected. Data-related issues are the most recurrent challenges. Our results are valuable for: researchers, to quickly understand the state-of-the-art and learn which topics need more research; practitioners, to learn about the approaches and challenges that SE entails for AI-based systems; and, educators, to bridge the gap among SE and AI in their curricula.This work has been partially funded by the “Beatriz Galindo” Spanish Program BEAGAL18/00064 and by the DOGO4ML Spanish research project (ref. PID2020-117191RB-I00)Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Management of quality requirements in agile and rapid software development: A systematic mapping study

Context: Quality requirements (QRs) describe the desired quality of software, and they play an important role in the success of software projects. In agile software development (ASD), QRs are often ill-defined and not well addressed due to the focus on quickly delivering functionality. Rapid software development (RSD) approaches (e.g., continuous delivery and continuous deployment), which shorten delivery times, are more prone to neglect QRs. Despite the significance of QRs in both ASD and RSD, there is limited synthesized knowledge on their management in those approaches. Objective: This study aims to synthesize state-of-the-art knowledge about QR management in ASD and RSD, focusing on three aspects: bibliometric, strategies, and challenges. Research method: Using a systematic mapping study with a snowballing search strategy, we identified and structured the literature on QR management in ASD and RSD. Results: We found 156 primary studies: 106 are empirical studies, 16 are experience reports, and 34 are theoretical studies. Security and performance were the most commonly reported QR types. We identified various QR management strategies: 74 practices, 43 methods, 13 models, 12 frameworks, 11 advices, 10 tools, and 7 guidelines. Additionally, we identified 18 categories and 4 non-recurring challenges of managing QRs. The limited ability of ASD to handle QRs, time constraints due to short iteration cycles, limitations regarding the testing of QRs and neglect of QRs were the top categories of challenges. Conclusion: Management of QRs is significant in ASD and is becoming important in RSD. This study identified research gaps, such as the need for more tools and guidelines, lightweight QR management strategies that fit short iteration cycles, investigations of the link between QRs challenges and technical debt, and extension of empirical validation of existing strategies to a wider context. It also synthesizes QR management strategies and challenges, which may be useful for practitioners.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Quality measurement in agile and rapid software development: A systematic mapping

Context: In despite of agile and rapid software development (ARSD) being researched and applied extensively, managing quality requirements (QRs) are still challenging. As ARSD processes produce a large amount of data, measurement has become a strategy to facilitate QR management. Objective: This study aims to survey the literature related to QR management through metrics in ARSD, focusing on: bibliometrics, QR metrics, and quality-related indicators used in quality management. Method: The study design includes the definition of research questions, selection criteria, and snowballing as search strategy. Results: We selected 61 primary studies (2001-2019). Despite a large body of knowledge and standards, there is no consensus regarding QR measurement. Terminology is varying as are the measuring models. However, seemingly different measurement models do contain similarities. Conclusion: The industrial relevance of the primary studies shows that practitioners have a need to improve quality measurement. Our collection of measures and data sources can serve as a starting point for practitioners to include quality measurement into their decision-making processes. Researchers could benefit from the identified similarities to start building a common framework for quality measurement. In addition, this could help researchers identify what quality aspects need more focus, e.g., security and usability with few metrics reported.This work has been funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program through the Q-Rapids project (grant no. 732253). This research was also partially supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad through the DOGO4ML project (grant PID2020-117191RB-I00). Silverio Martínez-Fernández worked in Fraunhofer IESE before January 2020.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Continuously assessing and improving software quality with software analytics tools: a case study

In the last decade, modern data analytics technologies have enabled the creation of software analytics tools offering real-time visualization of various aspects related to software development and usage. These tools seem to be particularly attractive for companies doing agile software development. However, the information provided by the available tools is neither aggregated nor connected to higher quality goals. At the same time, assessing and improving software quality has also been a key target for the software engineering community, yielding several proposals for standards and software quality models. Integrating such quality models into software analytics tools could close the gap by providing the connection to higher quality goals. This study aims at understanding whether the integration of quality models into software analytics tools provides understandable, reliable, useful, and relevant information at the right level of detail about the quality of a process or product, and whether practitioners intend to use it. Over the course of more than one year, the four companies involved in this case study deployed such a tool to assess and improve software quality in several projects. We used standardized measurement instruments to elicit the perception of 22 practitioners regarding their use of the tool. We complemented the findings with debriefing sessions held at the companies. In addition, we discussed challenges and lessons learned with four practitioners leading the use of the tool. Quantitative and qualitative analyses provided positive results; i.e., the practitioners’ perception with regard to the tool’s understandability, reliability, usefulness, and relevance was positive. Individual statements support the statistical findings and constructive feedback can be used for future improvements. We conclude that potential for future adoption of quality models within software analytics tools definitely exists and encourage other practitioners to use the presented seven challenges and seven lessons learned and adopt them in their companies.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

SARS-CoV-2-induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Pulmonary Mechanics and Gas-Exchange Abnormalities

In January 2020, the first cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were reported in Europe. Multiple outbreaks have since then led to a global pandemic, as well as to massive medical, economic, and social repercussions. SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia can develop into acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) when mechanical ventilation (MV) is needed (3, 4). ARDS produces abnormalities in gas exchange with a variable degree of shunt (5), high dead space ventilation (dead space volume [Vd]/tidal volume [Vt] ratio) (6), diminished pulmonary compliance (7), and alterations to the pulmonary circulation (8). The cornerstone of ARDS management is to provide adequate gas exchange without further lung injury as a result of MV. To date, information regarding the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS is not completely known. However, this information is crucial to better apply MV and facilitate organ support strategies. We therefore present the characteristics of gas exchange, pulmonary mechanics, and ventilatory management of 50 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who developed ARDS and underwent invasive MV (IMV). Methods: Descriptive analysis included 50 consecutive patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who developed ARDS (9) and underwent IMV. These patients were admitted to the SARS-CoV-2-dedicated intensive care units (ICUs) at Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Spain, between March 7 and March 25, 2020. Upon ICU admission, epidemiological characteristics, the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, prognostic biomarkers of SARS-CoV-2 infection (described in Reference 4), time from hospital to ICU admission, time from ICU admission to intubation, oxygen therapy or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) use, and microbiology were investigated. On the day that criteria for ARDS diagnosis were met (9) and IMV was needed, the following assessments were performed: impairment in oxygenation was analyzed with the partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio, and abnormalities of CO2 metabolism were studied with the ventilatory ratio (VR), a surrogate parameter of Vd/Vt. In addition, adjunctive therapies and MV parameters related with ventilation-induced lung injury (VILI) described elsewhere (11-15) were investigated. Correlations of SARS-CoV-2 prognostic biomarkers (4), pulmonary mechanics, and gas-exchange data were performed. Twenty-eight-day and hospital mortality, ventilator- and ICU-free days at Day 28, hospital and ICU lengths of stay, and need for tracheostomy were also evaluated (16). Finally, a subanalysis assessing differences before and after prone positioning was performed. For additional detail on the method, see the online supplement. Results: By March 25th, 2020, 50 patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and ARDS had been admitted to our hospital. Table 1 shows the demographic and clinical characteristics of these patients. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age was 66 (57-74) years. Thirty-six patients (72%) were men. Upon ARDS diagnosis, 44% of patients were initially classified as having moderate ARDS, whereas 24% were classified as having mild ARDS and 32% were classified as having severe ARDS. The outcomes of these patients are shown in Table 1. ICU and hospital lengths of stay were prolonged, and tracheostomy was performed in 30 (60%) patients. Hospital mortality was 34%

COVID-19 trajectories among 57 million adults in England: a cohort study using electronic health records

BACKGROUND: Updatable estimates of COVID-19 onset, progression, and trajectories underpin pandemic mitigation efforts. To identify and characterise disease trajectories, we aimed to define and validate ten COVID-19 phenotypes from nationwide linked electronic health records (EHR) using an extensible framework. METHODS: In this cohort study, we used eight linked National Health Service (NHS) datasets for people in England alive on Jan 23, 2020. Data on COVID-19 testing, vaccination, primary and secondary care records, and death registrations were collected until Nov 30, 2021. We defined ten COVID-19 phenotypes reflecting clinically relevant stages of disease severity and encompassing five categories: positive SARS-CoV-2 test, primary care diagnosis, hospital admission, ventilation modality (four phenotypes), and death (three phenotypes). We constructed patient trajectories illustrating transition frequency and duration between phenotypes. Analyses were stratified by pandemic waves and vaccination status. FINDINGS: Among 57 032 174 individuals included in the cohort, 13 990 423 COVID-19 events were identified in 7 244 925 individuals, equating to an infection rate of 12·7% during the study period. Of 7 244 925 individuals, 460 737 (6·4%) were admitted to hospital and 158 020 (2·2%) died. Of 460 737 individuals who were admitted to hospital, 48 847 (10·6%) were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), 69 090 (15·0%) received non-invasive ventilation, and 25 928 (5·6%) received invasive ventilation. Among 384 135 patients who were admitted to hospital but did not require ventilation, mortality was higher in wave 1 (23 485 [30·4%] of 77 202 patients) than wave 2 (44 220 [23·1%] of 191 528 patients), but remained unchanged for patients admitted to the ICU. Mortality was highest among patients who received ventilatory support outside of the ICU in wave 1 (2569 [50·7%] of 5063 patients). 15 486 (9·8%) of 158 020 COVID-19-related deaths occurred within 28 days of the first COVID-19 event without a COVID-19 diagnoses on the death certificate. 10 884 (6·9%) of 158 020 deaths were identified exclusively from mortality data with no previous COVID-19 phenotype recorded. We observed longer patient trajectories in wave 2 than wave 1. INTERPRETATION: Our analyses illustrate the wide spectrum of disease trajectories as shown by differences in incidence, survival, and clinical pathways. We have provided a modular analytical framework that can be used to monitor the impact of the pandemic and generate evidence of clinical and policy relevance using multiple EHR sources. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre, led by Health Data Research UK

Measuring routine childhood vaccination coverage in 204 countries and territories, 1980-2019 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2020, Release 1

Background Measuring routine childhood vaccination is crucial to inform global vaccine policies and programme implementation, and to track progress towards targets set by the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP) and Immunization Agenda 2030. Robust estimates of routine vaccine coverage are needed to identify past successes and persistent vulnerabilities. Drawing from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020, Release 1, we did a systematic analysis of global, regional, and national vaccine coverage trends using a statistical framework, by vaccine and over time. Methods For this analysis we collated 55 326 country-specific, cohort-specific, year-specific, vaccine-specific, and dosespecific observations of routine childhood vaccination coverage between 1980 and 2019. Using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, we produced location-specific and year-specific estimates of 11 routine childhood vaccine coverage indicators for 204 countries and territories from 1980 to 2019, adjusting for biases in countryreported data and reflecting reported stockouts and supply disruptions. We analysed global and regional trends in coverage and numbers of zero-dose children (defined as those who never received a diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis [DTP] vaccine dose), progress towards GVAP targets, and the relationship between vaccine coverage and sociodemographic development. Findings By 2019, global coverage of third-dose DTP (DTP3; 81.6% [95% uncertainty interval 80.4-82 .7]) more than doubled from levels estimated in 1980 (39.9% [37.5-42.1]), as did global coverage of the first-dose measles-containing vaccine (MCV1; from 38.5% [35.4-41.3] in 1980 to 83.6% [82.3-84.8] in 2019). Third- dose polio vaccine (Pol3) coverage also increased, from 42.6% (41.4-44.1) in 1980 to 79.8% (78.4-81.1) in 2019, and global coverage of newer vaccines increased rapidly between 2000 and 2019. The global number of zero-dose children fell by nearly 75% between 1980 and 2019, from 56.8 million (52.6-60. 9) to 14.5 million (13.4-15.9). However, over the past decade, global vaccine coverage broadly plateaued; 94 countries and territories recorded decreasing DTP3 coverage since 2010. Only 11 countries and territories were estimated to have reached the national GVAP target of at least 90% coverage for all assessed vaccines in 2019. Interpretation After achieving large gains in childhood vaccine coverage worldwide, in much of the world this progress was stalled or reversed from 2010 to 2019. These findings underscore the importance of revisiting routine immunisation strategies and programmatic approaches, recentring service delivery around equity and underserved populations. Strengthening vaccine data and monitoring systems is crucial to these pursuits, now and through to 2030, to ensure that all children have access to, and can benefit from, lifesaving vaccines. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe