Development and implementation of a lifestyle intervention to promote physical activity and healthy diet in the Dutch general practice setting: the BeweegKuur programme

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The number of patients with diabetes is increasing. BeweegKuur (Dutch for 'Exercise Therapy') is a Dutch lifestyle intervention which aims to effectively and feasibly promote physical activity and better dietary behaviour in primary health care to prevent diabetes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The goal of this paper is to present the development process and the contents of the intervention, using a model of systematic health promotion planning. The intervention consists of a 1-year programme for diabetic and prediabetic patients. Patients are referred by their general practitioner (GP) to a lifestyle advisor (LSA), usually the practice nurse or a physiotherapist. Based on specific inclusion criteria and in close collaboration with the patient, an individual exercise programme is designed and supervised by the LSA. This programme can be attended at existing local exercise facilities or (temporarily) under the supervision of a specialized exercise coach or physiotherapist. All participants are also referred to a dietician and receive diet-related group education. In the first pilot year (2008), the BeweegKuur programme was implemented in 7 regions in the Netherlands (19 GP practices and health centres), while 14 regions (41 GP practices and health centres) participated during the second year. The aim is to implement BeweegKuur in all regions of the Netherlands by 2012.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The BeweegKuur programme was systematically developed in an evidence- and practice-based process. Formative monitoring studies and (controlled) effectiveness studies are needed to examine the diffusion process and the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.</p

A Better-response Strategy for Self-interested Planning Agents

[EN] When self-interested agents plan individually, interactions that prevent them from executing their actions as planned may arise. In these coordination problems, game-theoretic planning can be used to enhance the agents¿ strategic behavior considering the interactions as part of the agents¿ utility. In this work, we define a general-sum game in which interactions such as conflicts and congestions are reflected in the agents¿ utility. We propose a better-response planning strategy that guarantees convergence to an equilibrium joint plan by imposing a tax to agents involved in conflicts. We apply our approach to a real-world problem in which agents are Electric Autonomous Vehicles (EAVs). The EAVs intend to find a joint plan that ensures their individual goals are achievable in a transportation scenario where congestion and conflicting situations may arise. Although the task is computationally hard, as we theoretically prove, the experimental results show that our approach outperforms similar approaches in both performance and solution quality.This work is supported by the GLASS project TIN2014-55637-C2-2-R of the Spanish MINECO and the Prometeo project II/2013/019 funded by the Valencian Government.Jordán, J.; Torreño Lerma, A.; De Weerdt, M.; Onaindia De La Rivaherrera, E. (2018). A Better-response Strategy for Self-interested Planning Agents. Applied Intelligence. 48(4):1020-1040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-017-1046-5S10201040484Aghighi M, Bäckström C (2016) A multi-parameter complexity analysis of cost-optimal and net-benefit planning. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Conference on International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling. AAAI Press, London, pp 2–10Bercher P, Mattmüller R (2008) A planning graph heuristic for forward-chaining adversarial planning. In: ECAI, vol 8, pp 921–922Brafman RI, Domshlak C, Engel Y, Tennenholtz M (2009) Planning games. In: IJCAI 2009, Proceedings of the 21st international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 73–78Bylander T (1994) The computational complexity of propositional strips planning. Artif Intell 69(1):165–204Chen X, Deng X (2006) Settling the complexity of two-player nash equilibrium. In: 47th annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science, 2006. FOCS’06. IEEE, pp 261–272Chien S, Sinclair A (2011) Convergence to approximate nash equilibria in congestion games. Games and Economic Behavior 71(2):315–327de Cote EM, Chapman A, Sykulski AM, Jennings N (2010) Automated planning in repeated adversarial games. In: 26th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI 2010), pp 376–383Dunne PE, Kraus S, Manisterski E, Wooldridge M (2010) Solving coalitional resource games. Artif Intell 174(1):20–50Fabrikant A, Papadimitriou C, Talwar K (2004) The complexity of pure nash equilibria. In: Proceedings of the thirty-sixth annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, STOC ’04, pp 604–612Friedman JW, Mezzetti C (2001) Learning in games by random sampling. J Econ Theory 98(1):55–84Ghallab M, Nau D, Traverso P (2004) Automated planning: theory & practice. ElsevierGoemans M, Mirrokni V, Vetta A (2005) Sink equilibria and convergence. In: Proceedings of the 46th annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science, FOCS ’05, pp 142–154Hadad M, Kraus S, Hartman IBA, Rosenfeld A (2013) Group planning with time constraints. Ann Math Artif Intell 69(3):243–291Hart S, Mansour Y (2010) How long to equilibrium? the communication complexity of uncoupled equilibrium procedures. Games and Economic Behavior 69(1):107–126Helmert M (2003) Complexity results for standard benchmark domains in planning. Artif Intell 143(2):219–262Helmert M (2006) The fast downward planning system. J Artif Intell Res 26(1):191–246Jennings N, Faratin P, Lomuscio A, Parsons S, Wooldrige M, Sierra C (2001) Automated negotiation: prospects, methods and challenges. Group Decis Negot 10(2):199–215Johnson DS, Papadimtriou CH, Yannakakis M (1988) How easy is local search? J Comput Syst Sci 37 (1):79–100Jonsson A, Rovatsos M (2011) Scaling up multiagent planning: a best-response approach. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on automated planning and scheduling, ICAPSJordán J, Onaindía E (2015) Game-theoretic approach for non-cooperative planning. In: 29th AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-15), pp 1357–1363McDermott D, Ghallab M, Howe A, Knoblock C, Ram A, Veloso M, Weld D, Wilkins D (1998) PDDL: the planning domain definition language. Yale Center for Computational Vision and Control, New HavenMilchtaich I (1996) Congestion games with player-specific payoff functions. Games and Economic Behavior 13(1):111–124Monderer D, Shapley LS (1996) Potential games. Games and Economic Behavior 14(1):124–143Nigro N, Welch D, Peace J (2015) Strategic planning to implement publicly available ev charching stations: a guide for business and policy makers. Tech rep, Center for Climate and Energy SolutionsNisan N, Ronen A (2007) Computationally feasible vcg mechanisms. J Artif Intell Res 29(1):19–47Nisan N, Roughgarden T, Tardos E, Vazirani VV (2007) Algorithmic game theory. Cambridge University Press, New YorkPapadimitriou CH (1994) On the complexity of the parity argument and other inefficient proofs of existence. J Comput Syst Sci 48(3):498–532Richter S, Westphal M (2010) The LAMA planner: guiding cost-based anytime planning with landmarks. J Artif Intell Res 39(1):127–177Rosenthal RW (1973) A class of games possessing pure-strategy nash equilibria. Int J Game Theory 2(1):65–67Shoham Y, Leyton-Brown K (2009) Multiagent systems: algorithmic, game-theoretic, and logical foundations. Cambridge University PressTorreño A, Onaindia E, Sapena Ó (2014) A flexible coupling approach to multi-agent planning under incomplete information. Knowl Inf Syst 38(1):141–178Torreño A, Onaindia E, Sapena Ó (2014) FMAP: distributed cooperative multi-agent planning. Appl Intell 41(2):606– 626Torreño A, Sapena Ó, Onaindia E (2015) Global heuristics for distributed cooperative multi-agent planning. In: ICAPS 2015. 25th international conference on automated planning and scheduling. AAAI Press, pp 225–233Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (2007) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Pressde Weerdt M, Bos A, Tonino H, Witteveen C (2003) A resource logic for multi-agent plan merging. Ann Math Artif Intell 37(1):93–130Wooldridge M, Endriss U, Kraus S, Lang J (2013) Incentive engineering for boolean games. Artif Intell 195:418–43

Phylogenetic Relationships of the Marine Haplosclerida (Phylum Porifera) Employing Ribosomal (28S rRNA) and Mitochondrial (cox1, nad1) Gene Sequence Data

The systematics of the poriferan Order Haplosclerida (Class Demospongiae) has been under scrutiny for a number of years without resolution. Molecular data suggests that the order needs revision at all taxonomic levels. Here, we provide a comprehensive view of the phylogenetic relationships of the marine Haplosclerida using many species from across the order, and three gene regions. Gene trees generated using 28S rRNA, nad1 and cox1 gene data, under maximum likelihood and Bayesian approaches, are highly congruent and suggest the presence of four clades. Clade A is comprised primarily of species of Haliclona and Callyspongia, and clade B is comprised of H. simulans and H. vansoesti (Family Chalinidae), Amphimedon queenslandica (Family Niphatidae) and Tabulocalyx (Family Phloeodictyidae), Clade C is comprised primarily of members of the Families Petrosiidae and Niphatidae, while Clade D is comprised of Aka species. The polyphletic nature of the suborders, families and genera described in other studies is also found here

Generalized alignment-based trace clustering of process behavior

Process mining techniques use event logs containing real process executions in order to mine, align and extend process models. The partition of an event log into trace variants facilitates the understanding and analysis of traces, so it is a common pre-processing in process mining environments. Trace clustering automates this partition; traditionally it has been applied without taking into consideration the availability of a process model. In this paper we extend our previous work on process model based trace clustering, by allowing cluster centroids to have a complex structure, that can range from a partial order, down to a subnet of the initial process model. This way, the new clustering framework presented in this paper is able to cluster together traces that are distant only due to concurrency or loop constructs in process models. We show the complexity analysis of the different instantiations of the trace clustering framework, and have implemented it in a prototype tool that has been tested on different datasets.Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

A flexible coupling approach to multi-agent planning under incomplete information

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10115-012-0569-7Multi-agent planning (MAP) approaches are typically oriented at solving loosely coupled problems, being ineffective to deal with more complex, strongly related problems. In most cases, agents work under complete information, building complete knowledge bases. The present article introduces a general-purpose MAP framework designed to tackle problems of any coupling levels under incomplete information. Agents in our MAP model are partially unaware of the information managed by the rest of agents and share only the critical information that affects other agents, thus maintaining a distributed vision of the task. Agents solve MAP tasks through the adoption of an iterative refinement planning procedure that uses single-agent planning technology. In particular, agents will devise refinements through the partial-order planning paradigm, a flexible framework to build refinement plans leaving unsolved details that will be gradually completed by means of new refinements. Our proposal is supported with the implementation of a fully operative MAP system and we show various experiments when running our system over different types of MAP problems, from the most strongly related to the most loosely coupled.This work has been partly supported by the Spanish MICINN under projects Consolider Ingenio 2010 CSD2007-00022 and TIN2011-27652-C03-01, and the Valencian Prometeo project 2008/051.Torreño Lerma, A.; Onaindia De La Rivaherrera, E.; Sapena Vercher, O. (2014). A flexible coupling approach to multi-agent planning under incomplete information. Knowledge and Information Systems. 38:141-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-012-0569-7S14117838Argente E, Botti V, Carrascosa C, Giret A, Julian V, Rebollo M (2011) An abstract architecture for virtual organizations: the THOMAS approach. Knowl Inf Syst 29(2):379–403Barrett A, Weld DS (1994) Partial-order planning: evaluating possible efficiency gains. Artif Intell 67(1):71–112Belesiotis A, Rovatsos M, Rahwan I (2010) Agreeing on plans through iterated disputes. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems. pp 765–772Bellifemine F, Poggi A, Rimassa G (2001) JADE: a FIPA2000 compliant agent development environment. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents (AAMAS). ACM, pp 216–217Blum A, Furst ML (1997) Fast planning through planning graph analysis. Artif Intell 90(1–2):281–300Boutilier C, Brafman R (2001) Partial-order planning with concurrent interacting actions. J Artif Intell Res 14(105):136Brafman R, Domshlak C (2008) From one to many: planning for loosely coupled multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). pp 28–35Brenner M, Nebel B (2009) Continual planning and acting in dynamic multiagent environments. J Auton Agents Multiag Syst 19(3):297–331Coles A, Coles A, Fox M, Long D (2010) Forward-chaining partial-order planning. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). pp 42–49Coles A, Fox M, Long D, Smith A (2008) Teaching forward-chaining planning with JavaFF. In: Colloquium on AI education, 23rd AAAI conference on artificial intelligenceCox J, Durfee E, Bartold T (2005) A distributed framework for solving the multiagent plan coordination problem. In: Proceedings of the 4th international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). ACM, pp 821–827de Weerdt M, Clement B (2009) Introduction to planning in multiagent systems. Multiag Grid Syst 5(4):345–355Decker K, Lesser VR (1992) Generalizing the partial global planning algorithm. Int J Coop Inf Syst 2(2):319–346desJardins M, Durfee E, Ortiz C, Wolverton M (1999) A survey of research in distributed continual planning. AI Mag 20(4):13–22Doshi P (2007) On the role of interactive epistemology in multiagent planning. In: Artificial intelligence and, pattern recognition. pp 208–213Dréo J, Savéant P, Schoenauer M, Vidal V (2011) Divide-and-evolve: the marriage of descartes and darwin. In: Proceedings of the 7th international planning competition (IPC). Freiburg, GermanyDurfee EH (2001) Distributed problem solving and planning. In: Multi-agents systems and applications: selected tutorial papers from the 9th ECCAI advanced course (ACAI) and agentLink’s third European agent systems summer school (EASSS), vol LNAI 2086. Springer, pp 118–149Durfee EH, Lesser V (1991) Partial global planning: a coordination framework for distributed hypothesis formation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Special Issue Distrib Sens Netw 21(5):1167–1183Ephrati E, Rosenschein JS (1996) Deriving consensus in multiagent systems. Artif Intell 87(1–2):21–74Fikes R, Nilsson N (1971) STRIPS: a new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artif Intell 2(3):189–208Fogués R, Alberola J, Such J, Espinosa A, Garcia-Fornes A (2010) Towards dynamic agent interaction support in open multiagent systems. In: Proceedings of the 2010 conference on artificial intelligence research and development: proceedings of the 13th international conference of the Catalan association for artificial intelligence’. IOS Press, pp 89–98Gerevini A, Long D (2006) Preferences and soft constraints in PDDL3. In: ICAPS workshop on planning with preferences and soft constraints, vol 6. Citeseer, pp 46–53Ghallab M, Howe A, Knoblock C, McDermott D, Ram A, Veloso M, Weld D, Wilkins D (1998) PDDL-the Planning Domain Definition Language. In: AIPS-98 planning committeeGmytrasiewicz P, Doshi P (2005) A framework for sequential planning in multi-agent settings. J Artif Intell Res 24:49–79Haslum P, Jonsson P (1999) Some results on the complexity of planning with incomplete information. In: Proceedings of the 5th European conference on, planning (ECP). pp 308–318Helmert M (2006) The fast downward planning system. J Artif Intell Res 26(1):191–246Hoffmann J, Nebel B (2001) The FF planning system: fast planning generation through heuristic search. J Artif Intell Res 14:253–302Jonsson A, Rovatsos M (2011) Scaling up multiagent planning: a best-response approach. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI, pp 114–121Kambhampati S (1997) Refinement planning as a unifying framework for plan synthesis. AI Mag 18(2):67–97Kaminka GA, Pynadath DV, Tambe M (2002) Monitoring teams by overhearing: a multi-agent plan-recognition approach. J Artif Intell Res 17:83–135Kone M, Shimazu A, Nakajima T (2000) The state of the art in agent communication languages. Knowl Inf Syst 2(3):259–284Kovacs DL (2011) Complete BNF description of PDDL3.1. Technical reportKraus S (1997) Beliefs, time and incomplete information in multiple encounter negotiations among autonomous agents. Ann Math Artif Intell 20(1–4):111–159Kumar A, Zilberstein S, Toussaint M (2011) Scalable multiagent planning using probabilistic inference. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI)’. Barcelona, Spain, pp 2140–2146Kvarnström J. (2011) Planning for loosely coupled agents using partial order forward-chaining. In: Proceedings of the 21st international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). AAAI, pp 138–145Lesser V, Decker K, Wagner T, Carver N, Garvey A, Horling B, Neiman D, Podorozhny R, Prasad M, Raja A et al (2004) Evolution of the GPGP/TAEMS domain-independent coordination framework. Auton Agents Multi Agent Syst 9(1):87–143Lipovetzky N, Geffner H (2011) Searching for plans with carefully designed probes. In: Proceedings of the 21th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS)Micacchi C, Cohen R (2008) A framework for simulating real-time multi-agent systems. Knowl Inf Syst 17(2):135–166Nguyen N, Katarzyniak R (2009) Actions and social interactions in multi-agent systems. Knowl Inf Syst 18(2):133–136Nguyen X, Kambhampati S (2001) Reviving partial order planning. In: Proceedings of the 17th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 459–464Nissim R, Brafman R, Domshlak C (2010) A general, fully distributed multi-agent planning algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS). pp 1323–1330Pajares S, Onaindia E (2012) Defeasible argumentation for multi-agent planning in ambient intelligence applications. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) pp 509–516Paolucci M, Shehory O, Sycara K, Kalp D, Pannu A (2000) A planning component for RETSINA agents. Intelligent Agents VI. Agent Theories Architectures, and Languages pp 147–161Parsons S, Sierra C, Jennings N (1998) Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. J Logic Comput 8(3):261Penberthy J, Weld D (1992) UCPOP: a sound, complete, partial order planner for ADL. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 103–114Richter S, Westphal M (2010) The LAMA planner: guiding cost-based anytime planning with landmarks. J Artif Intell Res 39(1):127–177Sycara K, Pannu A (1998) The RETSINA multiagent system (video session): towards integrating planning, execution and information gathering. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on autonomous agents (Agents). ACM, pp 350–351Tambe M (1997) Towards flexible teamwork. J Artif Intell Res 7:83–124Tang Y, Norman T, Parsons S (2010) A model for integrating dialogue and the execution of joint plans. Argumentation in multi-agent systems, pp 60–78Tonino H, Bos A, de Weerdt M, Witteveen C (2002) Plan coordination by revision in collective agent based systems. Artif Intell 142(2):121–145Van Der Krogt R, De Weerdt M (2005), Plan repair as an extension of planning. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on automated planning and scheduling (ICAPS). pp 161–170Weld D (1994) An introduction to least commitment planning. AI Mag 15(4):27Weld D (1999) Recent advances in AI planning. AI Mag 20(2):93–123Wilkins D, Myers K (1998) A multiagent planning architecture. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on artificial intelligence planning systems (AIPS), pp 154–162Wu F, Zilberstein S, Chen X (2011) Online planning for multi-agent systems with bounded communication. Artif Intell 175(2):487–511Younes H, Simmons R (2003) VHPOP: versatile heuristic partial order planner. J Artif Intell Res 20: 405–430Zhang J, Nguyen X, Kowalczyk R (2007) Graph-based multi-agent replanning algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 6th conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS

Reactivity tests for supplementary cementitious materials: RILEM TC 267-TRM phase 1

A primary aim of RILEM TC 267-TRM: “Tests for Reactivity of Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs)” is to compare and evaluate the performance of conventional and novel SCM reactivity test methods across a wide range of SCMs. To this purpose, a round robin campaign was organized to investigate 10 different tests for reactivity and 11 SCMs covering the main classes of materials in use, such as granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash, natural pozzolan and calcined clays. The methods were evaluated based on the correlation to the 28 days relative compressive strength of standard mortar bars containing 30% of SCM as cement replacement and the interlaboratory reproducibility of the test results. It was found that only a few test methods showed acceptable correlation to the 28 days relative strength over the whole range of SCMs. The methods that showed the best reproducibility and gave good correlations used the R3 model system of the SCM and Ca(OH)2, supplemented with alkali sulfate/carbonate. The use of this simplified model system isolates the reaction of the SCM and the reactivity can be easily quantified from the heat release or bound water content. Later age (90 days) strength results also correlated well with the results of the IS 1727 (Indian standard) reactivity test, an accelerated strength test using an SCM/Ca(OH)2-based model system. The current standardized tests did not show acceptable correlations across all SCMs, although they performed better when latently hydraulic materials (blast furnace slag) were excluded. However, the Frattini test, Chapelle and modified Chapelle test showed poor interlaboratory reproducibility, demonstrating experimental difficulties. The TC 267-TRM will pursue the development of test protocols based on the R3 model systems. Acceleration and improvement of the reproducibility of the IS 1727 test will be attempted as well

Serendipitous alkylation of a Plk1 ligand uncovers a new binding channel

We obtained unanticipated synthetic byproducts from alkylation of the δ[superscript 1] nitrogen (N3) of the histidine imidazole ring of the polo-like kinase-1 (Plk1) polo-box domain (PBD)-binding peptide PLHSpT. For the highest-affinity byproduct, bearing a C[subscript 6]H[subscript 5](CH[subscript 2])[subscript 8]– group, a Plk1 PBD cocrystal structure revealed a new binding channel that had previously been occluded. An N-terminal PEGylated version of this peptide containing a hydrolytically stable phosphothreonyl residue (pT) bound the Plk1 PBD with affinity equal to that of the non-PEGylated parent but showed markedly less interaction with the PBDs of the two closely related proteins Plk2 and Plk3. Treatment of cultured cells with this PEGylated peptide resulted in delocalization of Plk1 from centrosomes and kinetochores and in chromosome misalignment that effectively induced mitotic block and apoptotic cell death. This work provides insights that might advance efforts to develop Plk1 PBD-binding inhibitors as potential Plk1-specific anticancer agents.National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant GM60594)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant GM68762)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Grant CA112967