There is, I think, something ethereal about i —the square root of minus one. I remember first hearing about it at school. It seemed an odd beast at that time—an intruder hovering on the edge of reality.

Usually familiarity dulls this sense of the bizarre, but in the case of i it was the reverse: over the years the sense of its surreal nature intensified. It seemed that it was impossible to write mathematics that described the real world in …

I and i

Thank you for downloading using multivariate statistics. As you may know, people have look hundreds times for their favorite novels like this using multivariate statistics, but end up in infectious downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of tea in the afternoon, instead they juggled with some harmful bugs inside their laptop. using multivariate statistics is available in our digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can download it instantly. Our books collection saves in multiple locations, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Merely said, the using multivariate statistics is universally compatible with any devices to read.

Using Multivariate Statistics

The number of cancer survivors continues to increase because of both advances in early detection and treatment and the aging and growth of the population. For the public health community to better serve these survivors, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute collaborate to estimate the number of current and future cancer survivors using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries. In addition, current treatment patterns for the most prevalent cancer types are presented based on information in the National Cancer Data Base and treatment-related side effects are briefly described. More than 15.5 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2016, and this number is projected to reach more than 20 million by January 1, 2026. The 3 most prevalent cancers are prostate (3,306,760), colon and rectum (724,690), and melanoma (614,460) among males and breast (3,560,570), uterine corpus (757,190), and colon and rectum (727,350) among females. More than one-half (56%) of survivors were diagnosed within the past 10 years, and almost one-half (47%) are aged 70 years or older. People with a history of cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs that require proactive assessment and management by primary care providers. Although there are a growing number of tools that can assist patients, caregivers, and clinicians in navigating the various phases of cancer survivorship, further evidence-based resources are needed to optimize care. CA Cancer J Clin 2016;66:271-289. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.3322/caac.21349

Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016.

Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:

A) 'choice made' attributes;

B) 'decision-making process' attributes.

Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.

Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).

A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:

Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).

B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:

Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:

a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);

b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and

c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).

Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.

C) Secondary outcomes

Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.

The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.

New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Executive Summary Introduction Methodology Used to Prepare the Guideline Epidemiology Incidence Etiology Major Epidemiologic Points Pathogenesis Major Points for Pathogenesis Modifiable Risk Factors Intubation and Mechanical Ventilation Aspiration, Body Position, and Enteral Feeding Modulation of Colonization: Oral Antiseptics and Antibiotics Stress Bleeding Prophylaxis, Transfusion, and Glucose Control Major Points and Recommendations for Modifiable Risk Factors Diagnostic Testing Major Points and Recommendations for Diagnosis Diagnostic Strategies and Approaches Clinical Strategy Bacteriologic Strategy Recommended Diagnostic Strategy Major Points and Recommendations for Comparing Diagnostic Strategies Antibiotic Treatment of Hospital-acquired Pneumonia General Approach Initial Empiric Antibiotic Therapy Appropriate Antibiotic Selection and Adequate Dosing Local Instillation and Aerosolized Antibiotics Combination versus Monotherapy Duration of Therapy Major Points and Recommendations for Optimal Antibiotic Therapy Specific Antibiotic Regimens Antibiotic Heterogeneity and Antibiotic Cycling Response to Therapy Modification of Empiric Antibiotic Regimens Defining the Normal Pattern of Resolution Reasons for Deterioration or Nonresolution Evaluation of the Nonresponding Patient Major Points and Recommendations for Assessing Response to Therapy Suggested Performance Indicators

Guidelines for the management of adults with hospital-acquired, ventilator-associated, and healthcare-associated pneumonia the official statement of the American Thoracic Society and the Infectious Disease Society of America (特集 救急診療ガイドライン) -- (海外のガイドライン)

Background: Breast density increases breast cancer risk and decreases mammographic detection. We evaluated a personalized web-based intervention designed to improve breast cancer risk communication...

Effect of a Randomized Trial of a Web-Based Intervention on Patient-Provider Communication About Breast Density.

This paper examines distributional properties and predictive performance of the estimated maximum agreement linear predictor (MALP) introduced in Bottai, Kim, Lieberman, Luta, and Pena (2022) paper in The American Statistician, which is the linear predictor maximizing Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) between the predictor and the predictand. It is compared and contrasted, theoretically and through computer experiments, with the estimated least-squares linear predictor (LSLP). Finite-sample and asymptotic properties are obtained, and confidence intervals are also presented. The predictors are illustrated using two real data sets: an eye data set and a bodyfat data set. The results indicate that the estimated MALP is a viable alternative to the estimated LSLP if one desires a predictor whose predicted values possess higher agreement with the predictand values, as measured by the CCC.

Maximum Agreement Linear Prediction via the Concordance Correlation Coefficient

Background: Violent deaths (i.e., those due to road traffic injury, homicide, and suicide) are among the most important causes of premature and preventable mortality in young people. This study aimed at exploring inequalities in violent death across income levels between males and females aged 10 to 24 years from the Americas in 2015, the SDG baseline year. Methods: In a cross-sectional ecological study design, eleven standard summary measures of health inequality were calculated separately for males and females and for each cause of violent death, using age-adjusted mortality rates and average income per capita for 17 countries, which accounted for 87.9% of the target population. Results: Premature mortality due to road traffic injury and homicide showed a pro-poor inequality pattern, whereas premature mortality due to suicide showed a pro-rich inequality pattern. These inequalities were statistically significant (p < 0.001), particularly concentrated among young males, and dominated by homicide. The ample array of summary measures of health inequality tended to generate convergent results. Conclusions: Significant inequalities in violent death among young people seems to be in place across countries of the Americas, and they seem to be socially determined by both income and gender. These findings shed light on the epidemiology of violent death in young people and can inform priorities for regional public health action. However, further investigation is needed to confirm inequality patterns and to explore underlying mechanisms, age- and sex-specific vulnerabilities, and gender-based drivers of such inequalities.

/pdf/inequalities-in-violent-death-across-income-levels-among-1pse7jf6.pdf

Inequalities in Violent Death across Income Levels among Young Males and Females in Countries of the Americas

Interpretability is becoming increasingly important for predictive model analysis. Unfortunately, as remarked by many authors, there is still no consensus regarding this notion. The goal of this article is to propose a definition of the notion of interpretability that allows comparisons of rule-based algorithms. This definition consists of three terms, each one being quantitatively measured with a simple formula: predictivity, stability and simplicity. While predictivity has been extensively studied to measure the accuracy of predictive algorithms, stability is based on the Dice-Sorensen index for comparing two sets of rules generated by an algorithm using two independent samples. The simplicity is based on the sum of the length of the rules derived from the predictive model. The new measure for the interpretability of a rule-based algorithm is a weighted sum of the three terms mentioned above. We use the new measure to compare the interpretability of several rule-based algorithms, specifically CART, RuleFit, Node Harvest, Covering algorithm and SIRUS for the regression case, and CART, PART and RIPPER for the classification case

George Luta

Papers

Effect of a Randomized Trial of a Web-Based Intervention on Patient-Provider Communication About Breast Density.

Maximum Agreement Linear Prediction via the Concordance Correlation Coefficient

Inequalities in Violent Death across Income Levels among Young Males and Females in Countries of the Americas

A new method to compare the interpretability of rule-based algorithms