| 1. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 3. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Ash, G. I., et al.
(författare)
-
Establishing a Global Standard for Wearable Devices in Sport and Exercise Medicine: Perspectives from Academic and Industry Stakeholders
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Sports Medicine. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0112-1642 .- 1179-2035. ; 51
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Millions of consumer sport and fitness wearables (CSFWs) are used worldwide, and millions of datapoints are generated by each device. Moreover, these numbers are rapidly growing, and they contain a heterogeneity of devices, data types, and contexts for data collection. Companies and consumers would benefit from guiding standards on device quality and data formats. To address this growing need, we convened a virtual panel of industry and academic stakeholders, and this manuscript summarizes the outcomes of the discussion. Our objectives were to identify (1) key facilitators of and barriers to participation by CSFW manufacturers in guiding standards and (2) stakeholder priorities. The venues were the Yale Center for Biomedical Data Science Digital Health Monthly Seminar Series (62 participants) and the New England Chapter of the American College of Sports Medicine Annual Meeting (59 participants). In the discussion, stakeholders outlined both facilitators of (e.g., commercial return on investment in device quality, lucrative research partnerships, and transparent and multilevel evaluation of device quality) and barriers (e.g., competitive advantage conflict, lack of flexibility in previously developed devices) to participation in guiding standards. There was general agreement to adopt Keadle et al.'s standard pathway for testing devices (i.e., benchtop, laboratory, field-based, implementation) without consensus on the prioritization of these steps. Overall, there was enthusiasm not to add prescriptive or regulatory steps, but instead create a networking hub that connects companies to consumers and researchers for flexible guidance navigating the heterogeneity, multi-tiered development, dynamicity, and nebulousness of the CSFW field.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Oughton, D. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Addressing uncertainties in the ERICA Integrated Approach
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. - : Elsevier BV. - 0265-931X .- 1879-1700. ; 99:9, s. 1384-1392
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Like any complex environmental problem, ecological risk assessment of the impacts of ionising radiation is confounded by uncertainty. At all stages, from problem formulation through to risk characterisation, the assessment is dependent on models, scenarios, assumptions and extrapolations. These include technical uncertainties related to the data used, conceptual uncertainties associated with models and scenarios, as well as social uncertainties such as economic impacts, the interpretation of legislation, and the acceptability of the assessment results to stakeholders. The ERICA Integrated Approach has been developed to allow an assessment of the risks of ionising radiation, and includes a number of methods that are intended to make the uncertainties and assumptions inherent in the assessment more transparent to users and stakeholders. Throughout its development, ERICA has recommended that assessors deal openly with the deeper dimensions of uncertainty and acknowledge that uncertainty is intrinsic to complex systems. Since the tool is based on a tiered approach, the approaches to dealing with uncertainty vary between the tiers, ranging from a simple, but highly conservative screening to a full probabilistic risk assessment including sensitivity analysis. This paper gives on overview of types of uncertainty that are manifest in ecological risk assessment and the ERICA Integrated Approach to dealing with some of these uncertainties.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
