More Like this

1. Mathematical models are a powerful method to understand and control the spread of Huanglongbing

   https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2642  

   Taylor, Rachel A. ; Mordecai, Erin A. ; Gilligan, Christopher A. ; Rohr, Jason R. ; Johnson, Leah R. ( November 2016 , PeerJ)

   Huanglongbing (HLB), or citrus greening, is a global citrus disease occurring in almost all citrus growing regions. It causes substantial economic burdens to individual growers, citrus industries and governments. Successful management strategies to reduce disease burden are desperately needed but with so many possible interventions and combinations thereof it is difficult to know which are worthwhile or cost-effective. We review how mathematical models have yielded useful insights into controlling disease spread for other vector-borne plant diseases, and the small number of mathematical models of HLB. We adapt a malaria model to HLB, by including temperature-dependent psyllid traits, “flushing” of trees, and economic costs, to show how models can be used to highlight the parameters that require more data collection or that should be targeted for intervention. We analyze the most common intervention strategy, insecticide spraying, to determine the most cost-effective spraying strategy. We find that fecundity and feeding rate of the vector require more experimental data collection, for wider temperatures ranges. Also, the best strategy for insecticide intervention is to spray for more days rather than pay extra for a more efficient spray. We conclude that mathematical models are able to provide useful recommendations for managing HLB spread.

    

   more » « less
2. Cost-Effectiveness and Value-of-Information Analysis Using Machine Learning–Based Metamodeling: A Case of Hepatitis C Treatment

   https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X221125418  

   McCandlish, John Austin ; Ayer, Turgay ; Chhatwal, Jagpreet ( September 2022 , Medical Decision Making)

   Metamodels can address some of the limitations of complex simulation models by formulating a mathematical relationship between input parameters and simulation model outcomes. Our objective was to develop and compare the performance of a machine learning (ML)–based metamodel against a conventional metamodeling approach in replicating the findings of a complex simulation model.

   We constructed 3 ML-based metamodels using random forest, support vector regression, and artificial neural networks and a linear regression-based metamodel from a previously validated microsimulation model of the natural history hepatitis C virus (HCV) consisting of 40 input parameters. Outcomes of interest included societal costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of HCV treatment versus no treatment, cost-effectiveness analysis curve (CEAC), and expected value of perfect information (EVPI). We evaluated metamodel performance using root mean squared error (RMSE) and Pearson’s R²on the normalized data.

   The R²values for the linear regression metamodel for QALYs without treatment, QALYs with treatment, societal cost without treatment, societal cost with treatment, and ICER were 0.92, 0.98, 0.85, 0.92, and 0.60, respectively. The corresponding R²values for our ML-based metamodels were 0.96, 0.97, 0.90, 0.95, and 0.49 for support vector regression; 0.99, 0.83, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.82 for artificial neural network; and 0.99, 0.99, 0.99, 0.99, and 0.98 for random forest. Similar trends were observed for RMSE. The CEAC and EVPI curves produced by the random forest metamodel matched the results of the simulation output more closely than the linear regression metamodel.

   ML-based metamodels generally outperformed traditional linear regression metamodels at replicating results from complex simulation models, with random forest metamodels performing best.

   Decision-analytic models are frequently used by policy makers and other stakeholders to assess the impact of new medical technologies and interventions. However, complex models can impose limitations on conducting probabilistic sensitivity analysis and value-of-information analysis, and may not be suitable for developing online decision-support tools. Metamodels, which accurately formulate a mathematical relationship between input parameters and model outcomes, can replicate complex simulation models and address the above limitation. The machine learning–based random forest model can outperform linear regression in replicating the findings of a complex simulation model. Such a metamodel can be used for conducting cost-effectiveness and value-of-information analyses or developing online decision support tools.

    

   more » « less
3. Change time estimation uncertainty in nonlinear dynamical systems with applications to COVID‐19

   https://doi.org/10.1002/rnc.5974  

   Alisic, Rijad ; Paré, Philip E. ; Sandberg, Henrik ( January 2022 , International Journal of Robust and Nonlinear Control)

   The impact that each individual non‐pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) had on the spread rate of COVID‐19 is difficult to estimate, since several NPIs were implemented in rapid succession in most countries. In this article, we analyze the detectability of sudden changes in a parameter of nonlinear dynamical systems, which could be used to represent NPIs or mutations of the virus, in the presence of measurement noise. Specifically, by taking an agnostic approach, we provide necessary conditions for when the best possible unbiased estimator is able to isolate the effect of a sudden change in a model parameter, by using the Hammersley–Chapman–Robbins (HCR) lower bound. Several simplifications to the calculation of the HCR lower bound are given, which depend on the amplitude of the sudden change and the dynamics of the system. We further define the concept of the most informative sample based on the largest distance between two output trajectories, which is a good indicator of when the HCR lower bound converges. These results are thereafter used to analyze the susceptible‐infected‐removed model. For instance, we show that performing analysis using the number of recovered/deceased, as opposed to the cumulative number of infected, may be an inferior signal to use since sudden changes are fundamentally more difficult to estimate and seem to require more samples. Finally, these results are verified by simulations and applied to real data from the spread of COVID‐19 in France.

    

   more » « less
4. The Effects of Gist Information and Scientific Quality on Damages in a Civil Trial

   Dellapaolera, K.S. ( March 2020 , Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)

   Abstract: 100 words Jurors are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom. To determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to make well-informed decisions, the present experiment utilized a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention and tested it against traditional legal safeguards (i.e., judge instructions) by varying the scientific quality of the evidence. The results indicate that jurors who viewed high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher than those who viewed low quality evidence, but were unable to moderate the credibility of the expert witness and apply damages appropriately resulting in poor calibration. Summary: <1000 words Jurors and juries are increasingly exposed to scientific information in the courtroom and it remains unclear when they will base their decisions on a reasonable understanding of the relevant scientific information. Without such knowledge, the ability of jurors and juries to make well-informed decisions may be at risk, increasing chances of unjust outcomes (e.g., false convictions in criminal cases). Therefore, there is a critical need to understand conditions that affect jurors’ and juries’ sensitivity to the qualities of scientific information and to identify safeguards that can assist with scientific calibration in the courtroom. The current project addresses these issues with an ecologically valid experimental paradigm, making it possible to assess causal effects of evidence quality and safeguards as well as the role of a host of individual difference variables that may affect perceptions of testimony by scientific experts as well as liability in a civil case. Our main goal was to develop a simple, theoretically grounded tool to enable triers of fact (individual jurors) with a range of scientific reasoning abilities to appropriately weigh scientific evidence in court. We did so by testing a Fuzzy Trace Theory-inspired intervention in court, and testing it against traditional legal safeguards. Appropriate use of scientific evidence reflects good calibration – which we define as being influenced more by strong scientific information than by weak scientific information. Inappropriate use reflects poor calibration – defined as relative insensitivity to the strength of scientific information. Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) predicts that techniques for improving calibration can come from presentation of easy-to-interpret, bottom-line “gist” of the information. Our central hypothesis was that laypeople’s appropriate use of scientific information would be moderated both by external situational conditions (e.g., quality of the scientific information itself, a decision aid designed to convey clearly the “gist” of the information) and individual differences among people (e.g., scientific reasoning skills, cognitive reflection tendencies, numeracy, need for cognition, attitudes toward and trust in science). Identifying factors that promote jurors’ appropriate understanding of and reliance on scientific information will contribute to general theories of reasoning based on scientific evidence, while also providing an evidence-based framework for improving the courts’ use of scientific information. All hypotheses were preregistered on the Open Science Framework. Method Participants completed six questionnaires (counterbalanced): Need for Cognition Scale (NCS; 18 items), Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT; 7 items), Abbreviated Numeracy Scale (ABS; 6 items), Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS; 11 items), Trust in Science (TIS; 29 items), and Attitudes towards Science (ATS; 7 items). Participants then viewed a video depicting a civil trial in which the defendant sought damages from the plaintiff for injuries caused by a fall. The defendant (bar patron) alleged that the plaintiff (bartender) pushed him, causing him to fall and hit his head on the hard floor. Participants were informed at the outset that the defendant was liable; therefore, their task was to determine if the plaintiff should be compensated. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 experimental conditions: 2 (quality of scientific evidence: high vs. low) x 3 (safeguard to improve calibration: gist information, no-gist information [control], jury instructions). An expert witness (neuroscientist) hired by the court testified regarding the scientific strength of fMRI data (high [90 to 10 signal-to-noise ratio] vs. low [50 to 50 signal-to-noise ratio]) and gist or no-gist information both verbally (i.e., fairly high/about average) and visually (i.e., a graph). After viewing the video, participants were asked if they would like to award damages. If they indicated yes, they were asked to enter a dollar amount. Participants then completed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule-Modified Short Form (PANAS-MSF; 16 items), expert Witness Credibility Scale (WCS; 20 items), Witness Credibility and Influence on damages for each witness, manipulation check questions, Understanding Scientific Testimony (UST; 10 items), and 3 additional measures were collected, but are beyond the scope of the current investigation. Finally, participants completed demographic questions, including questions about their scientific background and experience. The study was completed via Qualtrics, with participation from students (online vs. in-lab), MTurkers, and non-student community members. After removing those who failed attention check questions, 469 participants remained (243 men, 224 women, 2 did not specify gender) from a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds (70.2% White, non-Hispanic). Results and Discussion There were three primary outcomes: quality of the scientific evidence, expert credibility (WCS), and damages. During initial analyses, each dependent variable was submitted to a separate 3 Gist Safeguard (safeguard, no safeguard, judge instructions) x 2 Scientific Quality (high, low) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Consistent with hypotheses, there was a significant main effect of scientific quality on strength of evidence, F(1, 463)=5.099, p=.024; participants who viewed the high quality evidence rated the scientific evidence significantly higher (M= 7.44) than those who viewed the low quality evidence (M=7.06). There were no significant main effects or interactions for witness credibility, indicating that the expert that provided scientific testimony was seen as equally credible regardless of scientific quality or gist safeguard. Finally, for damages, consistent with hypotheses, there was a marginally significant interaction between Gist Safeguard and Scientific Quality, F(2, 273)=2.916, p=.056. However, post hoc t-tests revealed significantly higher damages were awarded for low (M=11.50) versus high (M=10.51) scientific quality evidence F(1, 273)=3.955, p=.048 in the no gist with judge instructions safeguard condition, which was contrary to hypotheses. The data suggest that the judge instructions alone are reversing the pattern, though nonsignificant, those who received the no gist without judge instructions safeguard awarded higher damages in the high (M=11.34) versus low (M=10.84) scientific quality evidence conditions F(1, 273)=1.059, p=.30. Together, these provide promising initial results indicating that participants were able to effectively differentiate between high and low scientific quality of evidence, though inappropriately utilized the scientific evidence through their inability to discern expert credibility and apply damages, resulting in poor calibration. These results will provide the basis for more sophisticated analyses including higher order interactions with individual differences (e.g., need for cognition) as well as tests of mediation using path analyses. [References omitted but available by request] Learning Objective: Participants will be able to determine whether providing jurors with gist information would assist in their ability to award damages in a civil trial. 

   more » « less
5. Intelligence Augmentation for Collaborative Learning

   Roschelle, Jeremy ( January 2021 , HCI International)

   null (Ed.)

   Today’s classrooms are remarkably different from those of yesteryear. In place of individual students responding to the teacher from neat rows of desks, one more typically finds students working in groups on projects, with a teacher circulating among groups. AI applications in learning have been slow to catch up, with most available technologies focusing on personalizing or adapting instruction to learners as isolated individuals. Meanwhile, an established science of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning has come to prominence, with clear implications for how collaborative learning could best be supported. In this contribution, I will consider how intelligence augmentation could evolve to support collaborative learning as well as three signature challenges of this work that could drive AI forward. In conceptualizing collaborative learning, Kirschner and Erkens (2013) provide a useful 3x3 framework in which there are three aspects of learning (cognitive, social and motivational), three levels (community, group/team, and individual) and three kinds of pedagogical supports (discourse-oriented, representation-oriented, and process-oriented). As they engage in this multiply complex space, teachers and learners are both learning to collaborate and collaborating to learn. Further, questions of equity arise as we consider who is able to participate and in which ways. Overall, this analysis helps us see the complexity of today’s classrooms and within this complexity, the opportunities for augmentation or “assistance to become important and even essential. An overarching design concept has emerged in the past 5 years in response to this complexity, the idea of intelligent augmentation for “orchestrating” classrooms (Dillenbourg, et al, 2013). As a metaphor, orchestration can suggest the need for a coordinated performance among many agents who are each playing different roles or voicing different ideas. Practically speaking, orchestration suggests that “intelligence augmentation” could help many smaller things go well, and in doing so, could enable the overall intention of the learning experience to succeed. Those smaller things could include helping the teacher stay aware of students or groups who need attention, supporting formation of groups or transitions from one activity to the next, facilitating productive social interactions in groups, suggesting learning resources that would support teamwork, and more. A recent panel of AI experts identified orchestration as an overarching concept that is an important focus for near-term research and development for intelligence augmentation (Roschelle, Lester & Fusco, 2020). Tackling this challenging area of collaborative learning could also be beneficial for advancing AI technologies overall. Building AI agents that better understand the social context of human activities has broad importance, as does designing AI agents that can appropriately interact within teamwork. Collaborative learning has trajectory over time, and designing AI systems that support teams not just with a short term recommendation or suggestion but in long-term developmental processes is important. Further, classrooms that are engaged in collaborative learning could become very interesting hybrid environments, with multiple human and AI agents present at once and addressing dual outcome goals of learning to collaborate and collaborating to learn; addressing a hybrid environment like this could lead to developing AI systems that more robustly help many types of realistic human activity. In conclusion, the opportunity to make a societal impact by attending to collaborative learning, the availability of growing science of computer-supported collaborative learning and the need to push new boundaries in AI together suggest collaborative learning as a challenge worth tackling in coming years. 

   more » « less