Search

Despite the significant growth of the literature on adaptive reuse, little is known about the specific criteria unfolding throughout the different phases of the adaptive reuse decision-making process. To address this gap this paper aims to provide a comprehensive, state-of-the-art overview of the decision criteria for adaptive reuse throughout the adaptive reuse process. Through an integrative literature review with a systematic search strategy, three phases are substantiated: pre-project phase, preparation phase, and post-completion phase. This paper finds that despite the similarities between the different phases, with a predominant repetition of economic and architectural categories, more specific environmental decision criteria are still overlooked. The findings underscore the necessity for additional research on circularity within the adaptive reuse process, emphasizing the significance of the often overlooked implementation phase, crucial for practices like disassembly. By offering a novel process perspective on AR decision-making, this study contributes to the growing discourse on adaptive reuse and provides a basis for further enhancement of AR decision-making frameworks.

Objective: This study aimed to determine stakeholders' decision criteria preferences for formulary decisions of cancer drugs in the Ministry of Health. The secondary objective was to identify the outcome measures of interest for assessment of clinical benefits for cancer drugs., Methods: A survey questionnaire was administered online and as hard copy using purposive sampling to 32 healthcare facilities providing cancer services and the Formulary Management Branch in the Ministry of Health. Respondents reported whether a criterion "will be considered" and weighted its relative importance on a 5-point scale. The choice of safety and efficacy/effectiveness outcomes were ranked from 1 to 5, and the minimum value of benefit for the efficacy/effectiveness outcome ranked 1 was provided. Trade-offs between survival and quality of life were also explored. Inferential statistics were used to explore difference in responses., Results: A total of 316 healthcare professionals responded to the survey. The most important criteria for value assessment of cancer drug were safety and effectiveness. Other criteria deemed important were quality of evidence, disease severity, and patient-reported outcomes. There was no difference in the criteria preference and weights across the various respondent groups. Overall survival was the most preferred clinical benefit outcome. Overall, willingness to pay was higher for life-prolonging treatment than treatment that improved quality of life., Conclusions: This study revealed that a wide range of criteria beyond the traditional decision-making criteria of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness are important for value assessment of cancer drugs for the purpose of formulary decisions., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Extensive increases in cingulo-opercular frontal activity are typically observed during speech recognition in noise tasks. This elevated activity has been linked to a word recognition benefit on the next trial, termed “adaptive control,” but how this effect might be implemented has been unclear. The established link between perceptual decision making and cingulo-opercular function may provide an explanation for how those regions benefit subsequent word recognition. In this case, processes that support recognition such as raising or lowering the decision criteria for more accurate or faster recognition may be adjusted to optimize performance on the next trial. The current neuroimaging study tested the hypothesis that pre-stimulus cingulo-opercular activity reflects criterion adjustments that determine how much information to collect for word recognition on subsequent trials. Participants included middle-age and older adults (N = 30; age = 58.3 ± 8.8 years; m ± sd) with normal hearing or mild sensorineural hearing loss. During a sparse fMRI experiment, words were presented in multitalker babble at +3 dB or +10 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), which participants were instructed to repeat aloud. Word recognition was significantly poorer with increasing participant age and lower SNR compared to higher SNR conditions. A perceptual decision-making model was used to characterize processing differences based on task response latency distributions. The model showed that significantly less sensory evidence was collected (i.e., lower criteria) for lower compared to higher SNR trials. Replicating earlier observations, pre-stimulus cingulo-opercular activity was significantly predictive of correct recognition on a subsequent trial. Individual differences showed that participants with higher criteria also benefitted the most from pre-stimulus activity. Moreover, trial-level criteria changes were significantly linked to higher versus lower pre-stimulus activity. These results suggest cingulo-opercular cortex contributes to criteria adjustments to optimize speech recognition task performance.

Purpose: The principal purpose of this paper is to present a methodical review of application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method in material selection. Methodology: The study reviewed a total of 55 papers, published from the year 1994–2019. The papers reviewed were majorly from high ranking journals and were extracted from different databases such as Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google scholar. In order to have understanding of the various MCDM methods applicable for material selection, some of the MCDM tools were briefly discussed. Next, a detailed reviewed of the MCDM tools are performed and summaries in a tabular form with respect MCDM decision criteria, method utilised and application areas, year of publication and country of application. Furthermore, papers are analysed based on decision criteria, MCDM methods and application areas, year of publication, journal type and country of application. Findings: The results of the analysis indicated the following: the hybrid method which is the combination of two or more MCDM methods is the most applied technique for material selection in all application areas identified; the most commonly applied decision criteria for selecting optimum alternative is cost; the highest number of articles on material selection was published in 2013; the most significant journal is materials and design and finally, the country with the highest application of MCDM method is India. It can be concluded that MCDM technique is a very useful tool in making decision with respect to material selection.

Objetivos: Explorar los argumentos utilizados por los actores clave para valorar las políticas públicas en España orientadas a reducir la obesidad en la población. Métodos: Mapeo por multicriterios, en el marco del proyecto europeo Opciones de Políticas para Responder al Desafío de la Obesidad (PorGrow), mediante una entrevista estructurada individual a 21 actores principales, líderes del sector público y privado en la alimentación y el ejercicio físico en España. Se integró en el análisis información de tipo cuantitativo y cualitativo. Los entrevistados justificaron sus posiciones en pro y en contra de las diferentes iniciativas de políticas, aspectos que se denominaron «criterios», que fueron ponderados según su importancia relativa y documentados mediante textos y «perlas» del discurso de los entrevistados. Resultados: Se identificaron 93 argumentos para la selección de políticas en los 21 entrevistados. Los argumentos más utilizados y valorados por su importancia fueron: eficacia (n = 18), beneficios sociales (n = 17) y aceptabilidad social (n = 14). Los costes económicos fueron considerados poco relevantes tanto para el sector público como para los individuos. El impacto económico para el sector comercial no fue incluido por ninguno de los entrevistados. Según el área de actuación, los criterios más relevantes fueron la eficacia y los beneficios sociales, para el sector privado y público, respectivamente. Conclusiones: Quizá porque España se encuentra al comienzo del proceso de desarrollo de políticas de obesidad y aún no hay ni «ganadores» ni «perdedores» entre los afectados, los costes financieros aparecen como una cuestión de bajo perfil para los entrevistados, lo que abre una ventana de oportunidad para ensayar políticas de regulación.Aim: To explore the criteria used to assess public policy initiatives on obesity in Spain by the main stakeholders. Methods: Multicriteria mapping was performed within the framework of the European PorGrow Project «Policy options for responding to obesity» through a structured interview with 21 stakeholders, who were leaders in the public and private sectors in Spain in the area of food and physical exercise. Qualitative and quantitative information was included in the analysis. The interviewees justified their positions for or against the various policy options with criteria that were weighted by their relative importance and documented with quotations and «nuggets» from the interviewees' discourse. Results: We identified 93 criteria for policy selection in the 21 interviewees. The most frequent criteria and those perceived as most important were efficacy (n = 18), social benefits (n = 17) and social acceptability (n = 14). The economic impact on individuals and the public sector was not considered important by the interviewees. The economic impact on the commercial sector was not included by any of the participants. The criterion most highly valued by public sector stakeholders was societal benefits while that most valued by private sector stakeholders was efficacy. Conclusions: Spain is in the initial stages of developing public policy on obesity and, as yet, there are no winners and losers among those concerned, which may explain why economic costs seem to be relatively unimportant for the stake-holders, opening a window of opportunity for the development of regulatory policies.

Objectives: Researchers studying treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have reported findings of randomized trials comparing standard care with care augmented by experimental drugs. Many trials have small sample sizes, so estimates of treatment effects are imprecise. Hence, clinicians may find it difficult to decide when to treat patients with experimental drugs. A conventional practice when comparing standard care and an innovation is to choose the innovation only if the estimated treatment effect is positive and statistically significant. This practice defers to standard care as the status quo. We study treatment choice from the perspective of statistical decision theory, which considers treatment options symmetrically when assessing trial findings., Methods: We use the concept of near-optimality to evaluate criteria for treatment choice. This concept jointly considers the probability and magnitude of decision errors. An appealing criterion from this perspective is the empirical success rule, which chooses the treatment with the highest observed average patient outcome in the trial., Results: Considering the design of some COVID-19 trials, we show that the empirical success rule yields treatment choices that are much closer to optimal than those generated by prevailing decision criteria based on hypothesis tests., Conclusion: Using trial findings to make near-optimal treatment choices rather than perform hypothesis tests should improve clinical decision making., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The coronavirus pandemic has provoked discussions among healthcare providers how to manage cancer patients when faced with the threat of severe acute respiratory syndrome related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) containing regimens are standard of care in the majority of metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (mccRCC) patients. It remains unclear whether therapies should be modified in response to the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: We performed an online survey among physicians involved in the treatment of mccRCC, and 41 experts responded. Questions focused on criteria relevant for treatment decision outside the pandemic and the modifications of systemic therapy during COVID-19., Findings: For the majority of experts (73%), the combination of International metastatic renal cell carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk category and patient fitness are two important factors for decision-making. The main treatment choice in fit, favourable risk patients outside the pandemic is pembrolizumab/axitinib for 53%, avelumab/axitinib, sunitinib or pazopanib for 13% of experts each. During the pandemic, ICI-containing regimens are chosen less often in favour of a tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) monotherapy, mainly sunitinib or pazopanib (35%).In fit, intermediate/poor-risk patients outside the pandemic, over 80% of experts choose ipilimumab/nivolumab, in contrast to only 41% of physicians during COVID-19, instead more TKI monotherapies are given. In patients responding to established therapies with ICI/ICI or ICI/TKI combinations, most participants modify treatment regimen by extending cycle length, holding one ICI or even both., Conclusion: mccRCC treatment modifications in light of the coronavirus pandemic are variable, with a shift from ICI/ICI to ICI/TKI or TKI monotherapy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SA: MSD (C/A), Sanofi-Genzyme (C/A) recipient: my institution. TE: Personal: AstraZeneca (RF, E, OI), Bayer (RF), Pfizer (RF), Roche (E, OI); Institution: AstraZeneca (RF), Roche (RF). BE: Pfizer (C/A), BMS (C/A), Ipsen (C/A), Roche (C/A), Oncorena (C/A), Aveo (C/A). SF: Bayer (TS), Astellas (RF, TS). VG: Astra Zeneca (C/A, H, OI, RF), Bristol-Myers Squibb (C/A, H, OI, RF), Roche Pharma AG (C/A, H), MSD Oncology (C/A, H, OI, RF), Ipsen (C/A, H, RF), Bayer (H, RF), Merck Serono (C/A, H), Janssen Cliag (C/A, H), Pfizer (C/A, H), Lilly (C/A, H), PharmaMar (H), EUSAPharm (C/A, H), Novartis (C/A, H, RF), EISAI (H), Onkowissen (C/A). JML: Achilles Therapeutics (C/A, grant support), Bristol-Myers Squibb (C/A, grant support), Merck Sharp & Dohme (C/A, grant support), Nektar (C/A, grant support), Novartis (C/A, grant support), Pfizer (C/A, grant support), Roche–Genentech (C/A, grant support), Immunocore (C/A, grant support), AstraZeneca (C/A), Boston Biomedical (C/A), Eisai (C/A), EUSA Pharma (C/A), GlaxoSmithKline (C/A), Ipsen (C/A), Imugen (C/A), Incyte (C/A), iOnctura (C/A), Kymab (C/A), Merck Serono (C/A), Pierre Fabre (C/A), Secama (C/A), Vitaccess (C/A), Covance (C/A), Aveo (C/A), Pharmacyclics (C/A). DM: BMS (H, C/A), Pfizer (H, C/A), Merck (H, C/A), Alkermes, Inc. (H, C/A). AO: Personal: Astellas (TS), Bayer (TS), Sanofi (TS), Janssen (TS). Instituional: Astellas (C/A, SB), Bayer (C/A, SB), Sanofi (C/A), Roche (C/A), Janssen (C/A, RF, SB), MSD (C/A), Molecular Partners (C/A), Teva (RF). CP: Bristol-Myers Squibb (personal fees), Merck Sharpe & Dohme (personal fees), Novartis (personal fees), Ipsen (personal fees), EUSA (personal fees), Eisai (personal fees), Janssen (personal fees), AstraZeneca (personal fees), General Electric (personal fees), Pfizer (grants and personal fees). BR: Merck (C/A), BMS (C/A), AVEO (C/A), Pfizer (C/A), Roche(C/A), Pfizer (RF), Merck (RF), BMS (RF), AVEO (RF), Astra-Zeneca (RF), Roche (RF). MS: Pfizer, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Merck, Exelixis, EISAI, EUSA, Roche, Novartis, Alkermes. CS: Pfizer (C/A), MSD (C/A), Merck (C/A), AstraZeneca (C/A), Astellas (C/A), Sanofi-Genzyme (C/A), Roche-Genentech (C/A), Incyte (C/A). CR: Pfizer (C/A), Bristol-Myers Squibb (C/A), Roche Pharma AG (C/A), MSD Oncology (C/A), Merck (Schweiz) AG (C/A) recipient for all: my institution. Astellas Pharma (RF) recipient: my institution. Legend: (C/A) Consulting/advisory relationship; (RF) Research funding; (E) Employment; (ET) Expert testimony; (H) Honoraria received; (TS) Travel Support; (OI) Ownership interests; (IP) Intellectual property rights/inventor/patent holder; (SAB) Scientific advisory board, Speaker Bureau (SB)., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Recent EU legislation has introduced endocrine disrupting properties as a hazard-based "cut-off" criterion for the approval of active substances as pesticides and biocides. Currently, no specific science-based approach for the assessment of substances with endocrine disrupting properties has been agreed upon, although this new legislation provides interim criteria based on classification and labelling. Different proposals for decision making on potential endocrine disrupting properties in human health risk assessment have been developed by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and other regulatory bodies. All these frameworks, although differing with regard to hazard characterisation, include a toxicological assessment of adversity of the effects, the evaluation of underlying modes/mechanisms of action in animals and considerations concerning the relevance of effects to humans. Three options for regulatory decision making were tested upon 39 pesticides for their applicability and to analyze their potential impact on the regulatory status of active substances that are currently approved for use in Europe: Option 1, based purely on hazard identification (adversity, mode of action, and the plausibility that both are related); Option 2, based on hazard identification and additional elements of hazard characterisation (severity and potency); Option 3, based on the interim criteria laid down in the recent EU pesticides legislation. Additionally, the data analysed in this study were used to address the questions, which parts of the endocrine system were affected, which studies were the most sensitive and whether no observed adverse effect levels were observed for substance with ED properties. The results of this exercise represent preliminary categorisations and must not be used as a basis for definitive regulatory decisions. They demonstrate that a combination of criteria for hazard identification with additional criteria of hazard characterisation allows prioritising and differentiating between substances with regard to their regulatory concern. It is proposed to integrate these elements into a decision matrix to be used within a weight of evidence approach for the toxicological categorisation of relevant endocrine disruptors and to consider all parts of the endocrine system for regulatory decision making on endocrine disruption., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)