A Study of OAuth 2.0 Risk Notification and Token Revocation from Resource Server

Author(s):  
Jungsoo Park ◽  
Jinouk Kim ◽  
Minho Park ◽  
Souhwan Jung
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Nora B Henrikson ◽  
Jennifer K Wagner ◽  
Heather Hampel ◽  
Christopher DeVore ◽  
Nirupama Shridhar ◽  
...  

Abstract Background It is unclear how the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) should be interpreted in the context of sharing of genomic information between family members. Methods The authors analyzed the HIPAA Privacy Rule, reviewed the literature and constructed a clinical scenario to inform how HIPAA can be interpreted for multiple forms of patient- and provider-mediated genetic risk notification. Results Under HIPAA, healthcare providers can lawfully notify relatives to recommend genetic risk assessment using multiple approaches, including supporting the patient telling their own relatives, contacting relatives directly with the patient’s authorization, or contacting a relative’s provider directly. Conclusions Multiple forms of patient- or provider-mediated contact of relatives are already legally permissible under HIPAA, are consistent with ethical obligations of care to patients and their families, and could result in improved population health through identification of clinically actionable disease risk. Unanswered questions remain about implementation and impacts of provider-mediated programs.


2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (2s) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Comba ◽  
Fabrizio Dabbene ◽  
Paolo Gay ◽  
Cristina Tortia

Even though the main EU regulations concerning food traceability have already entered to force since many years, we still remark very wide and impacting product recalls, which often involve simultaneously large territories and many countries. This is a clear sign that current traceability procedures and systems, when implemented with the only aim of respecting mandatory policies, are not effective, and that there are some aspects that are at present underestimated, and therefore should be attentively reconsidered. In particular, the sole adoption of the so-called “one step back-one step forward traceability” to comply the EC Regulation 178/2002, where every actor in the chain handles merely the data coming from his supplier and those sent to his client, is in fact not sufficient to control and to limit the impact of a recall action after a risk notification. Recent studies on lots dispersion and routing demonstrate that each stakeholder has to plan his activities (production, transformation or distribution) according to specific criteria that allow pre-emptively estimating and limiting the range action of a possible recall. Moreover, these new and very recently proposed techniques still present some limits; first of all the problem of traceability of bulk products (e.g. liquids, powders, grains, crystals) during production phases that involve mixing operations of several lots of different/same materials. In fact, current traceability practices are in most cases unable to deal efficiently with this kind of products, and, in order to compensate the lack of knowledge about lot composition, typically resort to the adoption of very large lots, based for instance on a considered production period. Aim of this paper is to present recent advances in the design of supply chain traceability systems, discussing problems that are still open and are nowadays subject of research.


1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 2139-2148 ◽  
Author(s):  
M A Andrykowski ◽  
R Lightner ◽  
J L Studts ◽  
R K Munn

PURPOSE Great interest in predictive testing for hereditary cancer syndromes has been reported. Prior research has focused on testing for specific hereditary syndromes and/or among individuals at high risk for positive carrier status. Given anticipated expansion of both the range of hereditary syndromes for which testing will be available, as well as the clinical settings in which testing will occur, assessment of interest in hereditary cancer risk testing and notification in the general public is warranted. METHODS As part of an annual statewide telephone survey, adults' (N = 654) interest in hereditary cancer risk testing and notification was assessed. RESULTS Interest in both risk testing (82%) and risk notification (87%) was high. Logistic regression analyses indicated that disinterest in risk notification was associated with female sex, performance of fewer health protective behaviors, and better perceptions of personal health. Disinterest in risk testing was associated with these same variables as well as older age, less concern over developing cancer, and a more extensive history of cancer in first degree relatives. CONCLUSION In the absence of risk-reducing behaviors with demonstrable efficacy, hereditary risk testing programs may have difficulty attracting the interest of those at greatest risk for carrier status. In contrast, many individuals at low risk for positive carrier status might seek testing, perhaps as a means of seeking reassurance regarding their low hereditary risk.


1999 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 355-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roshan Bastani ◽  
Annette E. Maxwell ◽  
Clarence Bradford ◽  
Irene Prabhu Das ◽  
Kang X. Yan

1991 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 1275-1282 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Lerman ◽  
B K Rimer ◽  
P F Engstrom

Basic and medical science investigations have identified a growing number of risk factors important in carcinogenesis. By communicating cancer risk information in medical practice, we have the potential to motivate high-risk individuals to adhere to cancer prevention and surveillance protocols. However, cancer screening and risk notification might have adverse psychologic and social consequences as well. In this review, we address the psychosocial and ethical implications of cancer risk notification. The literature on the psychosocial impact of cancer screening programs and programs for notifying workers exposed to occupational carcinogens is reviewed critically. In addition, we examine new concerns and responsibilities raised by the emerging field of cancer genetics. Suggestions for future research and for patient education are addressed.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinyue Song ◽  
Tianbo Gu ◽  
Zheng Fang ◽  
Xiaotao Feng ◽  
Yunjie Ge ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document