Data Abstraction Architecture for Spacecraft Autonomy

Abstract:On-line intelligent monitoring, diagnosis, and control of dynamic systems such as patients in intensive care units necessitates the context-dependent acquisition, processing, analysis, and interpretation of large amounts of possibly noisy and incomplete data. The dynamic nature of the process also requires a continuous evaluation and adaptation of the monitoring strategy to respond to changes both in the monitored patient and in the monitoring equipment. Moreover, real-time constraints may imply data losses, the importance of which has to be minimized. This paper presents a computer architecture designed to accomplish these tasks. Its main components are a model and a data abstraction module. The model provides the system with a monitoring context related to the patient status. The data abstraction module relies on that information to adapt the monitoring strategy and provide the model with the necessary information. This paper focuses on the data abstraction module and its interaction with the model.

Download Full-text

Quality Data Abstraction Utilizing Bethesda Pap Test Reporting: Key Implementation Science Indicators for National Gynecologic Cytology Benchmarks

Journal of the American Society of Cytopathology ◽

10.1016/j.jasc.2020.07.109 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (6) ◽

pp. S54-S55

Author(s):

Amy Spiczka ◽

Amy Ardisana ◽

Rosemarie Demyan ◽

Elizabeth Waibel ◽

Raven Garris ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Implementation Science ◽

Pap Test ◽

Quality Data ◽

Data Abstraction

Download Full-text

Data abstraction, data encapsulation and object-oriented programming

ACM SIGPLAN Notices ◽

10.1145/948415.948418 ◽

1984 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

pp. 31-35 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

A. Toni Cohen

Keyword(s):

Object Oriented ◽

Object Oriented Programming ◽

Data Abstraction

Download Full-text

Keynote address - data abstraction and hierarchy

ACM SIGPLAN Notices ◽

10.1145/62139.62141 ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 23 (5) ◽

pp. 17-34 ◽

Cited By ~ 120

Author(s):

Barbara Liskov

Keyword(s):

Keynote Address ◽

Data Abstraction ◽

Address Data

Download Full-text

Use of data abstraction in process specification

ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes ◽

10.1145/1010904.1010908 ◽

1982 ◽

Vol 7 (3) ◽

pp. 16-21 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Franklyn T. Bradshaw ◽

George W. Ernst ◽

Raymond J. Hookway

Keyword(s):

Data Abstraction ◽

Use Of Data ◽

Process Specification

Download Full-text

Data abstraction

ACM SIGAda Ada Letters ◽

10.1145/989798.989801 ◽

1982 ◽

Vol II (2) ◽

pp. 46-48

Author(s):

Amiram Yehudai

Keyword(s):

Data Abstraction

Download Full-text

How do cancer screening guidelines trade off benefits versus harms and burdens of screening? A systematic survey

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038322 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (12) ◽

pp. e038322

Author(s):

Linan Zeng ◽

Lise Mørkved Helsingen ◽

Fernando Kenji Nampo ◽

Yuting Wang ◽

Liang Yao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cancer Screening ◽

Data Abstraction ◽

Relative Importance ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Trade Off ◽

Screening Guidelines ◽

Registration Number ◽

Data Source ◽

Cost Effectiveness Threshold ◽

Effectiveness Threshold

ObjectivesCancer screening guidelines differ in their recommendations for or against screening. To be able to provide explicit recommendations, guidelines need to specify thresholds for the magnitude of benefits of screening, given its harms and burdens. We evaluated how current cancer screening guidelines address the relative importance of benefits versus harms and burdens of screening.Data sourceWe searched the Guidelines International Network, International Guideline Library, ECRI Institute and Medline. Two pairs of reviewers independently performed guideline selection and data abstraction.Eligibility criteriaWe included all cancer screening guidelines published in English between January 2014 and April 2019.ResultsOf 68 eligible guidelines, 25 included a statement regarding the trade-off between screening benefits versus harms and burdens (14 guidelines), or a statement of direction of the net effect (defined as benefits minus harms or burdens) (13 guidelines). None of these 25 guidelines defined how large a screening benefit should be to recommend screening, given its harms and burdens. 11 guidelines performed an economic evaluation of screening. Of these, six identified a key benefit outcome; two specified a cost-effectiveness threshold for recommending a screening option. Eight guidelines commented on people’s values and preferences regarding the trade-off between benefits versus harms and burdens.ConclusionsCurrent cancer screening guidelines fail to specify the values and preferences underlying their recommendations. No guidelines provide a threshold at which they believe the benefits of screening outweigh its harms and burdens.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019138590.

Download Full-text

Software Tools for Systematic Literature Review in Medicine: A Review and Feature Analysis (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.33219 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Kathryn Cowie ◽

Asad Rahmatullah ◽

Nicole Hardy ◽

Karl Holub ◽

Kevin Kallmes

Keyword(s):

Best Practices ◽

Software Tools ◽

Observer Agreement ◽

Medical Community ◽

Feature Analysis ◽

Data Abstraction ◽

Statistical Software ◽

Web Based ◽

Knowledge Support ◽

Dual Extraction

BACKGROUND Systematic reviews (SRs) are central to evaluating therapies but have high costs in terms of both time and money. Many software tools exist to assist with SRs, but most tools do not support the full process, and transparency and replicability of SR depends on performing and presenting evidence according to established best practices. OBJECTIVE In order to provide a basis for comparing and selecting between software tools that support SR, we performed a feature-by-feature comparison of SR tools. METHODS We searched for SR tools by reviewing any such tool listed the Systematic Review Toolbox, previous reviews of SR tools, and qualitative Google searching. We included all SR tools that were currently functional, and require no coding and excluded reference managers, desktop applications, and statistical software. The list of features to assess was populated by combining all features assessed in four previous reviews of SR tools; we also added five features (Manual Addition, Screening Automation, Dual Extraction, Living review, Public outputs) that were independently noted as best practices or enhancements of transparency/replicability. Then, two reviewers assigned binary “present/absent” assessments to all SR tools with respect to all features, and a third reviewer adjudicated all disagreements. RESULTS Of 49 SR tools found, 27 were excluded, leaving 22 for assessment. Twenty-eight features were assessed across 6 classes, and the inter-observer agreement was 86.46%. DistillerSR, EPPI-Reviewer Web, and Nested Knowledge support the most features (24/28, 86%), followed by Covidence, SRDB.PRO, SysRev (20/28, 71%). Six tools support fewer than half of all features assessed: SyRF, Data Abstraction Assistant, SWIFT-review, SR-Accelerator, RobotReviewer, and COVID-NMA. Notably, only 9 of 22 tools (41%) support direct search, only four (18%) offer dual extraction, and only 9 (41%) offer living/updatable reviews. CONCLUSIONS DistillerSR, EPPI-Reviewer Web, and Nested Knowledge each offer a high density of SR-focused web-based tools. By transparent comparison and discussion regarding SR tool functionality, the medical community can both choose among existing software offerings and note the areas of growth needed, most notably in the support of living reviews.

Download Full-text