scholarly journals Conservative Scoring Approach in Productivity Susceptibility Analysis Leads to an Overestimation of Vulnerability: A Study from the Hilsa Gillnet Bycatch Stocks of Bangladesh

Fishes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Hasan Faruque ◽  
Hiroyuki Matsuda
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Quantitative Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Missing Information ◽  
Susceptibility Analysis ◽  
Species Vulnerability ◽  
Exploitation Rate ◽  
Tenualosa Ilisha

Despite different approaches used to assign the risk scores for missing information in productivity susceptibility analysis (PSA)—a widely used semi-quantitative risk assessment tool for target and non-target fisheries stocks—for the selected attributes of a given species, no formal comparison has been made between scoring approaches in terms of how well they can predict species vulnerability. The present study evaluated the PSA findings of 21 bycatch stocks of the Hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha) gillnet fishery of Bangladesh using two different scoring approaches (the conservative scoring approach, CSA; and the alternative scoring approach, ASA) to determine the most reliable approach to minimize false estimates of species vulnerability. Our analysis revealed that the V scores increased by 0.0−0.20 with a mean value of 0.09 for 21 selected bycatches when CSA was applied. The inconsistency between the vulnerability (V)-score-suggested fishing status (V ≤ 1.8 = underfishing, V > 1.8 = overfishing) and the fishing status defined by exploitation rate (E > 0.5 = overfishing, E < 0.5 = underfishing) were 38.1% and 19.0% under CSA and ASA, respectively. Likewise, the consistency between the V-score-suggested fishing status and fishers’ perceived catch trends was found to be higher when using ASA than when using CSA. Our analysis suggests that CSA could overestimate species vulnerability. Therefore, ASA is more reliable than CSA in PSA, which may increase the confidence of fisheries stakeholders in PSA.

Layers of Bias: A Unified Approach for Understanding Problems With Risk Assessment

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurel Eckhouse ◽  
Kristian Lum ◽  
Cynthia Conti-Cook ◽  
Julie Ciccolini
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Quantitative Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Risk Models ◽  
Risk Assessment Models ◽  
Final Layer ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Using Data

Scholars in several fields, including quantitative methodologists, legal scholars, and theoretically oriented criminologists, have launched robust debates about the fairness of quantitative risk assessment. As the Supreme Court considers addressing constitutional questions on the issue, we propose a framework for understanding the relationships among these debates: layers of bias. In the top layer, we identify challenges to fairness within the risk-assessment models themselves. We explain types of statistical fairness and the tradeoffs between them. The second layer covers biases embedded in data. Using data from a racially biased criminal justice system can lead to unmeasurable biases in both risk scores and outcome measures. The final layer engages conceptual problems with risk models: Is it fair to make criminal justice decisions about individuals based on groups? We show that each layer depends on the layers below it: Without assurances about the foundational layers, the fairness of the top layers is irrelevant.

Development and Implementation of a Liquid Pipeline Quantitative Risk Assessment Model

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerico Perez ◽  
David Weir ◽  
Caroline Seguin ◽  
Refaul Ferdous
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Quantitative Risk Assessment ◽  
Pipeline System ◽  
Risk Assessment Model ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Risk Appetite ◽  
Assessment Results

To the end of 2012, Enbridge Pipelines employed an in-house developed indexed or relative risk assessment algorithm to model its liquid pipeline system. Using this model, Enbridge was able to identify risk control or treatment projects (e.g. valve placement) that could mitigate identified high risk areas. A changing understanding of the threats faced by a liquid pipeline system and their consequences meant that the model changed year over year making it difficult to demonstrate risk reduction accomplished on an annual basis using a relative scoring system. As the development of risk management evolved within the company, the expectations on the model also evolved and significantly increased. For example, questions were being asked such as “what risk is acceptable and what risk is not acceptable?”, “what is the true risk of failure for a given pipe section that considers the likelihood of all threats applicable to the pipeline”, and “is enough being done to reduce these risks to acceptable levels?” To this end, starting in 2012 and continuing through to the end of 2013, Enbridge Pipelines developed a quantitative mainline risk assessment model. This tool quantifies both threat likelihood and consequence and offers advantages over the indexed risk assessment model in the following areas: • Models likely worst case (P90) rupture scenarios • Enables independent evaluation of threats and consequences in order to understand the drivers • Produces risk assessment results in uniform units for all consequence criteria and in terms of frequencies of failure for likelihood • Aggregates likelihood and consequence at varying levels of granularity • Uses the risk appetite of the organization and its quantification allows for the setting of defined high, medium, and low risk targets • Quantifies the amount of risk in dollars/year facilitating cost-benefit analyses of mitigation efforts and risk reduction activities • Grounds risk assessment results on changes in product volume-out and receptor sensitivity • Balances between complexity and utility by using enough information and data granularity to capture all factors that have a meaningful impact on risk Development and implementation of the quantitative mainline risk assessment tool has had a number of challenges and hurdles. This paper provides an overview of the approach used by Enbridge to develop its quantitative mainline risk assessment model and examines the challenges, learnings and successes that have been achieved in its implementation.

Inter-rater reliability of the Bereavement Risk Assessment Tool

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caelin Rose ◽  
Wendy Wainwright ◽  
Michael Downing ◽  
Mary Lesperance
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Professional Judgment ◽  
Rater Reliability ◽  
Initial Development

AbstractObjective:The Bereavement Risk Assessment Tool (BRAT) was designed to consistently communicate information affecting bereavement outcomes; to predict the risk for difficult or complicated bereavement based on information obtained before the death; to consider resiliency as well as risk; and to assist in the efficacy and consistency of bereavement service allocation. Following initial development of the BRAT's 40 items and its clinical use, this study set out to test the BRAT for inter-rater reliability along with some basic validity measures.Method:Case studies were designed based on actual patients and families from a hospice palliative care program. Bereavement professionals were recruited via the internet. Thirty-six participants assessed BRAT items in 10 cases and then estimated one of 5 levels of risk for each case. These were compared with an expert group's assignment of risk.Results:Inter-rater reliability for the 5-level risk scores yielded a Fleiss’ kappa of 0.37 and an intra-class correlation (ICC) of 0.68 (95% CI 0.5-0.9). By collapsing scores into low and high risk groups, a kappa of 0.63 and an ICC of 0.66 (95% CI 0.5-0.9) was obtained. Participant-estimated risk scores yielded a kappa of 0.24. Although opinion varied on the tool's length, participants indicated it was well organized and easy to use with potential in assessment and allocation of bereavement services. Limitations of the study include a small sample size and the use of case studies. Limitations of the tool include the subjectivity of some items and ambiguousness of unchecked items.Significance of results:The collapsed BRAT risk levels show moderately good inter-rater reliability over clinical judgement alone. This study provides introductory evidence of a tool that can be used both prior to and following a death and, in conjunction with professional judgment, can assess the likelihood of bereavement complications.

scholarly journals qSOFA score poorly predicts critical progression in COVID-19 patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sven Heldt ◽  
Matthias Neuböck ◽  
Nora Kainzbauer ◽  
Guangyu Shao ◽  
Thomas Tschoellitsch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Disease Status ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Oxygen Supplementation ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Admission Time ◽  
Early Risk ◽  
Failure Assessment ◽  
Qsofa Score

Summary Background In December 2019, the new virus infection coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged. Simple clinical risk scores may improve the management of COVID-19 patients. Therefore, the aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, which is well established for other diseases, as an early risk assessment tool predicting a severe course of COVID-19. Methods We retrospectively analyzed data from adult COVID-19 patients hospitalized between March and July 2020. A critical disease progress was defined as admission to intensive care unit (ICU) or death. Results Of 64 COVID-19 patients, 33% (21/64) had a critical disease progression from which 13 patients had to be transferred to ICU. The COVID-19-associated mortality rate was 20%, increasing to 39% after ICU admission. All patients without a critical progress had a qSOFA score ≤ 1 at admission. Patients with a critical progress had in only 14% (3/21) and in 20% (3/15) of cases a qSOFA score ≥ 2 at admission (p = 0.023) or when measured directly before critical progression, respectively, while 95% (20/21) of patients with critical progress had an impairment oxygen saturation (SO2) at admission time requiring oxygen supplementation. Conclusion A low qSOFA score cannot be used to assume short-term stable or noncritical disease status in COVID-19.

scholarly journals Evaluating risk, safety and efficacy of novel reproductive techniques and therapies through the EuroGTP II risk assessment tool

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (8) ◽  
pp. 1821-1838 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esteve Trias ◽  
Martine Nijs ◽  
Ioana Adina Rugescu ◽  
Francesco Lombardo ◽  
Gueorgui Nikolov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Mitigation ◽  
Mitigation Strategies ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Art Experts

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Can risks associated with novelties in assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) be assessed in a systematic and structured way? SUMMARY ANSWER An ART-specific risk assessment tool has been developed to assess the risks associated with the development of novelties in ART (EuroGTP II-ART). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY How to implement new technologies in ART is well-described in the literature. The successive steps should include testing in animal models, executing pre-clinical studies using supernumerary gametes or embryos, prospective clinical trials and finally, short- and long-term follow-up studies on the health of the offspring. A framework categorizing treatments from experimental through innovative to established according to the extent of the studies conducted has been devised. However, a systematic and standardized methodology to facilitate risk evaluation before innovations are performed in a clinical setting is lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The EuroGTP II-ART risk assessment tool was developed on the basis of a generic risk assessment algorithm developed for tissue and cell therapies and products (TCTPs) in the context of the project ‘Good Practices for demonstrating safety and quality through recipient follow-up European Good Tissue and cells Practices II (EuroGTP II)’. For this purpose, a series of four meetings was held in which eight ART experts participated. In addition, several tests and simulations were undertaken to fine-tune the final tool. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The three steps comprising the EuroGTP II methodology were evaluated against its usefulness and applicability in ART. Ways to improve and adapt the methodology into ART risk assessment were agreed and implemented. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Assessment of the novelty (Step 1), consisting of seven questions, is the same as for other TCTPs. Practical examples were included for better understanding. Identification of potential risks and consequences (Step 2), consisting of a series of risks and risk consequences to consider during risk assessment, was adapted from the generic methodology, adding more potential risks for processes involving gonadic tissues. The algorithm to score risks was also adapted, giving a specific range of highest possible risk scores. A list of strategies for risk reduction and definition of extended studies required to ensure effectiveness and safety (Step 3) was also produced by the ART experts, based on generic EuroGTP II methodology. Several explanations and examples were provided for each of the steps for better understanding within this field. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION A multidisciplinary team is needed to perform risk assessment, to interpret results and to determine risk mitigation strategies and/or next steps required to ensure the safety in the clinical use of novelties. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is a dynamic tool whose value goes beyond assessment of risk before implementing a novel ART in clinical practice, to re-evaluate risks based on information collected during the process. STUDY FUNDING / COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was called EUROGTP II and was funded by the European Commission (Grant agreement number 709567). The authors declare no competing interests concerning the results of this study.

A quantitative risk assessment tool for the external safety of industrial plants with a dust explosion hazard

2007 ◽  
Vol 20 (4-6) ◽  
pp. 375-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.M. van der Voort ◽  
A.J.J. Klein ◽  
M. de Maaijer ◽  
A.C. van den Berg ◽  
J.R. van Deursen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Quantitative Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Dust Explosion ◽  
Explosion Hazard ◽  
Industrial Plants

Ten-year fracture risk by FRAX and osteoporotic fractures in patients with systemic autoimmune diseases

Lupus ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (8) ◽  
pp. 945-953 ◽  
Author(s):  
E -L Lai ◽  
W -N Huang ◽  
H -H Chen ◽  
C -Y Hsu ◽  
D -Y Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Autoimmune Diseases ◽  
Fracture Risk ◽  
Osteoporotic Fracture ◽  
Lupus Erythematosus ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Osteoporotic Fractures ◽  
Fracture Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Mineral Density

The Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) has been used universally for the purpose of fracture risk assessment. However, the predictive capacity of FRAX for autoimmune diseases remains inconclusive. This study aimed to compare the applicability of FRAX for autoimmune disease patients. This retrospective study recruited rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and primary Sjögren syndrome (pSS) patients with bone mineral density (BMD) tests. Patients with any osteoporotic fractures were identified. Taiwan-specific FRAX with and without BMD were then calculated. In total, 802 patients (451 RA, 233 SLE and 118 pSS) were enrolled in this study. The cumulative incidences of osteoporotic fractures in the RA, SLE and pSS patients were 43.0%, 29.2% and 33.1%, respectively. For those with a previous osteoporotic fracture, T-scores were classified as low bone mass. Overall, the patients’ 10-year probability of major fracture risk by FRAX without BMD was 15.8%, which then increased to 20.3% after incorporation of BMD measurement. When analyzed by disease group, the fracture risk in RA patients was accurately predicted by FRAX. In contrast, current FRAX, either with or without BMD measurement, underestimated the fracture risk both in SLE and pSS patients, even after stratification by age and glucocorticoid treatment. For pSS patients with major osteoporotic fractures, FRAX risks imputed by RA were comparable to major osteoporotic fracture risks of RA patients. Current FRAX accurately predicted fracture probability in RA patients, but not in SLE and pSS patients. RA-imputed FRAX risk scores could be used as a temporary substitute for SLE and pSS patients.

Development of Risk Assessment Tools for Enterprises

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 38-47
Author(s):  
Yu. V. Trifonov ◽  
E. A. Fomina
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Quantitative Risk Assessment ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Risk Indicator ◽  
Additional Tool ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Complex Integral

Th e purpose of this article is to develop tools for assessing the risks of enterprises, used both to assess the current activities of enterprises and during the implementation of investment proj-ects. It is supposed to be used both as the main risk assessment tool, for example, for small and medium-sized enterprises, and as an additional tool, mainly for large enterprises, for making a preliminary decision on the feasibility of the project. Th e developed tools include a comprehen-sive risk assessment system, which provides a fundamental basis for calculations, and a soft ware product that signifi cantly optimizes the calculations of a complex integral risk indicator. Th e risk assessment system represents individual risks, grouped by 51 risk groups. Making calculations using the developed risk assessment tools involves assigning to each risk the characteristics of assessing the level of infl uence by selecting the characteristic most appropriate to the current level of risk. A standard version of indicators is proposed for each risk and characteristics cor-responding to "high", "elevated", "medium", "moderate" and "low" risk levels. Based on the results of the analysis, a complex integral risk indicator is formed, which is a quantitative risk assessment, which allows you to classify an enterprise into one of three groups: "eff ective enterprise / project", "enterprise / project requiring improvements", "ineffi cient enterprise". To optimize the calcula-tions, the authors have developed a soft ware product that allows for analysis with a signifi cant reduction in the time spent on its implementation. In general, the use of the developed risk as-sessment system and tools makes it possible to signifi cantly optimize the risk assessment process and reduce the costs of analisys.

scholarly journals Inclusion of medication-related fall risk in fall risk assessment tool in geriatric care units

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jana Michalcova ◽  
Karel Vasut ◽  
Marja Airaksinen ◽  
Katarina Bielakova
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Nursing Home ◽  
Fall Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Geriatric Care ◽  
Risk Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Fall Risk Assessment ◽  
Active Substances

Abstract Background Falls are common undesirable events for older adults in institutions. Even though the patient’s fall risk may be scored on admission, the medication-induced fall risk may be ignored. This study developed a preliminary categorization of fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) to be added as a risk factor to the existing fall risk assessment tool routinely used in geriatric care units. Methods Medication use data of older adults who had experienced at least one fall during a hospital ward or a nursing home stay within a 2-year study period were retrospectively collected from patient records. Medicines used were classified into three risk categories (high, moderate and none) according to the fall risk information in statutory summaries of product characteristics (SmPCs). The fall risk categorization incorporated the relative frequency of such adverse drug effects (ADEs) in SmPCs that were known to be connected to fall risk (sedation, orthostatic hypotension, syncope, dizziness, drowsiness, changes in blood pressure or impaired balance). Also, distribution of fall risk scores assessed on admission without considering medications was counted. Results The fall-experienced patients (n = 188, 128 from the hospital and 60 from nursing home records) used altogether 1748 medicaments, including 216 different active substances. Of the active substances, 102 (47%) were categorized as high risk (category A) for increasing fall risk. Fall-experienced patients (n = 188) received a mean of 3.8 category A medicines (n = 710), 53% (n = 375) of which affected the nervous and 40% (n = 281) the cardiovascular system. Without considering medication-related fall risk, 53% (n = 100) of the patients were scored having a high fall risk (3 or 4 risk scores). Conclusion It was possible to develop a preliminary categorization of FRIDs basing on their adverse drug effect profile in SmPCs and frequency of use in older patients who had experienced at least one documented fall in a geriatric care unit. Even though more than half of the fall-experienced study participants had high fall risk scores on admission, their fall risk might have been underestimated as use of high fall risk medicines was common, even concomitant use. Further studies are needed to develop the FRID categorization and assess its impact on fall risk.

The 3 R’s of risk assessment for violent extremism

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-101
Author(s):  
Geoff Dean ◽  
Graeme Pettet
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Terrorism Risk ◽  
Violent Extremism ◽  
Practice Approach ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Professional Judgement

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore two distinct yet complimentary “structured professional judgement (SPJ)” approaches to terrorist/extremist risk assessment on the vexing issue of how best to deal with the subjectivity inherently involved in professional judgement. Design/methodology/approach An SPJ methodology is considered the best practice approach for assessing terrorism risk. Currently there are four specific terrorism risk instruments that have been published in the literature. Two of these SPJ tools are examined in detail, namely the Violent Extremist Risk Assessment tool (Pressman, 2009; Pressman et al., 2012) and the Structured Assessment of Violent Extremism (SAVE) tool (Dean, 2014). The paper critically unpacks the conceptual and methodological stumbling blocks of an SPJ methodology for controlling human subjectivity. Findings The paper presents the case for adopting a “controlling in” approach rather than a “controlling out” approach of an analyst’s subjective tacit (in-the-head) knowledge inherent in their professional judgement. To have a quantifiable SPJ tool that triangulates the multi-dimensionality of terrorism risk which can validate an analyst’s professional judgement is the next logical step in terrorist/extremist risk assessment work. The paper includes a case example of this “controlling in” approach and the validation methodology used by the SAVE software system. Practical implications The implications for practice range from incorporating the SAVE system in operational policing/national security work with its quantitative nature, triangulated risk scores, visualisation output of a prioritised case report with in-built alerts, to the required training for system calibration to enhance user proficiency. Originality/value This is a highly original and innovative paper as this type of quantified SPJ tool (SAVE) has up until now never been applied before in terrorist/extremist risk assessment work.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document