Mean-entropy uncertain portfolio with risk curve and total mental accounts under multiple background risks

In the previous uncertain portfolio literature on background risk and mental account, only a general background risk and a few kinds of mental accounts were considered. Based on the above limitations, on the one hand, the multiple background risks are defined by linear weighting of different background asset risks in this paper; on the other hand, the total nine kinds of mental accounts are comprehensively considered. Especially, the risk curve is regarded as the risk measurement of different mental accounts for the first time. Under the framework of uncertainty theory, a novel mean-entropy portfolio model with risk curve and total mental accounts under multiple background risks is constructed. In addition, transaction fees, chance constraint, upper and lower limits and initial wealth constraints are also considered in our proposed model. In theory, the equivalent forms of the models with different uncertainty distributions (general, normal and zigzag) are presented by three theorems. Simultaneously, the corresponding concrete expressions of risk curves are obtained by another three theorems. In practice, two numerical examples verify the feasibility and effectiveness of our proposed model. Finally, we can obtain the following unique and meaningful findings: (1) investors will underestimate the potential risk if they ignore the existence of multiple background risks; (2) with the increase of the return threshold, the return of the sub-portfolio will inevitably increase, but investors also bear the risk that the risk curve is higher than the confidence curve at this time.

Improving consent forms for first-in-human trials through participant feedback.

e13563 Background: Risks and benefits of investigational agents that have not been tested in humans are, at best, incompletely characterized in nonclinical investigations. Despite the growing emphasis to include patient voices in clinical trial design, no published research has explored patient preferences on how best to convey the information that the agent has not been tested in humans. This study established that First in Human (FIH) consent forms present this information in different locations and queried participants for their input on the preferable FIH consent form structure. Methods: Consent forms for FIH oncology trials open to accrual at Winship Cancer Institute in 2019-2020 were analyzed for (1) the location of the mention that the study drug has not been used in humans before (FIH information), (2) the location of animal and other nonclinical data, and (3) placement of the risks section. Patients offered enrollment in a FIH trial were eligible for this study. Participants were interviewed during a clinic visit after consent was obtained. An ethics researcher asked questions about the participant’s opinions on the wording and placement of the FIH, nonclinical, and risk information in the specific trial consent form. All interviews were audio-recorded and double coded by two independent coders. The location of FIH and nonclinical data in the consent forms was compared to the patient’s suggested location for this information. Results: Saturation of themes was reached after interviewing 17 (17/19, 89% accrual) participants who were enrolled in 9 different FIH trials. Twenty FIH consents were qualitatively analyzed. Preferred placement compared to actual consent placement is listed in the table. 82% (14/17) of participants thought that nonclinical data on risks and efficacy was important to mention. 95% (19/20) of consents listed nonclinical data and most participants thought the placement in the consent was appropriate but 18% (3/17) of participants wanted the information earlier in the consent. No consent forms that were analyzed had the risks section before the study schedule; however, 47% (8/17) of participants wanted to move the risks sections before the study schedule. Conclusions: There is considerable variation in the layout of FIH consent forms that does not align with patient preferences. Standardization of FIH consent forms to better reflect patient input is essential in order to promote understandability of these important yet sometimes misunderstood clinical trials and to ensure ethical informed consent.[Table: see text]

A User-Friendly Algorithm for Detecting the Influence of Background Risks on a Model

Background, or systematic, risks are integral parts of many systems and models in insurance and finance. These risks can, for example, be economic in nature, or they can carry more technical connotations, such as errors or intrusions, which could be intentional or unintentional. A most natural question arises from the practical point of view: is the given system really affected by these risks? In this paper we offer an algorithm for answering this question, given input-output data and appropriately constructed statistics, which rely on the order statistics of inputs and the concomitants of outputs. Even though the idea is rooted in complex statistical and probabilistic considerations, the algorithm is easy to implement and use in practice, as illustrated using simulated data.

Addressing ethical challenges in HIV prevention research with people who inject drugs

Despite recent advances in HIV prevention and treatment, high HIV incidence persists among people who inject drugs (PWID). Difficult legal and political environments and lack of services for PWID likely contribute to high HIV incidence. Some advocates question whether any HIV prevention research is ethically justified in settings where healthcare system fails to provide basic services to PWID and where implementation of research findings is fraught with political barriers. Ethical challenges in research with PWID include concern about whether research evidence will be translated into practice; concerns that research might exacerbate background risks; and ethical challenges regarding the standard of HIV prevention in research. While these questions arise in other research settings, for research with PWID, these questions are especially controversial. This paper analyses four ethical questions in determining whether research could be ethically acceptable: (1) Can researchers ensure that research does not add to the burden of social harms and poor health experienced by PWID? (2) Should research be conducted in settings where it is uncertain whether research findings will be translated into practice? (3) When best practices in prevention and care are not locally available, what standard of care and prevention is ethically appropriate? (4) Does the conduct of research in settings with oppressive policies constitute complicity? We outline specific criteria to address these four ethical challenges. We also urge researchers to join the call to action for policy change to provide proven safe and effective HIV prevention and harm reduction interventions for PWID around the world.