That's out! How expert umpires make leg-before-wicket judgements in cricket.

Despite evidence that elite-level cricket umpires are highly accurate in making leg-before-wicket (LBW) judgements, there is limited understanding as to how they make these judgements. In this study, we explored the explicit LBW decision-making expertise of elite-level cricket umpires (N = 10) via 10 individual semi-structured interviews. Using thematic analysis, we aimed to identify the sources of information that umpires incorporate into their decision-making process. Results indicated that umpires engage in intentional pre-delivery information-gathering to guide their expectations, and to set context-specific parameters as to what would constitute an LBW dismissal. Not only do umpires use information about the ball trajectory, but they also use additional information about the condition of the pitch, the action-capabilities and susceptibilities of players, and the unique requirements of different match formats. Umpires reported employing a gaze-anchor strategy when gathering information for each delivery and described the process of this information as initially intuitive, before engaging in deeper post-hoc reasoning. Findings highlight the importance of including contextual information when exploring officials' decisions and may inform future training interventions for cricket umpires.

Dialect identification, intelligibility ratings, and acceptability ratings of dysarthric speech in two American English dialects.

The current study explored the intelligibility and acceptability ratings of dysarthric speakers with African American English (AAE) and General American English (GAE) dialects by listeners who identify as GAE or AAE speakers, as well as listener ability to identify dialect in dysarthric speech. Eighty-six listeners rated the intelligibility and acceptability of sentences extracted from a passage read by speakers with dysarthria. Samples were used from the Atlanta Motor Speech Disorders Corpus and ratings were collected via self-report. The listeners identified speaker dialect in a forced-choice format. Listeners self-reported their dialect and exposure to AAE. AAE dialect was accurately identified in 63.43% of the the opportunities; GAE dialect was accurately identified in 70.35% of the opportunities. Listeners identifying as AAE speakers rated GAE speech as more acceptable, whereas, listeners identifying as GAE speakers rated AAE speech as more acceptable. Neither group of listeners demonstrated a difference in intelligibility ratings. Exposure to AAE had no effect on intelligibility or acceptability ratings. Listeners can identify dialect (AAE and GAE) with a better than chance degree of accuracy. One's dialect may have an effect on intelligibility and acceptability ratings. Exposure to a dialect did not affect listener ratings of intelligibility or acceptability.

Bringing platform trials closer to reality by enabling with digital research environment (DRE) connectivity.

Platform trials are generally regarded as an innovative approach to address clinical valuation of early stage candidates, regardless of modality as the evidence evolves. As a type of randomized clinical trial (RCT) design construct in which multiple interventions are evaluated concurrently against a common control group allowing new interventions to be added and the control group to be updated throughout the trial, they provide a dynamic and efficient mechanism to compare and potentially discriminate new treatment candidates. Their recent use in the evaluation of new therapies for COVID-19 has spurred new interest in the approach. The paucity of platform trials is less influenced by the novelty and operational requirements as opposed to concerns regarding the sharing of intellectual property (IP) and the lack of infrastructure to operationalize the conduct in the context of IP and data sharing. We provide a mechanism how this can be accomplished through the use of a digital research environment (DRE) providing a safe and secure platform for clinical researchers, quantitative and physician scientists to analyze and develop tools (e.g., models) on sensitive data with the confidence that the data and models developed are protected. A DRE, in this context, expands on the concept of a trusted research environment (TRE) by providing remote access to data alongside tools for analysis in a securely controlled workspace, while allowing data and tools to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR), version-controlled, and dynamically grow in size or quality as a result of each treatment evaluated in the trial.

Evaluating the management of anaphylaxis in US emergency departments: Guidelines vs. practice / 世界急诊医学杂志（英文）

@#BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is characterized by acute episodes of potentially life-threatening symptoms that are often treated in the emergency setting. Current guidelines recommend: 1) quick diagnosis using standard criteria; 2) first-line treatment with epinephrine; and 3) discharge with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector, written instructions regarding long-term management, and a referral (preferably, allergy) for follow-up. However, studies suggest low concordance with guideline recommendations by emergency medicine (EM) providers. The study aimed to evaluate how emergency departments (EDs) in the United States (US) manage anaphylaxis in relation to guideline recommendations. METHODS: This was an online anonymous survey of a random sample of EM health providers in US EDs. RESULTS: Data analysis included 207 EM providers. For respondent EDs, approximately 9%reported using agreed-upon clinical criteria to diagnose anaphylaxis; 42% reported administering epinephrine in the ED for most anaphylaxis episodes; and <50% provided patients with a prescription for an epinephrine auto-injector and/or an allergist referral on discharge. Most provided some written materials, and follow-up with a primary care clinician was recommended. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first cross-sectional survey to provide "real-world" data showing that practice in US EDs is discordant with current guideline recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and fol ow-up of patients with anaphylaxis. The primary gaps are low (or no) utilization of standard criteria for defining anaphylaxis and inconsistent use of epinephrine. Prospective research is recommended.