The Experts below are selected from a list of 665946 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Oreste Tristani - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
model misspecification the equilibrium natural interest rate and the equity premium
Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 2009Co-Authors: Oreste TristaniAbstract:This paper analyzes the natural rate of interest and the equity premium in a nonlinear model where agents are uncertain over both Future Technology growth and the Future course of monetary policy. I show that model uncertainty, and notably uncertainty on the Future course of monetary policy, can give rise to a sizable precautionary savings motive. This result is potentially problematic for both the estimation of the natural rate and its use as a policy indicator. Monetary uncertainty can also contribute to amplify the equity premium, and to account for its apparent, positive link with inflation.
-
model misspecification the equilibrium natural interest rate and the equity premium
Social Science Research Network, 2007Co-Authors: Oreste TristaniAbstract:This paper analyses the determinants of the natural rate of interest in a non-linear model where agents are uncertain over both Future Technology growth and the Future course of monetary policy. I show that the real natural rate can be affected by sizable uncertainty premia, including premia associated with monetary uncertainty. This result is potentially problematic for both the estimation of the natural rate and its use as a policy indicator. Monetary uncertainty can also contribute to amplify the equity premium, and to account for its apparent, positive link with inflation.
-
model misspecification the equilibrium natural interest rate and the equity premium
Research Papers in Economics, 2007Co-Authors: Oreste TristaniAbstract:This paper analyses the determinants of the natural rate of interest in a non-linear model where agents are uncertain over both Future Technology growth and the Future course of monetary policy. I show that the real natural rate can be affected by sizable uncertainty premia, including premia associated with monetary un-certainty. This result is potentially problematic for both the estimation of the natural rate and its use as a policy indicator. Monetary uncertainty can also contribute to amplify the equity premium, and to account for its apparent, positive link with inflation. JEL Classification: E43, G11
Charlotte Blease - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
artificial intelligence and the Future of primary care exploratory qualitative study of uk general practitioners views
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2019Co-Authors: Charlotte Blease, Ted J Kaptchuk, Michael H Bernstein, Kenneth D Mandl, John D Halamka, Catherine M DesrochesAbstract:BACKGROUND The potential for machine learning to disrupt the medical profession is the subject of ongoing debate within biomedical informatics and related fields. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to explore general practitioners' (GPs') opinions about the potential impact of Future Technology on key tasks in primary care. METHODS In June 2018, we conducted a Web-based survey of 720 UK GPs' opinions about the likelihood of Future Technology to fully replace GPs in performing 6 key primary care tasks, and, if respondents considered replacement for a particular task likely, to estimate how soon the technological capacity might emerge. This study involved qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to an open-ended question in the survey. RESULTS Comments were classified into 3 major categories in relation to primary care: (1) limitations of Future Technology, (2) potential benefits of Future Technology, and (3) social and ethical concerns. Perceived limitations included the beliefs that communication and empathy are exclusively human competencies; many GPs also considered clinical reasoning and the ability to provide value-based care as necessitating physicians' judgments. Perceived benefits of Technology included expectations about improved efficiencies, in particular with respect to the reduction of administrative burdens on physicians. Social and ethical concerns encompassed multiple, divergent themes including the need to train more doctors to overcome workforce shortfalls and misgivings about the acceptability of Future Technology to patients. However, some GPs believed that the failure to adopt technological innovations could incur harms to both patients and physicians. CONCLUSIONS This study presents timely information on physicians' views about the scope of artificial intelligence (AI) in primary care. Overwhelmingly, GPs considered the potential of AI to be limited. These views differ from the predictions of biomedical informaticians. More extensive, stand-alone qualitative work would provide a more in-depth understanding of GPs' views.
-
computerization and the Future of primary care a survey of general practitioners in the uk
PLOS ONE, 2018Co-Authors: Charlotte Blease, Ted J Kaptchuk, Michael H Bernstein, Kenneth D Mandl, Jens Gaab, Joe Kossowsky, Roger B DavisAbstract:Objective To describe the opinions of British general practitioners regarding the potential of Future Technology to replace key tasks carried out in primary care. Design Cross sectional online survey. Participants 1,474 registered GPs in the United Kingdom. Main outcome measures Investigators measured GPs’ opinions about the likelihood that Future Technology will be able to fully replace–not merely aid–the average GP in performing six primary care tasks; in addition, if GPs considered replacement for a particular task likely, the survey measured opinions about how many years from now this technological capacity might emerge. Results A total of 720 (49%) responded to the survey. Most GPs believed it unlikely that Technology will ever be able to fully replace physicians when it comes to diagnosing patients (489, 68%), referring patients to other specialists (444, 61%), formulating personalized treatment plans (441, 61%), and delivering empathic care (680, 94%). GPs were not in agreement about prognostics: one in two participants (380, 53%) considered it likely that Technology will be fully capable of replacing physicians in performing this task, nearly half (187, 49%) of whom believed that the technological capacity will arise in the next ten years. Against these findings, the majority of GPs (578, 80%) believed it likely that Future Technology will be able to fully replace humans to undertake documentation; among them 261 (79%) estimated that the technological wherewithal would emerge during the next ten years. In general, age and gender were not correlated with opinions; nor was reported burnout and job satisfaction or whether GPs worked full time or part time. Conclusions The majority of UK GPs in this survey were skeptical about the potential for Future Technology to perform most primary care tasks as well as or better than humans. However, respondents were optimistic that in the near Future Technology would have the capacity to fully replace GPs’ in undertaking administrative duties related to patient documentation.
Rene A Rozendal - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
towards practical implementation of bioelectrochemical wastewater treatment
Trends in Biotechnology, 2008Co-Authors: Hubertus V M Hamelers, Rene A Rozendal, Jurg Keller, Korneel Rabaey, Cees J.n. BuismanAbstract:Bioelectrochemical systems (BESs), such as microbial fuel cells (MFCs) and microbial electrolysis cells (MECs), are generally regarded as a promising Future Technology for the production of energy from organic material present in wastewaters. The current densities that can be generated with laboratory BESs now approach levels that come close to the requirements for practical applications. However, full-scale implementation of bioelectrochemical wastewater treatment is not straightforward because certain microbiological, technological and economic challenges need to be resolved that have not previously been encountered in any other wastewater treatment system. Here, we identify these challenges, provide an overview of their implications for the feasibility of bioelectrochemical wastewater treatment and explore the opportunities for Future BESs.
Kenneth D Mandl - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
artificial intelligence and the Future of primary care exploratory qualitative study of uk general practitioners views
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2019Co-Authors: Charlotte Blease, Ted J Kaptchuk, Michael H Bernstein, Kenneth D Mandl, John D Halamka, Catherine M DesrochesAbstract:BACKGROUND The potential for machine learning to disrupt the medical profession is the subject of ongoing debate within biomedical informatics and related fields. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to explore general practitioners' (GPs') opinions about the potential impact of Future Technology on key tasks in primary care. METHODS In June 2018, we conducted a Web-based survey of 720 UK GPs' opinions about the likelihood of Future Technology to fully replace GPs in performing 6 key primary care tasks, and, if respondents considered replacement for a particular task likely, to estimate how soon the technological capacity might emerge. This study involved qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to an open-ended question in the survey. RESULTS Comments were classified into 3 major categories in relation to primary care: (1) limitations of Future Technology, (2) potential benefits of Future Technology, and (3) social and ethical concerns. Perceived limitations included the beliefs that communication and empathy are exclusively human competencies; many GPs also considered clinical reasoning and the ability to provide value-based care as necessitating physicians' judgments. Perceived benefits of Technology included expectations about improved efficiencies, in particular with respect to the reduction of administrative burdens on physicians. Social and ethical concerns encompassed multiple, divergent themes including the need to train more doctors to overcome workforce shortfalls and misgivings about the acceptability of Future Technology to patients. However, some GPs believed that the failure to adopt technological innovations could incur harms to both patients and physicians. CONCLUSIONS This study presents timely information on physicians' views about the scope of artificial intelligence (AI) in primary care. Overwhelmingly, GPs considered the potential of AI to be limited. These views differ from the predictions of biomedical informaticians. More extensive, stand-alone qualitative work would provide a more in-depth understanding of GPs' views.
-
computerization and the Future of primary care a survey of general practitioners in the uk
PLOS ONE, 2018Co-Authors: Charlotte Blease, Ted J Kaptchuk, Michael H Bernstein, Kenneth D Mandl, Jens Gaab, Joe Kossowsky, Roger B DavisAbstract:Objective To describe the opinions of British general practitioners regarding the potential of Future Technology to replace key tasks carried out in primary care. Design Cross sectional online survey. Participants 1,474 registered GPs in the United Kingdom. Main outcome measures Investigators measured GPs’ opinions about the likelihood that Future Technology will be able to fully replace–not merely aid–the average GP in performing six primary care tasks; in addition, if GPs considered replacement for a particular task likely, the survey measured opinions about how many years from now this technological capacity might emerge. Results A total of 720 (49%) responded to the survey. Most GPs believed it unlikely that Technology will ever be able to fully replace physicians when it comes to diagnosing patients (489, 68%), referring patients to other specialists (444, 61%), formulating personalized treatment plans (441, 61%), and delivering empathic care (680, 94%). GPs were not in agreement about prognostics: one in two participants (380, 53%) considered it likely that Technology will be fully capable of replacing physicians in performing this task, nearly half (187, 49%) of whom believed that the technological capacity will arise in the next ten years. Against these findings, the majority of GPs (578, 80%) believed it likely that Future Technology will be able to fully replace humans to undertake documentation; among them 261 (79%) estimated that the technological wherewithal would emerge during the next ten years. In general, age and gender were not correlated with opinions; nor was reported burnout and job satisfaction or whether GPs worked full time or part time. Conclusions The majority of UK GPs in this survey were skeptical about the potential for Future Technology to perform most primary care tasks as well as or better than humans. However, respondents were optimistic that in the near Future Technology would have the capacity to fully replace GPs’ in undertaking administrative duties related to patient documentation.
Catherine M Desroches - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
artificial intelligence and the Future of primary care exploratory qualitative study of uk general practitioners views
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2019Co-Authors: Charlotte Blease, Ted J Kaptchuk, Michael H Bernstein, Kenneth D Mandl, John D Halamka, Catherine M DesrochesAbstract:BACKGROUND The potential for machine learning to disrupt the medical profession is the subject of ongoing debate within biomedical informatics and related fields. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to explore general practitioners' (GPs') opinions about the potential impact of Future Technology on key tasks in primary care. METHODS In June 2018, we conducted a Web-based survey of 720 UK GPs' opinions about the likelihood of Future Technology to fully replace GPs in performing 6 key primary care tasks, and, if respondents considered replacement for a particular task likely, to estimate how soon the technological capacity might emerge. This study involved qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to an open-ended question in the survey. RESULTS Comments were classified into 3 major categories in relation to primary care: (1) limitations of Future Technology, (2) potential benefits of Future Technology, and (3) social and ethical concerns. Perceived limitations included the beliefs that communication and empathy are exclusively human competencies; many GPs also considered clinical reasoning and the ability to provide value-based care as necessitating physicians' judgments. Perceived benefits of Technology included expectations about improved efficiencies, in particular with respect to the reduction of administrative burdens on physicians. Social and ethical concerns encompassed multiple, divergent themes including the need to train more doctors to overcome workforce shortfalls and misgivings about the acceptability of Future Technology to patients. However, some GPs believed that the failure to adopt technological innovations could incur harms to both patients and physicians. CONCLUSIONS This study presents timely information on physicians' views about the scope of artificial intelligence (AI) in primary care. Overwhelmingly, GPs considered the potential of AI to be limited. These views differ from the predictions of biomedical informaticians. More extensive, stand-alone qualitative work would provide a more in-depth understanding of GPs' views.
