The Experts below are selected from a list of 250527 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Guy Michaels - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
is Modern Technology responsible for jobless recoveries
The American Economic Review, 2017Co-Authors: Georg Graetz, Guy MichaelsAbstract:Since the early 1990s, recoveries from recessions in the US have been plagued by weak employment growth. We investigate whether a similar problem afflicts other developed economies, and whether Technology is a culprit. We study recoveries from 71 recessions in 28 industries and 17 countries from 1970-2011. We find that though GDP recovered more slowly after recent recessions, employment did not. Industries that used more routine tasks, and those more exposed to robotization, did not recently experience slower employment recoveries. Finally, middle-skill employment did not recover more slowly after recent recessions, and this pattern was no different in routine-intensive industries.
-
is Modern Technology responsible for jobless recoveries
LSE Research Online Documents on Economics, 2017Co-Authors: Georg Graetz, Guy MichaelsAbstract:Since the early 1990s, recoveries from recessions in the US have been plagued by weak employment growth. One possible explanation for these "jobless" recoveries is rooted in technological change: middle-skill jobs, often involving routine tasks, are lost during recessions, and the displaced workers take time to transition into other jobs (Jaimovich and Siu, 2014). But technological replacement of middle-skill workers is not unique to the US – it also takes place in other developed countries (Goos, Manning, and Salomons, 2014). So if jobless recoveries in the US are due to Technology, we might expect to also see them elsewhere in the developed world. We test this possibility using data on recoveries from 71 recessions in 28 industries and 17 countries from 1970-2011. We find that though GDP recovered more slowly after recent recessions, employment did not. Industries that used more routine tasks, and those more exposed to robotization, did not recently experience slower employment recoveries. Finally, middle-skill employment did not recover more slowly after recent recessions, and this pattern was no different in routine-intensive industries. Taken together, this evidence suggests that Technology is not causing jobless recoveries in developed countries outside the US.
Georg Graetz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
is Modern Technology responsible for jobless recoveries
The American Economic Review, 2017Co-Authors: Georg Graetz, Guy MichaelsAbstract:Since the early 1990s, recoveries from recessions in the US have been plagued by weak employment growth. We investigate whether a similar problem afflicts other developed economies, and whether Technology is a culprit. We study recoveries from 71 recessions in 28 industries and 17 countries from 1970-2011. We find that though GDP recovered more slowly after recent recessions, employment did not. Industries that used more routine tasks, and those more exposed to robotization, did not recently experience slower employment recoveries. Finally, middle-skill employment did not recover more slowly after recent recessions, and this pattern was no different in routine-intensive industries.
-
is Modern Technology responsible for jobless recoveries
LSE Research Online Documents on Economics, 2017Co-Authors: Georg Graetz, Guy MichaelsAbstract:Since the early 1990s, recoveries from recessions in the US have been plagued by weak employment growth. One possible explanation for these "jobless" recoveries is rooted in technological change: middle-skill jobs, often involving routine tasks, are lost during recessions, and the displaced workers take time to transition into other jobs (Jaimovich and Siu, 2014). But technological replacement of middle-skill workers is not unique to the US – it also takes place in other developed countries (Goos, Manning, and Salomons, 2014). So if jobless recoveries in the US are due to Technology, we might expect to also see them elsewhere in the developed world. We test this possibility using data on recoveries from 71 recessions in 28 industries and 17 countries from 1970-2011. We find that though GDP recovered more slowly after recent recessions, employment did not. Industries that used more routine tasks, and those more exposed to robotization, did not recently experience slower employment recoveries. Finally, middle-skill employment did not recover more slowly after recent recessions, and this pattern was no different in routine-intensive industries. Taken together, this evidence suggests that Technology is not causing jobless recoveries in developed countries outside the US.
David C. Aron - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the adrenal incidentaloma disease of Modern Technology and public health problem
Reviews in Endocrine & Metabolic Disorders, 2001Co-Authors: David C. AronAbstract:: The optimal strategy for evaluation of a patient with an incidentally discovered adrenal mass is unclear and remains controversial. A prospective multi-center randomized (or even non-randomized) trial would go a long way toward resolving the controversies. However, we lack such a study. Review of the literature supports the view that such patients are at somewhat increased risk of morbidity and mortality and this implies a benefit of early diagnosis for at least for some of the disorders. Our ability to accurately determine clinically those at increased risk among the vast majority who are not at increased risk is poor. We therefore rely on biochemical and radiological diagnostic tests, which have their own limitations. Subjecting patients to unnecessary testing and treatment carries its own set of risks. The diagnostic process itself may contribute considerable anxiety, expense, and if invasive cause pain and other morbidity. The harm that occurs as false positive results are pursued has been termed the "cascade effect" [34]. We must avoid the pitfalls of overestimation of disease prevalence and of the benefits of therapy resulting from advances in diagnostic imaging. In the meantime, we must use our best clinical judgement based upon the best available evidence to ensure that we maximize the benefit to those patients with AI who have clinically significant adrenal disorders and minimize the harm to those who do not.
-
INCIDENTALOMAS A Disease of Modern Technology
Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America, 1997Co-Authors: Rita Maria Chidiac, David C. AronAbstract:This article addresses the problems of preclinical or subclinical disease of the adrenal and pituitary glands related to the extensive use of sophisticated diagnostic tools. The diagnostic and management problems faced by endocrinologists in distinguish-ing most benign pituitary and adrenal incidentalomas from other adrenal and pituitary masses, either malignant or hormone secreting, that require further therapy are reviewed. An evidence-based approach is developed that is guided by the answers to the following questions: (1) does an incidental mass put the patient at increased risk for an adverse outcome? (2) can individuals with treatable syndromes be accurately diagnosed? (3) is the treatment of these syndromes more effective in presymptomatic patients? and (4) do the beneficial effects of presymptomatic detection and treatment of these patients justify the costs incurred ? This framework is used to discuss incidentalomas with recognition of the controversies that surround their management.
-
incidentalomas a disease of Modern Technology
Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America, 1997Co-Authors: Rita Maria Chidiac, David C. AronAbstract:The optimal strategy for hormonal screening of a patient with any incidentally discovered adrenal or pituitary mass is unknown. Our review of the endocrinologic literature supports the view that such patients are at slightly increased risk for morbidity and mortality. There is a benefit of early diagnosis for at least for some of the disorders, suggesting the importance of case finding. The data in Tables 1 and 4 illustrate that clinically diagnosed hormone-secreting adrenal and pituitary tumors are far less common than incidentalomas. From a clinical perspective, our ability to determine accurately those at increased risk among the vast majority who are not at increased risk is poor. Given the limitations of diagnostic tests, effective hormonal screening requires a sufficiently high pretest probability to limit the number of false-positive results. This condition is met to varying degrees in the patient with an adrenal mass or small incidentally discovered pituitary mass but no signs or symptoms of hormone excess. Even the more common lesions such as pheochromocytoma and prolactinoma are relatively rare. Subjecting patients to unnecessary testing and treatment carries its own set of risks. Initial costs aside, testing may result in further expense and harm as false-positive results are pursued, producing the cascade effect described by Mold and Stein as a "chain of events (which) tends to proceed with increasing momentum, so that the further it progresses the more difficult it is to stop." The extensive evaluations performed in some patients with incidentally discovered masses may reflect the unwillingness of many physicians to accept uncertainty, even in the case of extremely unlikely diagnoses. This unwillingness may be driven, in part, by fear of potential malpractice liability, the failure to appreciate the influence of prevalence data on the interpretation of diagnostic testing, or other factors. Indeed, the major justification for further evaluation of these patients is not so much to avoid morbidity and mortality for rate patients who truly are at increased risk but rather to reassure those in whom further testing is negative (and to reassure ourselves). Physicians must take care not to create inappropriate anxiety in patients by overemphasizing the importance of an incidental finding unless it is associated with a realistic clinical risk. Our recommendations utilize currently available information to minimize the untoward effects of the cascade. As evidence accumulates, recommendations may need to be revised. The benefit of diagnosis of one of these adrenal or pituitary disorders must be considered in the context of the patient's overall condition. Studies are needed to analyze the utility in clinical practice of hormonal screening for these common radiologic findings. We need to use these studies to identify the critical gaps in our knowledge and to adopt the epidemiologic methods of evaluation of evidence that have been applied to preventive measures. We must be careful to recognize lead-time bias in which survival can seem to be lengthened when screening simply advances the time of diagnosis, lengthening the period of time between diagnosis and death without any true prolongation of life. Length bias refers to the tendency of screening to detect a disproportionate number of cases of slowly progressive disease and to miss aggressive cases that, by virtue of rapid progression, are present in the population only briefly. Endocrinologists must avoid the pitfalls of overestimation of disease prevalence and of the benefits of therapy resulting from advances in diagnostic imaging. Clinical judgment based on the best available evidence should be complemented and not replaced by laboratory data.
T E Graedel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
deriving the metal and alloy networks of Modern Technology
Environmental Science & Technology, 2016Co-Authors: Hajime Ohno, Philip Nuss, Wei-qiang Chen, T E GraedelAbstract:Metals have strongly contributed to the development of the human society. Today, large amounts of and various metals are utilized in a wide variety of products. Metals are rarely used individually but mostly together with other metals in the form of alloys and/or other combinational uses. This study reveals the intersectoral flows of metals by means of input-output (IO) based material flow analysis (MFA). Using the 2007 United States IO table, we calculate the flows of eight metals (i.e., manganese, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, niobium, vanadium, tungsten, and cobalt) and simultaneously visualize them as a network. We quantify the interrelationship of metals by means of flow path sharing. Furthermore, by looking at the flows of alloys into metal networks, the networks of the major metals iron, aluminum, and copper together with those of the eight alloying metals can be categorized into alloyed-, nonalloyed-(i.e., individual), and both mixed. The result shows that most metals are used primarily in alloy f...
-
the omnivorous diet of Modern Technology
Resources Conservation and Recycling, 2013Co-Authors: Aaron Greenfield, T E GraedelAbstract:Abstract Two centuries ago the diet of Technology (the diversity of materials utilized) consisted largely of natural materials and a few metals. A century later, the diversity in the diet had expanded to perhaps a dozen materials in common use. In contrast, today's Technology employs nearly every material in the periodic table, a behavior illustrated in this paper by the material evolution of electronics, medical Technology, and the jet engine. Geological deposits in a given country or region tend to have only minimal to moderate elemental diversity, however. As a result, an extensive and diverse metal trade is required if Modern Technology is to be sustained. Some recent industry responses to elemental scarcity and implications for corporate and governmental policy are discussed.
Rita Maria Chidiac - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
INCIDENTALOMAS A Disease of Modern Technology
Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America, 1997Co-Authors: Rita Maria Chidiac, David C. AronAbstract:This article addresses the problems of preclinical or subclinical disease of the adrenal and pituitary glands related to the extensive use of sophisticated diagnostic tools. The diagnostic and management problems faced by endocrinologists in distinguish-ing most benign pituitary and adrenal incidentalomas from other adrenal and pituitary masses, either malignant or hormone secreting, that require further therapy are reviewed. An evidence-based approach is developed that is guided by the answers to the following questions: (1) does an incidental mass put the patient at increased risk for an adverse outcome? (2) can individuals with treatable syndromes be accurately diagnosed? (3) is the treatment of these syndromes more effective in presymptomatic patients? and (4) do the beneficial effects of presymptomatic detection and treatment of these patients justify the costs incurred ? This framework is used to discuss incidentalomas with recognition of the controversies that surround their management.
-
incidentalomas a disease of Modern Technology
Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics of North America, 1997Co-Authors: Rita Maria Chidiac, David C. AronAbstract:The optimal strategy for hormonal screening of a patient with any incidentally discovered adrenal or pituitary mass is unknown. Our review of the endocrinologic literature supports the view that such patients are at slightly increased risk for morbidity and mortality. There is a benefit of early diagnosis for at least for some of the disorders, suggesting the importance of case finding. The data in Tables 1 and 4 illustrate that clinically diagnosed hormone-secreting adrenal and pituitary tumors are far less common than incidentalomas. From a clinical perspective, our ability to determine accurately those at increased risk among the vast majority who are not at increased risk is poor. Given the limitations of diagnostic tests, effective hormonal screening requires a sufficiently high pretest probability to limit the number of false-positive results. This condition is met to varying degrees in the patient with an adrenal mass or small incidentally discovered pituitary mass but no signs or symptoms of hormone excess. Even the more common lesions such as pheochromocytoma and prolactinoma are relatively rare. Subjecting patients to unnecessary testing and treatment carries its own set of risks. Initial costs aside, testing may result in further expense and harm as false-positive results are pursued, producing the cascade effect described by Mold and Stein as a "chain of events (which) tends to proceed with increasing momentum, so that the further it progresses the more difficult it is to stop." The extensive evaluations performed in some patients with incidentally discovered masses may reflect the unwillingness of many physicians to accept uncertainty, even in the case of extremely unlikely diagnoses. This unwillingness may be driven, in part, by fear of potential malpractice liability, the failure to appreciate the influence of prevalence data on the interpretation of diagnostic testing, or other factors. Indeed, the major justification for further evaluation of these patients is not so much to avoid morbidity and mortality for rate patients who truly are at increased risk but rather to reassure those in whom further testing is negative (and to reassure ourselves). Physicians must take care not to create inappropriate anxiety in patients by overemphasizing the importance of an incidental finding unless it is associated with a realistic clinical risk. Our recommendations utilize currently available information to minimize the untoward effects of the cascade. As evidence accumulates, recommendations may need to be revised. The benefit of diagnosis of one of these adrenal or pituitary disorders must be considered in the context of the patient's overall condition. Studies are needed to analyze the utility in clinical practice of hormonal screening for these common radiologic findings. We need to use these studies to identify the critical gaps in our knowledge and to adopt the epidemiologic methods of evaluation of evidence that have been applied to preventive measures. We must be careful to recognize lead-time bias in which survival can seem to be lengthened when screening simply advances the time of diagnosis, lengthening the period of time between diagnosis and death without any true prolongation of life. Length bias refers to the tendency of screening to detect a disproportionate number of cases of slowly progressive disease and to miss aggressive cases that, by virtue of rapid progression, are present in the population only briefly. Endocrinologists must avoid the pitfalls of overestimation of disease prevalence and of the benefits of therapy resulting from advances in diagnostic imaging. Clinical judgment based on the best available evidence should be complemented and not replaced by laboratory data.
