The Experts below are selected from a list of 4842 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ricardo Zico - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
an integrated criteria Weighting framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014Co-Authors: Joseph Iwaro, Rupert G. Williams, Abrahams Mwasha, Ricardo ZicoAbstract:Weighting and selection of criteria for the sustainable performance assessment of building envelope are onerous process for building designers, since the process needs to be carefully undertaken in order to adequately assess the sustainable performance of the building envelope. However, the process of selecting performance criteria and Weighting the importance of these criteria for the assessment of the building envelope sustainable performance is both challenging and technically complex. A lot of multi-criteria aggregating methods have been developed, many of which require appropriate criteria and weights to evaluate sustainable performance. Some of these methods lack quantitative Weighting mechanism while some lack Subjective Weighting mechanism. Since the weight plays a major role in ranking, assessing and selection of the sustainable envelope design, this paper presents an Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework incorporated into an Integrated Performance Model (IPM) for determining integrated weight for criteria involve in assessing the sustainable performance and selecting a sustainable envelope design. On the basis of the numerical findings, this study concludes that the proposed framework can successfully address the problem of criteria Weighting and assessing the building envelope sustainable performance towards achieving building sustainability.
Yuefen Gao - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
application of improved grey relational projection method to evaluate sustainable building envelope performance
Applied Energy, 2010Co-Authors: Guozhong Zheng, Youyin Jing, Hongxia Huang, Yuefen GaoAbstract:Buildings are energy gluttons. Improving thermal performance of building envelopes will reduce energy consumption in buildings. The development of advanced building envelope systems reducing energy losses is a critical research frontier. This study introduces a simple but reliable methodology for building envelope evaluation and optimization in the conceptual stage. An improved grey relational projection method is proposed to select the optimum building envelope alternative. A combination Weighting method combining the Subjective Weighting method and the objective Weighting method is adopted to calculate the weights of the factors and sub-factors. The relative projection values of the alternatives are calculated. And the optimum alternative is obtained. An example is given to demonstrate the proposed method. Finally the proposed method is verified. The results show that this method is simple and practical, and it has potential as a powerful tool in building envelope evaluation and optimization for building owners, manufacturers, designers, and evaluators.
Dennis W Raisch - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a review of quantitative risk benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy report of the ispor risk benefit management working group
Value in Health, 2010Co-Authors: Jeff J Guo, Swapnil Pandey, John Doyle, B Bian, Yvonne Lis, Dennis W RaischAbstract:Objective: Although regulatory authorities evaluate the risks and benefits of any new drug therapy during the new drug-approval process, quantitative risk–benefit assessment (RBA) is not typically performed, nor is it presented in a consistent and integrated framework when it is used. Our purpose is to identify and describe published quantitative RBA methods for pharmaceuticals. Methods: Using MEDLINE and other Internet-based search engines, a systematic literature review was performed to identify quantitative methodologies for RBA. These distinct RBA approaches were summarized to highlight the implications of their differences for the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies. Results: Theoretical models, parameters, and key features were reviewed and compared for the 12 quantitative RBA methods identified in the literature, including the Quantitative Framework for Risk and Benefit Assessment, benefit-less-risk analysis, the quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity, number needed to treat (NNT), and number needed to harm and their relative-value-adjusted versions, minimum clinical efficacy, incremental net health benefit, the risk–benefit plane (RBP), the probabilistic simulation method, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), the risk–benefit contour (RBC), and the stated preference method (SPM). Whereas some approaches (e.g., NNT) rely on Subjective Weighting schemes or nonstatistical assessments, other methods (e.g., RBP, MCDA, RBC, and SPM) assess joint distributions of benefit and risk. Conclusions: Several quantitative RBA methods are available that could be used to help lessen concern over Subjective drug assessments and to help guide authorities toward more objective and transparent decision-making. When evaluating a new drug therapy, we recommend the use of multiple RBA approaches across different therapeutic indications and treatment populations in order to bound the risk–benefit profile.
John Doyle - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a review of quantitative risk benefit methodologies for assessing drug safety and efficacy report of the ispor risk benefit management working group
Value in Health, 2010Co-Authors: Jeff J Guo, Swapnil Pandey, John Doyle, B Bian, Yvonne Lis, Dennis W RaischAbstract:Objective: Although regulatory authorities evaluate the risks and benefits of any new drug therapy during the new drug-approval process, quantitative risk–benefit assessment (RBA) is not typically performed, nor is it presented in a consistent and integrated framework when it is used. Our purpose is to identify and describe published quantitative RBA methods for pharmaceuticals. Methods: Using MEDLINE and other Internet-based search engines, a systematic literature review was performed to identify quantitative methodologies for RBA. These distinct RBA approaches were summarized to highlight the implications of their differences for the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies. Results: Theoretical models, parameters, and key features were reviewed and compared for the 12 quantitative RBA methods identified in the literature, including the Quantitative Framework for Risk and Benefit Assessment, benefit-less-risk analysis, the quality-adjusted time without symptoms and toxicity, number needed to treat (NNT), and number needed to harm and their relative-value-adjusted versions, minimum clinical efficacy, incremental net health benefit, the risk–benefit plane (RBP), the probabilistic simulation method, multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), the risk–benefit contour (RBC), and the stated preference method (SPM). Whereas some approaches (e.g., NNT) rely on Subjective Weighting schemes or nonstatistical assessments, other methods (e.g., RBP, MCDA, RBC, and SPM) assess joint distributions of benefit and risk. Conclusions: Several quantitative RBA methods are available that could be used to help lessen concern over Subjective drug assessments and to help guide authorities toward more objective and transparent decision-making. When evaluating a new drug therapy, we recommend the use of multiple RBA approaches across different therapeutic indications and treatment populations in order to bound the risk–benefit profile.
Joseph Iwaro - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
an integrated criteria Weighting framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2014Co-Authors: Joseph Iwaro, Rupert G. Williams, Abrahams Mwasha, Ricardo ZicoAbstract:Weighting and selection of criteria for the sustainable performance assessment of building envelope are onerous process for building designers, since the process needs to be carefully undertaken in order to adequately assess the sustainable performance of the building envelope. However, the process of selecting performance criteria and Weighting the importance of these criteria for the assessment of the building envelope sustainable performance is both challenging and technically complex. A lot of multi-criteria aggregating methods have been developed, many of which require appropriate criteria and weights to evaluate sustainable performance. Some of these methods lack quantitative Weighting mechanism while some lack Subjective Weighting mechanism. Since the weight plays a major role in ranking, assessing and selection of the sustainable envelope design, this paper presents an Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework incorporated into an Integrated Performance Model (IPM) for determining integrated weight for criteria involve in assessing the sustainable performance and selecting a sustainable envelope design. On the basis of the numerical findings, this study concludes that the proposed framework can successfully address the problem of criteria Weighting and assessing the building envelope sustainable performance towards achieving building sustainability.
