Results for “Risk” — Page 18

NASA NTRS2015

Evidence Report: Risk of Cardiovascular Disease and Other Degenerative Tissue Effects from Radiation Exposure

Occupational radiation exposure from the space environment may result in non-cancer or non-CNS degenerative tissue diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, cataracts, and respiratory or digestive diseases. However, the magnitude of influence and mechanisms of action of radiation leading to these diseases are not well characterized. Radiation and synergistic effects of radiation cause DNA damage, persistent oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, and accelerated tissue aging and degeneration, which may lead to acute or chronic disease of susceptible organ tissues. In particular, cardiovascular pathologies such as atherosclerosis are of major concern following gamma-ray exposure. This provides evidence for possible degenerative tissue effects following exposures to ionizing radiation in the form of the GCR or SPEs expected during long-duration spaceflight. However, the existence of low dose thresholds and dose-rate and radiation quality effects, as well as mechanisms and major risk pathways, are not well-characterized. Degenerative disease risks are difficult to assess because multiple factors, including radiation, are believed to play a role in the etiology of the diseases. As additional evidence is pointing to lower, space-relevant thresholds for these degenerative effects, particularly for cardiovascular disease, additional research with cell and animal studies is required to quantify the magnitude of this risk, understand mechanisms, and determine if additional protection strategies are required.The NASA PEL (Permissive Exposure Limit)s for cataract and cardiovascular risks are based on existing human epidemiology data. Although animal and clinical astronaut data show a significant increase in cataracts following exposure and a reassessment of atomic bomb (A-bomb) data suggests an increase in cardiovascular disease from radiation exposure, additional research is required to fully understand and quantify these adverse outcomes at lower doses (less than 0.5 gray (SI unit for ionizing radiation dosage, i.e. one joule of radiation energy per one kilogram of matter)) to facilitate risk prediction. This risk has considerable uncertainty associated with it, and no acceptable model for projecting degenerative tissue risk is currently available. In particular, risk factors such as obesity, alcohol, and tobacco use can act as confounding factors that contribute to the large uncertainties. The PELs could be violated under certain scenarios, including following a large SPE (solar proton event) or long-term GCR (galactic cosmic ray) exposure. Specifically, for a Mars mission, the accumulated dose is sufficiently high that epidemiology data and preliminary risk estimates suggest a significant risk for cardiovascular disease. Ongoing research in this area is intended to provide the evidence base for accurate risk quantification to determine criticality for extended duration missions. Data specific to the space radiation environment must be compiled to quantify the magnitude of this risk to decrease the uncertainty in current PELs and to determine if additional protection strategies are required. New research results could lead to estimates of cumulative radiation risk from CNS and degenerative tissue diseases that, when combined with the cancer risk, may have major negative impacts on mission design, costs, schedule, and crew selection. The current report amends an earlier report (Human Research Program Requirements Document, HRP-47052, Rev. C, dated Jan 2009) in order to provide an update of evidence since 2009.

Patel, Zarana↗

NASA NTRS2022

Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, and Psychosocial Adaptions within a Team

The Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, Communication, and Psychosocial Adaptation within a Team (the Team Risk) is primarily performance-focused, with a secondary emphasis on behavioral health outcomes resulting from team performance and interpersonal interactions. Monitoring tools, measures, and countermeasures are aimed at enhancing team processes and team composition configurations to optimize team performance and functioning. Long-duration exploration missions (LDEMs) will include major challenges that could affect team performance, including social isolation, physical confinement, a small and diverse crew, communication delays between crew and ground, limited or no crew rotation or evacuation options, limited or no resupply, and a high-consequence environment. Each of these conditions will affect the crew’s coordination, cooperation, psychological well-being, and performance. Although the International Space Station (ISS) remains important for studies that require spaceflight testing and validation, the current conditions on the ISS do not adequately mimic the exploration environment that is required for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) teams research, and thus access to terrestrial or ground-based analogs of LDEM conditions is paramount. The emphasis on analogs for research is reflected in this updated evidence review of the Team Risk, and includes data from studies conducted at isolated, confined, extreme (ICE) environments (e.g., Antarctic stations), and from several mission simulation analogs such as the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) (HERA Experiment Information Package, 2014), also known as isolated, confined, controlled (ICC) environments. These studies have characterized many team factors regarding LDEMs, and the Team Risk has now matured from risk characterization to focusing more on countermeasure development. Because spaceflight evidence for team-level research is lacking, no reliable data is available to quantify the impact of team-level variables on individual and team-level outcomes during spaceflight missions. Until recently, no systematic attempt had been undertaken to measure the performance effects of team cohesion, team composition, team training, or team-related psychosocial adaptation during spaceflight. The Team Risk is a relatively young research area for NASA, with substantial growth only since the 2000s, and with limited access to spaceflight performance data. As a result, spaceflight evidence is lacking to identify specifically what team composition, level of training, amount of cohesion, or quality of psychosocial adaptation is necessary to reduce the risk of performance errors in space. However, astronaut journals and interviews and reports from spaceflight subject matter experts (SMEs) provide testimonies that team performance during spaceflight is important for mission success and to maintain crew health. Team spaceflight data is now being collected as part of the Spaceflight Standard Measures task (Clement, 2021)—a set of core measurements related to many human spaceflight risks that are collected from astronauts before, during, and after long-duration missions. The team-related standard measures focus on team cohesion, team performance, group living, team climate, and team processes. Collection of standard measures data is ongoing and published data is not yet available. Finally, although spaceflight evidence is lacking, evidence gleaned from ground studies and spaceflight analog studies will help close the gaps outlined in the Team Risk. Ground-based studies provide quantitative evidence for team functioning in ICE environments. Academic research on teams has produced dozens of meta-analyses that can be used to understand the general relationships among team inputs (e.g., team member characteristics and skills, job context), team processes, and emergent states (e.g., coordination, communication, cooperation, cohesion, trust, shared cognition), and team outcomes (e.g., effectiveness, errors, adaptation). Teams are complex, incorporating individual characteristics of team members, but also existing at a level that is greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore, the Team Risk must be integrated with other individual-focused NASA Human Research Program (HRP) risks, including Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Sleep, and Human-Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA), and emerging research indicates more integration may needed between the Team Risk and the physiologically oriented risks. Much of this integration occurs through the Human Systems Risk Board (HSRB). A lack of team functioning may be a stressor in some circumstances, but the team often acts as a countermeasure. For example, support for team leaders and teammates can facilitate individual functioning and encourage psychological and physically healthy behaviors and attitudes. However, more research is needed regarding teams during LDEMs and the remaining gaps in the research are described in the current report.

Lauren Blackwell Landon↗

DOE OSTI2016

Human Health and Environmental Risks Posed by Synthetic Biology R&D for Energy Applications: A Literature Analysis

What are the human health and environmental risks posed by synthetic biology research and development (R&D) for energy applications? In this study, we found it surprisingly difficult to answer this seemingly straightforward question in our review of the risk-related synthetic biology literature. To our knowledge, no entity to date has published a comprehensive review of this literature. Thus, this analysis aims to fill that void and, at a high level, answer the question that we pose. Risk-related synthetic biology literature addresses risk from different perspectives. Much of the literature that we reviewed treats the concept of risk in synthetic biology R&D broadly, enumerating few specific risks. Nevertheless, after reviewing >200 documents, we identified 44 discrete risk issues; 18 of those related to human health and 26 to the environment. We clustered these risk issues into categories that reflect and summarize their content. We categorized human health risk issues as follows: allergies, antibiotic resistance, carcinogens, and pathogenicity or toxicity. Environmental risk issues were categorized as follows: change or depletion of the environment, competition with native species, horizontal gene transfer, and pathogenicity or toxicity. Our efforts to understand what the synthetic biology R&D-related risk issues are stemmed from a larger research project in which we used risk issues identified in the literature as a point of departure in interviews with biosafety professionals and scientists engaged in synthetic biology R&D. Finally, we wrote this article after multiple biosafety professionals told us that accessing our risk-related literature analysis would aid them in their work.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

PacWave South SeaRAY k2 Risk Registers

The SeaRAY is a deployable power system for maritime sensors, monitoring equipment, communications, unmanned underwater vehicles, and other similar payloads. This project is to design, deliver, and test a prototype low-power WEC that lowers the total cost of ownership and provides robust, new capabilities for customers in the maritime environment. Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) is conducted to systematically identify all potential failure modes and their effects on the system, and to analyze the criticality of each risk based on the likelihood of the event and the severity of the impact. Actions may then be recommended to mitigate the criticality of a risk, either by reducing the likelihood of the risk or the severity of its impact. Risk assessment is executed iteratively as an integral part of the design process. By incorporating risk assessment early in the development cycle, mitigation of risk can be achieved cost effectively. The actions recommended to mitigate risk may be subsequently executed, and as the design progresses the risk assessment is reviewed and revised. Review of the risk assessment is integrated into structured design reviews, ensuring that critical risks are comprehended and that the Project will not progress to e.g. fabrication while intolerable risks remain. The risk assessment process results in the population and maintenance of Risk Registers (RRs). Each major system (and as needed, subsystem) will have a distinct RR. This allows each system or subsystem to be assessed individually, rendering the RRs to a manageable size for review.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-B-BRC-00: Concepts in Risk-Based Assessment

Prospective quality management techniques, long used by engineering and industry, have become a growing aspect of efforts to improve quality management and safety in healthcare. These techniques are of particular interest to medical physics as scope and complexity of clinical practice continue to grow, thus making the prescriptive methods we have used harder to apply and potentially less effective for our interconnected and highly complex healthcare enterprise, especially in imaging and radiation oncology. An essential part of most prospective methods is the need to assess the various risks associated with problems, failures, errors, and design flaws in our systems. We therefore begin with an overview of risk assessment methodologies used in healthcare and industry and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. The rationale for use of process mapping, failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) and fault tree analysis (FTA) by TG-100 will be described, as well as suggestions for the way forward. This is followed by discussion of radiation oncology specific risk assessment strategies and issues, including the TG-100 effort to evaluate IMRT and other ways to think about risk in the context of radiotherapy. Incident learning systems, local as well as the ASTRO/AAPM ROILS system, can also be useful in the risk assessment process. Finally, risk in the context of medical imaging will be discussed. Radiation (and other) safety considerations, as well as lack of quality and certainty all contribute to the potential risks associated with suboptimal imaging. The goal of this session is to summarize a wide variety of risk analysis methods and issues to give the medical physicist access to tools which can better define risks (and their importance) which we work to mitigate with both prescriptive and prospective risk-based quality management methods. Learning Objectives: Description of risk assessment methodologies used in healthcare and industry Discussion of radiation oncology-specific risk assessment strategies and issues Evaluation of risk in the context of medical imaging and image quality E. Samei: Research grants from Siemens and GE.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-B-BRC-01: Current Methodologies in Risk Assessment

Prospective quality management techniques, long used by engineering and industry, have become a growing aspect of efforts to improve quality management and safety in healthcare. These techniques are of particular interest to medical physics as scope and complexity of clinical practice continue to grow, thus making the prescriptive methods we have used harder to apply and potentially less effective for our interconnected and highly complex healthcare enterprise, especially in imaging and radiation oncology. An essential part of most prospective methods is the need to assess the various risks associated with problems, failures, errors, and design flaws in our systems. We therefore begin with an overview of risk assessment methodologies used in healthcare and industry and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. The rationale for use of process mapping, failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) and fault tree analysis (FTA) by TG-100 will be described, as well as suggestions for the way forward. This is followed by discussion of radiation oncology specific risk assessment strategies and issues, including the TG-100 effort to evaluate IMRT and other ways to think about risk in the context of radiotherapy. Incident learning systems, local as well as the ASTRO/AAPM ROILS system, can also be useful in the risk assessment process. Finally, risk in the context of medical imaging will be discussed. Radiation (and other) safety considerations, as well as lack of quality and certainty all contribute to the potential risks associated with suboptimal imaging. The goal of this session is to summarize a wide variety of risk analysis methods and issues to give the medical physicist access to tools which can better define risks (and their importance) which we work to mitigate with both prescriptive and prospective risk-based quality management methods. Learning Objectives: Description of risk assessment methodologies used in healthcare and industry Discussion of radiation oncology-specific risk assessment strategies and issues Evaluation of risk in the context of medical imaging and image quality E. Samei: Research grants from Siemens and GE.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-B-BRC-02: Risk Analysis and Incident Learning

Prospective quality management techniques, long used by engineering and industry, have become a growing aspect of efforts to improve quality management and safety in healthcare. These techniques are of particular interest to medical physics as scope and complexity of clinical practice continue to grow, thus making the prescriptive methods we have used harder to apply and potentially less effective for our interconnected and highly complex healthcare enterprise, especially in imaging and radiation oncology. An essential part of most prospective methods is the need to assess the various risks associated with problems, failures, errors, and design flaws in our systems. We therefore begin with an overview of risk assessment methodologies used in healthcare and industry and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. The rationale for use of process mapping, failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) and fault tree analysis (FTA) by TG-100 will be described, as well as suggestions for the way forward. This is followed by discussion of radiation oncology specific risk assessment strategies and issues, including the TG-100 effort to evaluate IMRT and other ways to think about risk in the context of radiotherapy. Incident learning systems, local as well as the ASTRO/AAPM ROILS system, can also be useful in the risk assessment process. Finally, risk in the context of medical imaging will be discussed. Radiation (and other) safety considerations, as well as lack of quality and certainty all contribute to the potential risks associated with suboptimal imaging. The goal of this session is to summarize a wide variety of risk analysis methods and issues to give the medical physicist access to tools which can better define risks (and their importance) which we work to mitigate with both prescriptive and prospective risk-based quality management methods. Learning Objectives: Description of risk assessment methodologies used in healthcare and industry Discussion of radiation oncology-specific risk assessment strategies and issues Evaluation of risk in the context of medical imaging and image quality E. Samei: Research grants from Siemens and GE.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2016

WE-B-BRC-03: Risk in the Context of Medical Imaging

Prospective quality management techniques, long used by engineering and industry, have become a growing aspect of efforts to improve quality management and safety in healthcare. These techniques are of particular interest to medical physics as scope and complexity of clinical practice continue to grow, thus making the prescriptive methods we have used harder to apply and potentially less effective for our interconnected and highly complex healthcare enterprise, especially in imaging and radiation oncology. An essential part of most prospective methods is the need to assess the various risks associated with problems, failures, errors, and design flaws in our systems. We therefore begin with an overview of risk assessment methodologies used in healthcare and industry and discuss their strengths and weaknesses. The rationale for use of process mapping, failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) and fault tree analysis (FTA) by TG-100 will be described, as well as suggestions for the way forward. This is followed by discussion of radiation oncology specific risk assessment strategies and issues, including the TG-100 effort to evaluate IMRT and other ways to think about risk in the context of radiotherapy. Incident learning systems, local as well as the ASTRO/AAPM ROILS system, can also be useful in the risk assessment process. Finally, risk in the context of medical imaging will be discussed. Radiation (and other) safety considerations, as well as lack of quality and certainty all contribute to the potential risks associated with suboptimal imaging. The goal of this session is to summarize a wide variety of risk analysis methods and issues to give the medical physicist access to tools which can better define risks (and their importance) which we work to mitigate with both prescriptive and prospective risk-based quality management methods. Learning Objectives: Description of risk assessment methodologies used in healthcare and industry Discussion of radiation oncology-specific risk assessment strategies and issues Evaluation of risk in the context of medical imaging and image quality E. Samei: Research grants from Siemens and GE.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Marine Energy Technology Development Risk Management Framework

Over the past decades, the global marine energy industry has suffered a number of serious technological and commercial setbacks. To help reduce the risks of industry failures and advance the development of new technologies, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) developed a Marine Energy Risk Management Framework in 2015, with this revision published in 2024. This risk management framework shall be utilized on all DOE Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) projects that require system testing in the open water. By addressing uncertainties, the Marine Energy Risk Management Framework increases the likelihood of successful development of marine energy converter technology. It covers projects of any technology readiness level technology performance level (TPL) and all risk types (e.g. technological risk, regulatory risk, commercial risk) over the development cycle. This risk framework is not a substitute for other risk management procedures that may be required for marine operations, such as installations at sea, hoisting and rigging, safe diver operations, and other safety requirements. This risk framework is intended to meet DOE's risk management expectations for marine energy technology research and development efforts from WPTO. It also provides an overview of other relevant risk management tools and documentation.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

NASA NTRS1999

Monte Carlo mixture model of lifetime cancer incidence risk from radiation exposure on shuttle and international space station

Estimating uncertainty in lifetime cancer risk for human exposure to space radiation is a unique challenge. Conventional risk assessment with low-linear-energy-transfer (LET)-based risk from Japanese atomic bomb survivor studies may be inappropriate for relativistic protons and nuclei in space due to track structure effects. This paper develops a Monte Carlo mixture model (MCMM) for transferring additive, National Institutes of Health multiplicative, and multiplicative excess cancer incidence risks based on Japanese atomic bomb survivor data to determine excess incidence risk for various US astronaut exposure profiles. The MCMM serves as an anchor point for future risk projection methods involving biophysical models of DNA damage from space radiation. Lifetime incidence risks of radiation-induced cancer for the MCMM based on low-LET Japanese data for nonleukemia (all cancers except leukemia) were 2.77 (90% confidence limit, 0.75-11.34) for males exposed to 1 Sv at age 45 and 2.20 (90% confidence limit, 0.59-10.12) for males exposed at age 55. For females, mixture model risks for nonleukemia exposed separately to 1 Sv at ages of 45 and 55 were 2.98 (90% confidence limit, 0.90-11.70) and 2.44 (90% confidence limit, 0.70-10.30), respectively. Risks for high-LET 200 MeV protons (LET=0.45 keV/micrometer), 1 MeV alpha-particles (LET=100 keV/micrometer), and 600 MeV iron particles (LET=180 keV/micrometer) were scored on a per particle basis by determining the particle fluence required for an average of one particle per cell nucleus of area 100 micrometer(2). Lifetime risk per proton was 2.68x10(-2)% (90% confidence limit, 0.79x10(-3)%-0. 514x10(-2)%). For alpha-particles, lifetime risk was 14.2% (90% confidence limit, 2.5%-31.2%). Conversely, lifetime risk per iron particle was 23.7% (90% confidence limit, 4.5%-53.0%). Uncertainty in the DDREF for high-LET particles may be less than that for low-LET radiation because typically there is very little dose-rate dependence. Probability density functions for high-LET radiation quality and dose-rate may be preferable to conventional risk assessment approaches. Nuclear reactions and track structure effects in tissue may not be properly estimated by existing data using in vitro models for estimating RBEs. The method used here is being extended to estimate uncertainty in spacecraft shielding effectiveness in various space radiation environments.

NASA Center LaRC↗

NASA NTRS1998

T wave alternans as a predictor of recurrent ventricular tachyarrhythmias in ICD recipients: prospective comparison with conventional risk markers

INTRODUCTION: The current standard for arrhythmic risk stratification is electrophysiologic (EP) testing, which, due to its invasive nature, is limited to patients already known to be at high risk. A number of noninvasive tests, such as determination of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) or heart rate variability, have been evaluated as additional risk stratifiers. Microvolt T wave alternans (TWA) is a promising new risk marker. Prospective evaluation of noninvasive risk markers in low- or moderate-risk populations requires studies involving very large numbers of patients, and in such studies, documentation of the occurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias is difficult. In the present study, we identified a high-risk population, recipients of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), and prospectively compared microvolt TWA with invasive EP testing and other risk markers with respect to their ability to predict recurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias as documented by ICD electrograms. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-five patients with a history of ventricular tachyarrhythmias undergoing implantation of an ICD underwent EP testing, assessment of TWA, as well as determination of LVEF, baroreflex sensitivity, signal-averaged ECG, analysis of 24-hour Holter monitoring, and QT dispersion from the 12-lead surface ECG. The endpoint of the study was first appropriate ICD therapy for electrogram-documented ventricular fibrillation or tachycardia during follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed that TWA (P < 0.006) and LVEF (P < 0.04) were the only significant univariate risk stratifiers. EP testing was not statistically significant (P < 0.2). Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that TWA was the only statistically significant independent risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of microvolt TWA compared favorably with both invasive EP testing and other currently used noninvasive risk assessment methods in predicting recurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in ICD recipients. This study suggests that TWA might also be a powerful tool for risk stratification in low- or moderate-risk patients, and needs to be prospectively evaluated in such populations.

Non-NASA Center↗

NASA NTRS2004

Uncertainties in estimates of the risks of late effects from space radiation

Methods used to project risks in low-Earth orbit are of questionable merit for exploration missions because of the limited radiobiology data and knowledge of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) heavy ions, which causes estimates of the risk of late effects to be highly uncertain. Risk projections involve a product of many biological and physical factors, each of which has a differential range of uncertainty due to lack of data and knowledge. Using the linear-additivity model for radiation risks, we use Monte-Carlo sampling from subjective uncertainty distributions in each factor to obtain an estimate of the overall uncertainty in risk projections. The resulting methodology is applied to several human space exploration mission scenarios including a deep space outpost and Mars missions of duration of 360, 660, and 1000 days. The major results are the quantification of the uncertainties in current risk estimates, the identification of factors that dominate risk projection uncertainties, and the development of a method to quantify candidate approaches to reduce uncertainties or mitigate risks. The large uncertainties in GCR risk projections lead to probability distributions of risk that mask any potential risk reduction using the "optimization" of shielding materials or configurations. In contrast, the design of shielding optimization approaches for solar particle events and trapped protons can be made at this time and promising technologies can be shown to have merit using our approach. The methods used also make it possible to express risk management objectives in terms of quantitative metrics, e.g., the number of days in space without exceeding a given risk level within well-defined confidence limits. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of COSPAR.

Non-NASA Center↗

NASA NTRS2007

Robust Derivation of Risk Reduction Strategies

Effective risk reduction strategies can be derived mechanically given sufficient characterization of the risks present in the system and the effectiveness of available risk reduction techniques. In this paper, we address an important question: can we reliably expect mechanically derived risk reduction strategies to be better than fixed or hand-selected risk reduction strategies, given that the quantitative assessment of risks and risk reduction techniques upon which mechanical derivation is based is difficult and likely to be inaccurate? We consider this question relative to two methods for deriving effective risk reduction strategies: the strategic method defined by Kazman, Port et al [Port et al, 2005], and the Defect Detection and Prevention (DDP) tool [Feather & Cornford, 2003]. We performed a number of sensitivity experiments to evaluate how inaccurate knowledge of risk and risk reduction techniques affect the performance of the strategies computed by the Strategic Method compared to a variety of alternative strategies. The experimental results indicate that strategies computed by the Strategic Method were significantly more effective than the alternative risk reduction strategies, even when knowledge of risk and risk reduction techniques was very inaccurate. The robustness of the Strategic Method suggests that its use should be considered in a wide range of projects.

risk reduction↗

NASA NTRS2020

Ensemble Methodologies for Astronaut Cancer Risk Assessment in the face of Large Uncertainties

A new approach to NASA space radiation risk modeling has successfully extended the current NASA probabilistic cancer risk model to an ensemble framework able to consider sub-model parameter uncertainty (e.g. uncertainty in a radiation quality parameter) as well as model-form uncertainty associated with differing theoretical or empirical formalisms (e.g. combined dose-rate and radiation quality effects). Ensemble methodologies are already widely used in weather prediction, modeling of infectious disease outbreaks, and certain terrestrial radiation protection applications to better understand how uncertainty may influence risk decision-making. Applying ensemble methodologies to space radiation risk projections offers the potential to efficiently incorporate emerging research results, allow for the incorporation of future (including international) models, improve uncertainty quantification for underlying sub-models developed against sparse experimental data, and reduce the impact of subjective bias on risk projections. Moreover, risk forecasting across an ensemble of multiple predictive models can provide stakeholders additional information on risk acceptance if current health/medical standards cannot be met or the level of knowledge doesn’t permit a specific risk or exposure limit to be developed for future space exploration missions. In this work, ensemble risk projections implementing multiple sub-models of radiation quality, dose and dose-rate effectiveness factors, excess risk, and latency as ensemble members are presented. Initial consensus methods for ensemble model weights and correlations to account for individual model bias are discussed. In these analyses, the ensemble forecast compares well to results from NASA's current operational cancer risk projection model used to assess permissible exposure limits and permissible mission durations for astronauts. However, a large range of projected risk values are obtained at the upper 95th confidence level where models must extrapolate beyond available biological data sets; closer agreement is seen at the median + one sigma due to the inherent similarities in available models. Future work, including the addition of new models and methods for statistical correlation between predictive members are discussed to define alternate ways of thinking about risk and ‘acceptable’ uncertainty with respect to NASA’s current permissible exposure limits.

space radiation↗

DOE OSTI2011

RISK COMMUNICATION FOR ES&H PROFESSIONALS AND LINE SUPERVISORS PARTICIPANT MANUAL COURSE NUMBER 004111 REV 0.1 JULY 2011

This course will help you successfully apply risk communication principles when interacting with workers regarding work hazards. What Is the Difference Between a Risk and a Hazard? In many cases, the terms 'risk' and 'hazard' are incorrectly used interchangeably. A hazard is a physical condition or practice with the potential for causing harm/adverse effects. A risk is the probability of harm/adverse effects occurring from an exposure to a hazard. It is modified by the severity of harm (the consequence). Once a hazard is identified, a risk assessment is conducted to determine the severity of the risk. It uses scientific methods and rigorous tests to determine the effects of the risk on people and the environment. Risk Management takes data from the risk assessment and writes policies to help protect people and the environment against the risk. Risk communication is an ongoing process that starts soon after a hazard is identified and continues through the writing of policies. In the past, governing agencies did not do a good job of communicating risk; they would only communicate about risk after studies had been conducted and policies written.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2017

Power demand risk models on milling machines

The measurement of power demand risks in manufacturing power systems will benefit manufacturers and the wider society. If the risks can be characterized using manufacturing parameters, manufacturers can better control risks originating in those parameters, select less power-risky production plans, and reduce utility costs and resource consumption. The measurement of risk can also help manufacturers and power suppliers to protect their power systems from unexpected disturbances. Existing measures of risk, however, do not consider time duration, and thus cannot accurately quantify the risks in manufacturing power systems; the risks of a period of high power demand must be evaluated with the duration of the surge. Therefore, new methods of measuring power demand risks are proposed, adapting measures drawn from the field of finance. With a focus on milling operations, processing power is shown to be a function of processing amount and processing time, and a power demand distribution is directly derived as a joint distribution of and A and T. A bivariate random variable model with copulas is applied to examine the correlation in the joint distribution. Then, based on evaluation of a probability distribution of power demand from and, new risk measures are introduced. Herein illustrative examples are provided to show how the proposed measures can quantify the power demand risks from milling machines, based on manufacturing parameters. Certain manufacturing parameters are found to affect overall power demand risks, including i) raw material type, ii) variability in processing time, and iii) correlation between and. In the examples, these three factors increase power demand risks by up to 108%, 67%, and 1% respectively.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2014

Risk Prediction Models of Locoregional Failure After Radical Cystectomy for Urothelial Carcinoma: External Validation in a Cohort of Korean Patients

Purpose: To evaluate the predictive accuracy and general applicability of the locoregional failure model in a different cohort of patients treated with radical cystectomy. Methods and Materials: A total of 398 patients were included in the analysis. Death and isolated distant metastasis were considered competing events, and patients without any events were censored at the time of last follow-up. The model included the 3 variables pT classification, the number of lymph nodes identified, and margin status, as follows: low risk (≤pT2), intermediate risk (≥pT3 with ≥10 nodes removed and negative margins), and high risk (≥pT3 with <10 nodes removed or positive margins). Results: The bootstrap-corrected concordance index of the model 5 years after radical cystectomy was 66.2%. When the risk stratification was applied to the validation cohort, the 5-year locoregional failure estimates were 8.3%, 21.2%, and 46.3% for the low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups, respectively. The risk of locoregional failure differed significantly between the low-risk and intermediate-risk groups (subhazard ratio [SHR], 2.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-5.11; P<.001) and between the low-risk and high-risk groups (SHR, 4.28; 95% CI, 2.17-8.45; P<.001). Although decision curves were appropriately affected by the incidence of the competing risk, decisions about the value of the models are not likely to be affected because the model remains of value over a wide range of threshold probabilities. Conclusions: The model is not completely accurate, but it demonstrates a modest level of discrimination, adequate calibration, and meaningful net benefit gain for prediction of locoregional failure after radical cystectomy.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗

DOE OSTI2014

TU-C-18A-01: Models of Risk From Low-Dose Radiation Exposures: What Does the Evidence Say?

At dose levels of (approximately) 500 mSv or more, increased cancer incidence and mortality have been clearly demonstrated. However, at the low doses of radiation used in medical imaging, the relationship between dose and cancer risk is not well established. As such, assumptions about the shape of the dose-response curve are made. These assumptions, or risk models, are used to estimate potential long term effects. Common models include 1) the linear non-threshold (LNT) model, 2) threshold models with either a linear or curvilinear dose response above the threshold, and 3) a hormetic model, where the risk is initially decreased below background levels before increasing. The choice of model used when making radiation risk or protection calculations and decisions can have significant implications on public policy and health care decisions. However, the ongoing debate about which risk model best describes the dose-response relationship at low doses of radiation makes informed decision making difficult. This symposium will review the two fundamental approaches to determining the risk associated with low doses of ionizing radiation, namely radiation epidemiology and radiation biology. The strengths and limitations of each approach will be reviewed, the results of recent studies presented, and the appropriateness of different risk models for various real world scenarios discussed. Examples of well-designed and poorly-designed studies will be provided to assist medical physicists in 1) critically evaluating publications in the field and 2) communicating accurate information to medical professionals, patients, and members of the general public. Equipped with the best information that radiation epidemiology and radiation biology can currently provide, and an understanding of the limitations of such information, individuals and organizations will be able to make more informed decisions regarding questions such as 1) how much shielding to install at medical facilities, 2) at what dose level are risk vs. benefit discussions with patients appropriate, 3) at what dose level should we tell a pregnant woman that the baby’s health risk from a prenatal radiation exposure is “significant”, 4) is informed consent needed for patients undergoing medical imaging, and 5) at what dose level is evacuation appropriate after a radiological accident. Examples of the tremendous impact that choosing different risks models can have on the answers to these types of questions will be given.A moderated panel discussion will allow audience members to pose questions to the faculty members, each of whom is an established expert in his respective discipline. Learning Objectives: Understand the fundamental principles, strengths and limitations of radiation epidemiology and radiation biology for determining the risk from exposures to low doses of ionizing radiation Become familiar with common models of risk used to describe the dose-response relationship at low dose levels Learn to identify strengths and weaknesses in studies designed to measure the effect of low doses of ionizing radiation Understand the implications of different risk models on public policy and health care decisions.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗