Browsing by Subject "attributes"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-2 of 2
  • Virtanen, Toni; Nuutinen, Mikko; Häkkinen, Jukka (2019)
    We have collected a large dataset of subjective image quality "*nesses," such as sharpness or colorfulness. The dataset comes from seven studies and contains 39,415 quotations from 146 observers who have evaluated 62 scenes either in print images or on display. We analyzed the subjective evaluations and formed a hierarchical image quality attribute lexicon for *nesses, which is visualized as image quality wheel (IQ-Wheel). Similar wheel diagrams for attributes have become industry standards in other sensory experience fields such as flavor and fragrance sciences. The IQ-Wheel contains the frequency information of 68 attributes relating to image quality. Only 20% of the attributes were positive, which agrees with previous findings showing a preference for negative attributes in image quality evaluation. Our results also show that excluding physical attributes of paper gloss, observers then use similar terminology when evaluating images with printed images or images viewed on a display. IQ-Wheel can be used to guide the selection of scenes and distortions when designing subjective experimental setups and creating image databases. (C) 2019 SPIE and IS&T
  • Janssens, Rosanne; Lang, Tamika; Vallejo, Ana; Galinsky, Jayne; Plate, Ananda; Morgan, Kate; Cabezudo, Elena; Silvennoinen, Raija; Coriu, Daniel; Badelita, Sorina; Irimia, Ruxandra; Anttonen, Minna; Manninen, Riikka-Leena; Schoefs, Elise; Vandebroek, Martina; Vanhellemont, Anneleen; Delforge, Michel; Stevens, Hilde; Simoens, Steven; Huys, Isabelle (2021)
    Background: Investigational and marketed drugs for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) are associated with a range of characteristics and uncertainties regarding long term side-effects and efficacy. This raises questions about what matters most to patients living with this disease. This study aimed to understand which characteristics MM patients find most important, and hence should be included as attributes and levels in a subsequent quantitative preference survey among MM patients. Methods: This qualitative study involved: (i) a scoping literature review, (ii) discussions with MM patients (n = 24) in Belgium, Finland, Romania, and Spain using Nominal Group Technique, (iii) a qualitative thematic analysis including multi-stakeholder discussions. Results: MM patients voiced significant expectations and hopes that treatments would extend their lives and reduce their cancer signs and symptoms. Participants however raised concerns about life-threatening side-effects that could cause permanent organ damage. Bone fractures and debilitating neuropathic effects (such as chronic tingling sensations) were highlighted as major issues reducing patients' independence and mobility. Patients discussed the negative impact of the following symptoms and side-effects on their daily activities: thinking problems, increased susceptibility to infections, reduced energy, pain, emotional problems, and vision problems. MM patients were concerned with uncertainties regarding the durability of positive treatment outcomes, and the cause, severity, and duration of their symptoms and side-effects. Patients feared short-term positive treatment responses complicated by permanent, severe side-effects and symptoms. Conclusions: This study gained an in-depth understanding of the treatment and disease-related characteristics and types of attribute levels (severity, duration) that are most important to MM patients. Results from this study argue in favor of MM drug development and individual treatment decision-making that focuses not only on extending patients' lives but also on addressing those symptoms and side-effects that significantly impact MM patients' quality of life. This study underscores a need for transparent communication toward MM patients about MM treatment outcomes and uncertainties regarding their long-term efficacy and safety. Finally, this study may help drug developers and decision-makers understand which treatment outcomes and uncertainties are most important to MM patients and therefore should be incorporated in MM drug development, evaluation, and clinical practice.