@article{RebitschekEllermannJennyetal.2022, author = {Rebitschek, Felix G. and Ellermann, Christin and Jenny, Miriam A. and Siegel, Nico A. and Spinner, Christian and Wagner, Gert G.}, title = {Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level}, series = {PLOS ONE}, volume = {17}, journal = {PLOS ONE}, number = {9}, publisher = {PLOS}, address = {San Francisco}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0274186}, pages = {19}, year = {2022}, abstract = {OBJECTIVE: For an effective control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with vaccines, most people in a population need to be vaccinated. It is thus important to know how to inform the public with reference to individual preferences-while also acknowledging the societal preference to encourage vaccinations. According to the health care standard of informed decision-making, a comparison of the benefits and harms of (not) having the vaccination would be required to inform undecided and skeptical people. To test evidence-based fact boxes, an established risk communication format, and to inform their development, we investigated their contribution to knowledge and evaluations of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: We conducted four studies (1, 2, and 4 were population-wide surveys with N = 1,942 to N = 6,056): Study 1 assessed the relationship between vaccination knowledge and intentions in Germany over three months. Study 2 assessed respective information gaps and needs of the population in Germany. In parallel, an experiment (Study 3) with a mixed design (presentation formats; pre-post-comparison) assessed the effect of fact boxes on risk perceptions and fear, using a convenience sample (N = 719). Study 4 examined how effective two fact box formats are for informing vaccination intentions, with a mixed experimental design: between-subjects (presentation formats) and within-subjects (pre-post-comparison). RESULTS: Study 1 showed that vaccination knowledge and vaccination intentions increased between November 2020 and February 2021. Study 2 revealed objective information requirements and subjective information needs. Study 3 showed that the fact box format is effective in adjusting risk perceptions concerning COVID-19. Based on those results, fact boxes were revised and implemented with the help of a national health authority in Germany. Study 4 showed that simple fact boxes increase vaccination knowledge and positive evaluations in skeptics and undecideds. CONCLUSION: Fact boxes can inform COVID-19 vaccination intentions of undecided and skeptical people without threatening societal vaccination goals of the population.}, language = {en} } @article{RebitschekEllermannJennyetal.2022, author = {Rebitschek, Felix G. and Ellermann, Christin and Jenny, Mirjam A. and Siegel, Nico A. and Spinner, Christian and Wagner, Gert G.}, title = {Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level}, series = {PLOS ONE}, volume = {17}, journal = {PLOS ONE}, number = {9}, publisher = {PLOS}, address = {San Francisco}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0274186}, pages = {19}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Objective For an effective control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with vaccines, most people in a population need to be vaccinated. It is thus important to know how to inform the public with reference to individual preferences-while also acknowledging the societal preference to encourage vaccinations. According to the health care standard of informed decision-making, a comparison of the benefits and harms of (not) having the vaccination would be required to inform undecided and skeptical people. To test evidence-based fact boxes, an established risk communication format, and to inform their development, we investigated their contribution to knowledge and evaluations of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods We conducted four studies (1, 2, and 4 were population-wide surveys with N = 1,942 to N = 6,056): Study 1 assessed the relationship between vaccination knowledge and intentions in Germany over three months. Study 2 assessed respective information gaps and needs of the population in Germany. In parallel, an experiment (Study 3) with a mixed design (presentation formats; pre-post-comparison) assessed the effect of fact boxes on risk perceptions and fear, using a convenience sample (N = 719). Study 4 examined how effective two fact box formats are for informing vaccination intentions, with a mixed experimental design: between-subjects (presentation formats) and within-subjects (pre-post-comparison). Results Study 1 showed that vaccination knowledge and vaccination intentions increased between November 2020 and February 2021. Study 2 revealed objective information requirements and subjective information needs. Study 3 showed that the fact box format is effective in adjusting risk perceptions concerning COVID-19. Based on those results, fact boxes were revised and implemented with the help of a national health authority in Germany. Study 4 showed that simple fact boxes increase vaccination knowledge and positive evaluations in skeptics and undecideds. Conclusion Fact boxes can inform COVID-19 vaccination intentions of undecided and skeptical people without threatening societal vaccination goals of the population}, language = {en} } @misc{RebitschekEllermannJennyetal.2022, author = {Rebitschek, Felix G. and Ellermann, Christin and Jenny, Miriam A. and Siegel, Nico A. and Spinner, Christian and Wagner, Gert G.}, title = {Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Gesundheitswissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Gesundheitswissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {9}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-58867}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-588670}, pages = {19}, year = {2022}, abstract = {OBJECTIVE: For an effective control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with vaccines, most people in a population need to be vaccinated. It is thus important to know how to inform the public with reference to individual preferences-while also acknowledging the societal preference to encourage vaccinations. According to the health care standard of informed decision-making, a comparison of the benefits and harms of (not) having the vaccination would be required to inform undecided and skeptical people. To test evidence-based fact boxes, an established risk communication format, and to inform their development, we investigated their contribution to knowledge and evaluations of COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: We conducted four studies (1, 2, and 4 were population-wide surveys with N = 1,942 to N = 6,056): Study 1 assessed the relationship between vaccination knowledge and intentions in Germany over three months. Study 2 assessed respective information gaps and needs of the population in Germany. In parallel, an experiment (Study 3) with a mixed design (presentation formats; pre-post-comparison) assessed the effect of fact boxes on risk perceptions and fear, using a convenience sample (N = 719). Study 4 examined how effective two fact box formats are for informing vaccination intentions, with a mixed experimental design: between-subjects (presentation formats) and within-subjects (pre-post-comparison). RESULTS: Study 1 showed that vaccination knowledge and vaccination intentions increased between November 2020 and February 2021. Study 2 revealed objective information requirements and subjective information needs. Study 3 showed that the fact box format is effective in adjusting risk perceptions concerning COVID-19. Based on those results, fact boxes were revised and implemented with the help of a national health authority in Germany. Study 4 showed that simple fact boxes increase vaccination knowledge and positive evaluations in skeptics and undecideds. CONCLUSION: Fact boxes can inform COVID-19 vaccination intentions of undecided and skeptical people without threatening societal vaccination goals of the population.}, language = {en} } @article{ZaldenQuirinSchumacheretal.2019, author = {Zalden, Peter and Quirin, Florian and Schumacher, Mathias and Siegel, Jan and Wei, Shuai and Koc, Azize and Nicoul, Matthieu and Trigo, Mariano and Andreasson, Pererik and Enquist, Henrik and Shu, Michael J. and Pardini, Tommaso and Chollet, Matthieu and Zhu, Diling and Lemke, Henrik and Ronneberger, Ider and Larsson, J{\"o}rgen and Lindenberg, Aaron M. and Fischer, Henry E. and Hau-Riege, Stefan and Reis, David A. and Mazzarello, Riccardo and Wuttig, Matthias and Sokolowski-Tinten, Klaus}, title = {Femtosecond x-ray diffraction reveals a liquid-liquid phase transition in phase-change materials}, series = {Science}, volume = {364}, journal = {Science}, number = {6445}, publisher = {American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science}, address = {Washington, DC}, issn = {0036-8075}, doi = {10.1126/science.aaw1773}, pages = {1062 -- 1067}, year = {2019}, abstract = {In phase-change memory devices, a material is cycled between glassy and crystalline states. The highly temperature-dependent kinetics of its crystallization process enables application in memory technology, but the transition has not been resolved on an atomic scale. Using femtosecond x-ray diffraction and ab initio computer simulations, we determined the time-dependent pair-correlation function of phase-change materials throughout the melt-quenching and crystallization process. We found a liquid-liquid phase transition in the phase-change materials Ag4In3Sb67Te26 and Ge15Sb85 at 660 and 610 kelvin, respectively. The transition is predominantly caused by the onset of Peierls distortions, the amplitude of which correlates with an increase of the apparent activation energy of diffusivity. This reveals a relationship between atomic structure and kinetics, enabling a systematic optimization of the memory-switching kinetics.}, language = {en} } @article{OstrowskiPauleveSchaubetal.2016, author = {Ostrowski, Max and Pauleve, L. and Schaub, Torsten H. and Siegel, A. and Guziolowski, Carito}, title = {Boolean network identification from perturbation time series data combining dynamics abstraction and logic programming}, series = {Biosystems : journal of biological and information processing sciences}, volume = {149}, journal = {Biosystems : journal of biological and information processing sciences}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Oxford}, issn = {0303-2647}, doi = {10.1016/j.biosystems.2016.07.009}, pages = {139 -- 153}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Boolean networks (and more general logic models) are useful frameworks to study signal transduction across multiple pathways. Logic models can be learned from a prior knowledge network structure and multiplex phosphoproteomics data. However, most efficient and scalable training methods focus on the comparison of two time-points and assume that the system has reached an early steady state. In this paper, we generalize such a learning procedure to take into account the time series traces of phosphoproteomics data in order to discriminate Boolean networks according to their transient dynamics. To that end, we identify a necessary condition that must be satisfied by the dynamics of a Boolean network to be consistent with a discretized time series trace. Based on this condition, we use Answer Set Programming to compute an over-approximation of the set of Boolean networks which fit best with experimental data and provide the corresponding encodings. Combined with model-checking approaches, we end up with a global learning algorithm. Our approach is able to learn logic models with a true positive rate higher than 78\% in two case studies of mammalian signaling networks; for a larger case study, our method provides optimal answers after 7 min of computation. We quantified the gain in our method predictions precision compared to learning approaches based on static data. Finally, as an application, our method proposes erroneous time-points in the time series data with respect to the optimal learned logic models. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.}, language = {en} }