kwic
risk
risk
right
off
ON
372
1
100
500
strict
ELIZA cgi-bash version rev. 1.91
- Medical English LInking keywords finder for the PubMed Zipped Archive (ELIZA) -
return
kwic search for risk out of >500 occurrences
421954 occurrences (No.40 in the rank) during 5 years in the PubMed. [cache]
--- ABSTRACT ---
--- ABSTRACT END ---
[frequency of next (right) word to risk]
421954 occurrences (No.40 in the rank) during 5 years in the PubMed. [cache]
| 372) After screening and reviewing the literature, six approaches were identified: target crash population, traffic simulation, driving simulator, road test data analysis, system failure risk assessment, and safety effectiveness estimation. |
| PMID:33571922 DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2021.106003 |
| 2021 Accident; analysis and prevention |
| * Quantifying the automated vehicle safety performance: A scoping review of the literature, evaluation of methods, and directions for future research. |
| - Vehicle automation safety must be evaluated not only for market success but also for more informed decision-making about Automated Vehicles' (AVs) deployment and supporting policies and regulations to govern AVs' unintended consequences. This study is designed to identify the AV safety quantification studies, evaluate the quantification approaches used in the literature, and uncover the gaps and challenges in AV safety evaluation. We employed a scoping review methodology to identify the approaches used in the literature to quantify AV safety. After screening and reviewing the literature, six approaches were identified: target crash population, traffic simulation, driving simulator, road test data analysis, system failure risk assessment, and safety effectiveness estimation. We ran two evaluations on the identified approaches. First, we investigated each approach in terms of its input (required data, assumptions, etc.), output (safety evaluation metrics), and application (to estimate AVs' safety implications at the vehicle, transportation system, and society levels). Second, we qualitatively compared them in terms of three criteria: availability of input data, suitability for evaluating different automation levels, and reliability of estimations. This review identifies four challenges in AV safety evaluation: (a) shortcomings in AV safety evaluation approaches, (b) uncertainties in AV implementations and their impacts on AV safety, (c) potential riskier behavior of AV passengers as well as other road users, and (d) emerging safety issues related to AV implementations. This review is expected to help researchers and rulemakers to choose the most appropriate quantification method based on their goals and study limitations. Future research is required to address the identified challenges in AV safety evaluation. |
[
right
kwic]
(1)139  of |
(11)7 prediction |
(21)3 decision |
(31)2 markers |
| (2)49 factors |
(12)6 stratification |
(22)3 or |
(32)2 mitigation |
| (3)46 for |
(13)5 individuals |
(23)3 patients |
(33)2 population |
| (4)21 *null* | (14)4 genes |
(24)2 (OR |
(34)2 ratio |
| (5)19 factor |
(15)4 populations |
(25)2 among |
(35)2 reduction |
| (6)16 and |
(16)4 score |
(26)2 communication |
(36)2 screening |
| (7)13 assessment |
(17)4 to |
(27)2 communication, |
(37)2 strategies |
| (8)12 in |
(18)4 variants |
(28)2 designations |
|
| (9)8 perception |
(19)3 alleles |
(29)2 group |
|
| (10)7 factors, |
(20)3 assessment, |
(30)2 is |
add keyword
--- WordNet output for risk ---