Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

In GBD 2017, as in previous GBDs, causes of mortality and morbidity are structured using a four-level classification hierarchy to produce results that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. GBD 2017 estimates 359 causes of DALYs, 77 of which are a source of disability but not a cause of death (eg, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, headache disorders, low back pain, and neck pain), and five of which are causes of death but not sources of morbidity (sudden infant death syndrome, aortic aneurysm, late maternal deaths, indirect maternal deaths, and maternal deaths aggravated by HIV/AIDS). In the GBD hierarchy, the number of mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive fatal and non-fatal causes in each level for which GBD estimates is three at Level 1, 22 at Level 2, 169 at Level 3, and 293 at Level 4. The full GBD cause hierarchy, including corresponding International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes and detailed cause-specific methods, is in GBD 2017 publications on cause-specific mortality11 and non-fatal health outcomes12 in the corresponding appendices.
GBD 2017 includes 195 countries and territories that are grouped into 21 regions on the basis of epidemiological similarities and geographical proximity.15 (link) For the purposes of statistical analyses, we further grouped regions into seven super-regions (central Europe, eastern Europe, and central Asia; high income; Latin America and Caribbean; north Africa and Middle East; south Asia; southeast Asia, east Asia and Oceania; and sub-Saharan Africa). Each year, GBD includes subnational analyses for a few new countries and continues to provide subnational estimates for countries that were added in previous cycles. Subnational estimation in GBD 2017 includes five new countries (Ethiopia, Iran, New Zealand, Norway, and Russia) and countries previously estimated at subnational levels (GBD 2013: China, Mexico, and the UK [regional level]; GBD 2015: Brazil, India, Japan, Kenya, South Africa, Sweden, and the USA; and GBD 2016: Indonesia and the UK [local government authority level]). All analyses are at the first level of administrative organisation within each country except for New Zealand (by Māori ethnicity), Sweden (by Stockholm and non-Stockholm), and the UK (by local government authorites). All subnational estimates for these countries were incorporated into model development and evaluation as part of GBD 2017. To meet data use requirements, we present all subnational estimates excluding those pending publication (Brazil, India, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Sweden, the UK, and the USA); these results are presented in appendix tables and figures (appendix 2). Subnational estimates for countries with populations larger than 200 million people (as measured according to our most recent year of published estimates) that have not yet been published elsewhere are presented wherever estimates are illustrated with maps but are not included in data tables.

This qualitative systematic literature review aimed at identifying the potential impact of short-term measures of the IMO’s Initial Strategy—more specifically slow steaming- on States, as reported in the literature. Particular attention was paid to the needs of developing countries, especially SIDS and LDCs, with regard to the eight impact criteria provided in MEPC.1/Circ.885 (MEPC 2019 ). This literature review process includes relevant peer-reviewed articles, and various relevant grey literature (non-peer reviewed) documents. A systematic process was used to collect peer reviewed literature, as well as grey literature, in order to provide an objective means of identifying the sources.
The literature was identified by keyword searches in the following abstract and citations databases: Scopus, Science Direct, Google Scholar, Research Gate, and EBSCO. The specific keywords and their combinations used were as follows: “slow steaming”, “speed reduction”, “impact assessment”, “engine power limit”, “shaft power limit”, “Developing Countries”, “SIDs”, “LDCs”, “connectivity”, “geographic remoteness”, “cargo value”, “cargo type”, “transport dependency”, “transport cost”, “freight”, “inventory cost”, “food security”, “disaster response”, “socio-economic progress and development”, “logistic” and “cargo quality”.
A total of 864 works in eight categories were initially identified. To select the most relevant articles, two criteria for inclusion and exclusion were considered (see Table 1). In the first filtering step, where titles, conclusions, abstracts and keywords were analysed and considered, 469 studies were excluded and only 395 articles that were found to be relevant according to exclusion criterion one (Table 1). In the second filtering step, the exclusion criterion two (Table 1) was applied after reading and analysing the whole text. In this second step, 315 articles were found not to explicitly contribute to the topic, and were then excluded. In addition, 15 articles were included through backward and forward snowballing, which resulted in a total of 95 documents. In a third filtering step, any works older than 2003 were excluded, leaving 62 articles in the final selection. With the help of figure one, the various filtering steps that served the methodology are summarised (Fig. 1).Table 1

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Criterion one(Filtering step 1)	Criterion two(Filtering step 2)	Criterion three(Filtering step 3)
Peer reviewed articles and high quality conference papers, books, industrial and technical reports, which are relevant to research questions and address slow steaming within the eight impact criteria provided in MEPC.1/Circ.885	Non-English studies, duplicate articles, non-peer reviewed articles, low quality industrial and technical reports, and articles that not totally covered the topic	Exclude texts older than 2003

Fig. 1

The flow chart of the methodology

The objective of this criminal search optimization algorithm (CSOA) [32 (link)] is to find the criminal by the evidence that is collected by the investigators. Cooperative jamming and power randomness are used to improve covertness performance [33 (link)]. To achieve the goal of CSOA, the entire process is segmented into four phases. These phases are explained below:
Phase 1: Initialization
This initialization process is carried out in this phase. Here the parameters, SI (sub-investigators), and the undercover officers are initialized that are being used by the CSOA. At first, all informants and SIs are obtaining suspects’ random information at their pre-defined search location. The parameters such as $in{q}_{\max }$ and $Rando{m}_{\max }$ represent maximum inquiries and the random numbers’ maximum limit, respectively.
Phase 2: Evaluating the Performance and Searching for the Criminal
The chief investigator (CI) collects all the information that is gathered by the informer and SI and creates the evidence against the accused person by using the objective function. Initially ( $s=0$ ), the defender is considered as primary suspect based on best fitness (evidence) as shown by below equation.
$$P^s=B[S{I}^{s^{*}},I{n}^{s^{*}}]$$
The terms $P^s$ is the primary suspects’ information that is available in CI; B represents the best, $S{I}^{s^{*}}$ represents the accused persons’ best information available with the SI; and $I{n}^{s^{*}}$ represents the accused persons’ best information available with the informers; then $s$ is for investigation steps. In the following phases ( $s\ne 0$ ), the comparison is made between the primary accused persons’ present inquiry stage and previous inquiry stage to select the evidence of the present primary accused person by using Equation (4),
$$BInf{o}^s=\{\begin{array}{l}pr{i}_{AP}^s if e(pr{i}_{AP}^s)<e(pr{i}_{AP}^{s-1})\\ pr{i}_{AP}^{s-1} else if e(pr{i}_{AP}^s)\ge e(pr{i}_{AP}^{s-1})\end{array}$$
In the above equation, the term $BInf{o}^s$ represents the accused persons’ best information that is present with the CI; the term $pr{i}_{AP}^{s-1}$ signifies the best prior information of the primary accused person with the CI; the terms $e(pr{i}_{AP}^s)$ and $e(pr{i}_{AP}^{s-1})$ represents the evidence after processing $pr{i}_{AP}^s$ and $pr{i}_{AP}^{s-1}$ information, respectively; in the beginning, viz. when $s=0$ , $pr{i}_{AP}^s$ is considered as $BInf{o}^s$ .
Phase 3: Update Information
The updating of information is carried out in three steps. They are:
Interrogation—The accused persons’ information with the investigator is upgraded using Equation (5).
$$BInf{o}^{s+1}=BInf{o}^s+BInf{o}^s\times R^s$$
From the above equation, the term $BInf{o}^{s+1}$ represent the primary accused persons’ updated information; the term $BInf{o}^s$ represents the primary accused persons’ present information which is available with CI; $R^s$ is the random number with the range [−1, 1]. The term $s$ is the investigation stages.
Information Updating of SI—The information from SI is upgraded by using Equation (6) in this step.
$$S{I}^{s+1}=S{I}^s+d_1\times S{I}_{BInfo}^s+x\times d_2\times S{I}_y^s+(1-x)\times d_3\times S{I}_d^s$$
The term $S{I}^s$ is the primary suspects’ present information that is available in SI; the term $S{I}^{s+1}$ is the primary suspects’ updated information that is available in SI; the evidence gathered from the primary accused person by the SI is represented as $S{I}_{BInfo}^s$ and is given as ( $BInf{o}^s-S{I}^s$ ). The evidence gathered from previous best evidence by SI is given as ( $S{I}_{BInfo}^{s-1}-S{I}^s$ ) is represented by $S{I}_y^s$ . The evidence collected from random SI is given as ( $S{I}_d^s-S{I}^s$ ) is represented by $S{I}_d^s$ . The random numbers from [0, $d_{\max }$ ] range are represented as $d_1,d_2, \mathrm{and} d_3$ and $d_{\max }$ is a random number with a maximum limit. Here x is an influencing factor with [0, 1] range random number which represents SI’s influence over evidence after comparing.
Information updating of Informer—The information from informer is upgraded by using Equation (7) in this step.
$$I^{s+1}=I^s+d_1\times I_y^s+d_2\times I_{SI}^s$$
The term $I^s$ define the accused persons’ evidence available with informers, the updated defender evidence present with the undercover officer is represented as $I^{s+1}$ . Then the gathered evidence from previous evidence which is present with the undercover officer is shown as $(I_y^{s-1}-I^s)$ which is represented as $I_y^s$ . The updated evidence gathered by an undercover officer from SI is represented as $I_{SI}^s$ and it is given as ( $S{I}^{s+1}-I^s$ ).
Phase 4: Termination
After the information are updated from SI and informers, the updated data is reviewed to see if it is contained inside the search space. When the termination criteria ( $s=s_{\max }$ ) is met, the inquiry is terminated and the primary accused person present is considered as criminal; otherwise, phases 2–4 are repeated.
Phase 5: Output
The final phase of CSOA is the output phase, here the culprit is announced. When the requirement of termination is reached the inquiry is terminated. The criminal informer is considered as suspect information that generates the strongest proof, and the accused person is declared as the criminal.