Explore the vast range of titles available.

Legal cases often turn on judgments of textual clarity: when the text is unclear, judges allow extrinsic evidence in contract disputes, consult legislative history in statutory interpretation, and more. Despite this, almost no empirical work considers the nature or prevalence of legal clarity. Scholars and judges who study real-world documents to inform the interpretation of legal text primarily treat unclear text as a research problem to be solved with more data rather than a fundamental feature of language. This Article makes both theoretical and empirical contributions to the legal concept of textual clarity. It first advances a theory of clarity that distinguishes between information and determinacy. A judge might find text unclear because she personally lacks sufficient information to decide which interpretation is best; alternatively, she might find it unclear because the text itself is fundamentally indeterminate. Fundamental linguistic indeterminacy explains ongoing interpretive debates and limits the potential for text-focused methods (including corpus linguistics) to decide cases. With this theoretical background, the Article then proposes a new method to algorithmically evaluate textual clarity. Applying techniques from natural language processing and artificial intelligence that measure the semantic similarity between words, we can shed valuable new light on questions of legal interpretation. This Article finds that text is frequently indeterminate in real-world legal cases. Moreover, estimates of similarity vary substantially from corpus to corpus, even for large and reputable corpora. This suggests that word use is highly corpus-specific and that meaning can vary even between general-purpose corpora that theoretically capture ordinary meaning. These empirical findings have important implications for ongoing doctrinal debates, suggesting that text is less clear and objective than many textualists believe. Ultimately, the Article offers new insights both to theorists considering the role of legal text and to empiricists seeking to understand howtext is used in the real world.

Legal scholars have long annotated cases by hand to summarize and learn about developments in jurisprudence. Dramatic recent improvements in the performance of large language models (LLMs) now provide a potential alternative. This article demonstrates how to use LLMs to analyze legal documents. It evaluates best practices and suggests both the uses and potential limitations of LLMs in empirical legal research. In a simple classification task involving Supreme Court opinions, it finds that GPT-4 performs approximately as well as human coders and significantly better than a variety of prior-generation natural language processing (NLP) classifiers, with no improvement from supervised training, finetuning, or specialized prompting.

Anti-abuse doctrines in tax law have traditionally been formulated as multifactor tests that weigh the facts of the taxpayer’s case but ignore the tax statute at issue. This approach has proven problematic: Some judges import statutory considerations regardless, creating inconsistency and confusion, and some scholars criticize the doctrines as antitextual judicial inventions. These challenges undermine important barriers against abusive tax schemes. This Article argues that anti-abuse doctrines should be considered substantive canons of construction: interpretive presumptions that can be rebutted by statutory text or purpose. Doing so would resolve apparent arbitrariness in the doctrines’ application as simply the rebuttal of presumptions and reconcile the substantive canons to textualists as constitutionally permissible background norms. It would also provide a framework to test the validity of disputed doctrines and allow them to be more flexible and intuitive. Although many scholars have studied substantive canons and anti-abuse doctrines separately, this Article connects the two. It also catalogs the substantive tax canons based on existing case law, serving as a resource for future academics, practitioners, and judges.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) sequencing is being rapidly adopted in precision oncology, but the accuracy, sensitivity and reproducibility of ctDNA assays is poorly understood. Here we report the findings of a multi-site, cross-platform evaluation of the analytical performance of five industry-leading ctDNA assays. We evaluated each stage of the ctDNA sequencing workflow with simulations, synthetic DNA spike-in experiments and proficiency testing on standardized, cell-line-derived reference samples. Above 0.5% variant allele frequency, ctDNA mutations were detected with high sensitivity, precision and reproducibility by all five assays, whereas, below this limit, detection became unreliable and varied widely between assays, especially when input material was limited. Missed mutations (false negatives) were more common than erroneous candidates (false positives), indicating that the reliable sampling of rare ctDNA fragments is the key challenge for ctDNA assays. This comprehensive evaluation of the analytical performance of ctDNA assays serves to inform best practice guidelines and provides a resource for precision oncology. Reliable detection of mutations below 0.5% variant allele frequency remains a key challenge for circulating tumor DNA sequencing assays.

Conventional wisdom holds that purposivist theories of statutory interpretation solve the problem of tax shelters, because shelters comply with the text but not the purpose of tax statutes. But the predominant form of purposivism in tax scholarship, which combines specific statutory purposes with general structural principles of tax law, cannot separate shelters from ordinary tax planning. Although tax shelters claim benefits that exceed specific purposes and do not align with objective general principles, so do some widely accepted tax strategies. This Article therefore proposes a new framework to go beyond purposivism in tax law, complementing purposivist techniques with pragmatism or doctrinalism. Pragmatism applies explicit policy judgments when statutory purposes run out; doctrinalism applies rules, like canons of construction, that provide determinate answers when statutory purpose is ambiguous. Pragmatism generally leads to better results in any particular case, while doctrinalism provides taxpayers certainty in planning legitimate transactions. This Article lays out how the pragmatic and doctrinalist approaches ought to apply, and when. The ideal compromise is a hybrid: Agencies should primarily apply pragmatic purposivism in ex ante guidance, while agencies and courts should primarily apply doctrinalist purposivism in ex post adjudication. The ex ante/ex post split comports with existing administrative and common law, and it suits the relative strengths of agencies and courts. Ultimately, it gives interpreters the flexibility to deal with pernicious, sophisticated modern tax shelters.

Scholars have long debated the appropriate balance between efficiency and redistribution. But recently, a wave of critics has argued not only that efficiency is less important, but that efficiency analysis itself is fundamentally flawed. Some say that efficiency is incoherent because there is no neutral baseline from which to judge inefficiency. Others say that efficiency is biased toward those best able to pay (generally, the rich). This essay contends that efficiency is not meaningfully incoherent or biased. The most widely discussed forms of efficiency do not require any particular baseline, and even those that do require a baseline can still serve as useful approximations of more theoretically sound but computationally demanding measures. Moreover, arguments of bias do not account for the source of funds in public projects, produce unintuitive results, and draw an arbitrary cutoff between bias and non-bias that elides important distributional details. Ultimately, the tradeoff between efficiency and redistribution remains the most useful frame for policy debate.

To examine the effectiveness and safety of epidural analgesia in the presurgical period in patients with hip fracture undergoing surgical repair. Systematic review. The study protocol was registered with the PROSPERO systematic reviews registry with the (identifier CRD42019140396). Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing preoperative epidural analgesia with other forms of pain management in patients with a hip fracture. The primary outcomes included perioperative cardiac events and death. Pain, noncardiac complications, and adverse effects were also examined as secondary outcomes. The heterogeneity of the included studies was assessed with the I2 statistic, and a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted once sufficient homogeneity was demonstrated. Four studies, which included a total of 221 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Preoperative epidural analgesia resulted in fewer cardiac events, which was a reported outcome in two included studies (relative risk 0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.63; I2=0%). Preoperative epidural analgesia was also associated with a decreased perioperative mortality rate in a meta-analysis of two studies (relative risk 0.13; 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.98; I2 = 0%). Pain was not pooled because of variability in assessment methods, but preoperative epidural analgesia was associated with reduced pain in all four studies. Preoperative epidural analgesia for hip fracture may reduce perioperative cardiac events and deaths, but the number of included studies in this systematic review was low. More research should be done to determine the benefit of early epidural analgesia for patients with hip fracture.

To understand ecological phenomena, it is necessary to observe their behaviour across multiple spatial and temporal scales. Since this need was first highlighted in the 1980s, technology has opened previously inaccessible scales to observation. To help to determine whether there have been corresponding changes in the scales observed by modern ecologists, we analysed the resolution, extent, interval and duration of observations (excluding experiments) in 348 studies that have been published between 2004 and 2014. We found that observational scales were generally narrow, because ecologists still primarily use conventional field techniques. In the spatial domain, most observations had resolutions ≤1 m 2 and extents ≤10,000 ha. In the temporal domain, most observations were either unreplicated or infrequently repeated (>1 month interval) and ≤1 year in duration. Compared with studies conducted before 2004, observational durations and resolutions appear largely unchanged, but intervals have become finer and extents larger. We also found a large gulf between the scales at which phenomena are actually observed and the scales those observations ostensibly represent, raising concerns about observational comprehensiveness. Furthermore, most studies did not clearly report scale, suggesting that it remains a minor concern. Ecologists can better understand the scales represented by observations by incorporating autocorrelation measures, while journals can promote attentiveness to scale by implementing scale-reporting standards. Analysing the spatial and temporal extents of 348 ecological studies published between 2004 and 2014, the authors show that although the average study interval and extent has increased, resolution and duration have remained largely unchanged.

Modern international tribunals have developed a presumption of unconditional early release after prisoners serve two thirds of their sentences, which decreases transparency and is generally out of line with the goals of international criminal law. I trace the development of this doctrine to a false analogy with the law of domestic parole. I then suggest an alternative approach based on prisoners' changed circumstances and enumerate criteria for tribunals to use in future early release decisions.

Viruses have developed diverse non-immune strategies to counteract host-mediated mechanisms that confer resistance to infection. The Vif (virion infectivity factor) proteins are encoded by primate immunodeficiency viruses, most notably human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1). These proteins are potent regulators of virus infection and replication and are consequently essential for pathogenic infections in vivo. HIV-1 Vif seems to be required during the late stages of virus production for the suppression of an innate antiviral phenotype that resides in human T lymphocytes. Thus, in the absence of Vif, expression of this phenotype renders progeny virions non-infectious. Here, we describe a unique cellular gene, CEM15, whose transient or stable expression in cells that do not normally express CEM15 recreates this phenotype, but whose antiviral action is overcome by the presence of Vif. Because the Vif:CEM15 regulatory circuit is critical for HIV-1 replication, perturbing the circuit may be a promising target for future HIV/AIDS therapies.