1,721,178 research outputs found
IgE reactivity patterns in patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis to ragweed and mugwort pollens
No full textBackground: Differential diagnosis between ragweed and mugwort pollen allergy represents a large clinical problem in areas where both plants are present. The aim of this study was to investigate ragweed-and mugwort-sensitized patients to identify specific IgE reactivity profiles. Results were correlated to clinical findings such as medical history and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Methods: Seventy-four patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis between July and October were examined and underwent in vivo tests (skin-prick test [SPT] and nasal provocation). Sera were evaluated for IgE reactivity to mugwort and ragweed pollen extracts, major (Art v 1; Amb a 1) and minor (profilin and calcium-binding protein) allergens. HRQL was evaluated using a standardized questionnaire. Results: Seventy-one patients revealed positive SPT reactivity against mugwort and 60 patients against ragweed extracts. Of these patients, 74 revealed IgE antibodies against mugwort extracts, whereas anti-Art v 1 antibodies were detectable in 50 individuals. Fifty-five patients showed IgE antibodies against natural ragweed extracts; anti-Amb v 1 antibodies were detected in six cases only. Using standardized clinical history and HRQL questionnaires we were not able to detect any differences within different reactivity patterns. Conclusion: Within the investigated population of 74 weed-allergic patients the prevalence of true mugwort and ragweed sensitization can be calculated as 68 and 8%. High prevalence of ragweed sensitization when testing with full extracts can be explained by cross-reactivity between other weeds, e. g., mugwort rather than cosensitization. Differences in medical history and HRQL between different reactivity patterns were not detectable. (Am J Rhinol Allergy 26, 31-35, 2012; doi: 10.2500/ajra.2012.26.3698
Health professional perspective on disability in head and neck cancer
No full textObjectives. To evaluate problems after head and neck cancer (HNC) from the multidisciplinary team perspective; to classify the results using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF); and to compare the results with a patient perspective.Design. Internet-based survey.Participants. There were 103 participants from 27 countries: 50 physicians (otolaryngologists, maxillofacial specialists, and radiation and medical oncologists) and 53 nonphysicians (dentists, psychologists, physiotherapists, speech swallowing therapists, nurses, and social workers).Interventions. Health professionals involved in the treatment of HNC were asked about relevant problems. The survey was Internet based and included 5 questions, 1 for each of the ICF components: Body Functions, Body Structures, Activities and Participation, and contextual Environmental and Personal factors. Answers were translated into ICF categories by 2 independent researchers, and frequencies were calculated. The results were compared with the outcomes of patient interviews based on similar questions.Results. A total of 3643 different answers translated into the ICF using 160 different second-level ICF categories. Less than 1% of answers were not covered by the ICF. There was high consistency in the ratings of food ingestion, pain, and the relevance of the immediate family. In general, health professionals tended to emphasize aspects of anatomical defects and body image, whereas areas of speech and exercise tolerance functions were more often named by patients.Conclusions. The ICF seems to be a comprehensive tool for classifying problems after HNC from the multidisciplinary health professional perspective. There are important differences between the health professional and patient perspectives. We should be aware of this during cancer follow-up sessions and in the creation of rehabilitation plans
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
