1,721,251 research outputs found
Impact of primary metastatic bone disease in germ cell tumors: results of an International Global Germ Cell Tumor Collaborative Group G3 Registry Study
Background: Bone metastases (BM) are rare in germ cell tumor (GCT) patients. Systematic data on risk factors, treatment and outcome are largely lacking. Patients and methods: A database created by an international consortium including 123 GCT patients with BM at primary diagnosis was retrospectively analysed. Survival estimates were calculated by the method of Kaplan-Meier and compared by log-rank testing. Cox regression analysis was applied for risk factor analyses. Results: In our cohort of patients, BM at primary diagnosis more often affected multiple sites (61%) and BM as the only metastatic site were scarce (9%). Histology was non-seminoma in 77% and seminoma in 23% of patients. After a median followup of 18 months (range, 0-228), estimated median PFS and OS were 21 (range, 0-225) and 98 months ((CI)-C-95%, 36-160), respective 2-year PFS and OS rates were 34% and 45%. Negative prognosticators in univariate analysis were a mediastinal primary (PFS; HR 1.92; (CI)-C-95%, 1.05-3.50; OS; HR 2.16; (CI)-C-95%, 1.14-4.09) and the presence of liver and/ or brain metastases (PFS; HR 1.89; (CI)-C-95%, 1.133.17; OS; HR 1.91; (CI)-C-95%, 0.024) Seminomatous histology was the strongest predictor for favorable PFS (multivariate Cox regression; HR, 0.32; P = 0.011) with respective 2-year PFS and OS rates of 68% and 75% compared with 24% and 36% for nonseminoma patients. Conclusions: Outcome of GCT patients with primary metastatic bone disease is particularly poor in non-seminoma patients, even worse than the expected outcomes of the general IGCCCG 'poor prognosis' group. This series does not indicate that mutlimodal treatment improves the prognosis over stage-adapted chemotherapy alone, however, the statistical power of these results is limited due to low patient numbers in each specific subgroup
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
The 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
“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
We 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
We 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
Addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: Pooled analysis of the CRYSTAL and OPUS randomised clinical trials.
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
We 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.
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
