1,720,963 research outputs found
Cancer patients affected by COVID-19: experience from Milan, Lombardy
Objective: SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is continuing to spread. There are growing concerns on the impact of COVID-19 in cancer patients. Several papers reporting recommendations and guidelines are published. But few data on cancer patients affected by COVID-19 are available.
Methods: This is a retrospective study including all consecutive patients affected by gynecological cancer who developed COVID-19. All patients were treated in an academic setting (in Milan, Lombardy, Italy) between February and March 2020.
Results: Overall, 355 patients had active treatment during the study period due to newly diagnosed or recurrent gynecological disease. Among those, 19 (5.3%) patients affected developed COVID-19. All patients were asymptomatic at the time of COVID-19 detection. Six patients were diagnosed before starting planned treatments; while the remaining 13 were diagnosed for COVID-19 after their started their treatments. Considering the first group of six patients, one patient died due to COVID-19 3 days after the diagnosis; while the other patients recovered from COVID-19 after a median of three weeks. The latter group of 13 patients (treatments started) included five patients who underwent surgery and eight patients who underwent chemotherapy. Focusing on five patients who were diagnosed after surgery, we observed that two patients died during postoperative course, while in other two cases prolonged hospitalization was needed. One patient had no issues. Chemotherapy was delayed for the remaining patents without sequelae.
Conclusions: Our report highlights that COVID-19 impacts the quality of treatments for cancer patients. Mortality rate is high, especially after surgery. More important, patients under active treatment for cancer are at high risk of developing severe evolution of COVID-19. Prioritizing patients journey during COVID-19 is of paramount importance
Gynecologic oncology at the time of COVID-19 outbreak
The World Health Organization (WHO) classified the novel coronavirus (i.e., coronavirus
disease 2019 [COVID-19]) as a global public health emergency. COVID-19 threatens to
curtail patient access to evidence-based treatment. Medicine is changing, basically due to
the limited available resources. In the field of gynecologic oncology, we have to re-design
our treatments' paradigm. During COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, the highest priority is to
achieve the maximum benefit from less demanding procedures. Extensive procedures should
be avoided, in order to reduce hospitalization and postoperative events that might increase
the in-hospital spread of the virus. There are ongoing concerns on the use of laparoscopic
procedures, related to the possible contamination of the staff working in the operation room.
Other minimally invasive techniques, including, vaginal surgery as well as robotic-assisted
and isobaric procedures would be preferred over laparoscopy. A fair allocation of resources is
paramount adequate treatments
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
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
- …
