1,721,068 research outputs found
L'auditorium di Renzo Piano per l'Aquila
No full textIl significato simbolico e l'efficienza funzionale e costruttiva di un piccolo capolavoro dell'architettura contemporanea italian
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of the action of orlistat, fluvastatin, or both an anthropometric measurements, blood pressure, and lipid profile in obese patients with hypercholesterolemia prescribed a standardized diet.
No full textThe aim of this study was to assess obese patients with hypercholesterolemia whom were prescribed a standardized diet, comparing the action of orlistat, fluvastatin, orlistat with fluvastatin, and placebo on anthropometric measurements, blood pressure (BP), and lipid profile.This was a 1-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. The patients were prescribed a controlled-energy diet and were randomly allocated to receive placebo, orlistat 120 mg TID (O group), fluvastatin 80 mg/d (F group), or olistat 120 mg TID with fluvastatin 80 mg/d (OF group). Clinical measurements (body weight, body mass index [BMI], waist circumference, and BP) and lipid profile assessment (total cholesterol [TC], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], and triglycerides [TGs]) were performed at baseline and after 6 months and 1 year of treatment.The study included 99 obese patients with hypercholesterolemia (48 men and 51 women; mean [SD] age, 51 [9] years). There were no significant differences between groups in baseline demographic, BP, or plasma lipid values. Three patients dropped out (2 women in the O group and 1 man in the OF group) due to adverse events related to orlistat treatment, including gastrointestinal events (oily spotting and fecal urgency). Ninety-six patients completed the study. There were significant differences from baseline (mean [SD]) in BMI, waist circumference reduction (WCR), and body weight loss (BWL) at 6 months in the OF group (29.9 [1.1] kg/m(2), 2.7 [0.8] cm, and 7.4 [0.9] kg, respectively; all P < 0.05), and BMI, WCR, and BWL at 1 year in the O group (29.0 [1.0] kg/m(2), 3.0 [1.0] cm, and 8.6 [1.0] kg, respectively; all P < 0.02), the F group (29.3 [1.6] kg/m(2), 2.4 [1.0] cm, and 8/0 [1.0] kg, respectively; all P < 0.05), and the OF group (28.4 [0.6] kg/m(2), 4.0 [0.6] cm, and 11.4 [1.0] kg, respectively; all P < 0.01). Significant reductions from baseline in systolic and diastolic BP were observed at 1 year in the O and F groups (all P < 0.05) and the OF group (both P < 0.01). At 6 months, there were significant reductions from baseline in TC and LDL-C in the F group (both P < 0.05) and in TC, LDL-C, and TGs in the OF group (P < 0.02, P < 0.02, and P < 0.05, respectively), as well as a significant increase in HDL-C in the OF group (P < 0.02). At 1 year, there were significant reduction from baseline in TC in the O, F, and OF groups (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively), LDL-C (P < 0.05, P < 0.02, and P < 0.01, respectively), and TGs (P < 0.02, P < 0.05, and P < 0.02, respectively). Also at 1 year, HDL-C was significantly higher than baseline in the F and OF groups (P < 0.02 and P < 0.01, respectively).Improvements in clinical and lipid-profile parameters were found at 1 year with all 3 treatments
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
Comparison between repaglinide and glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a one-year, randomized, double-blind assessment of metabolic parameters and cardiovascular risk factors
No full textRepaglinide and glimepiride are relatively new oral hypoglycemic agents. Few data are available concerning their effects on metabolic parameters other than measures of glycemic control.In addition to assessing the effects of repaglinide and glimepiride on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, this study also examined the effects of these agents on 3 metabolic parameters known to be cardiovascular risk factors--lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]), plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), and homocysteine (Hcy).This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was conducted at a single center in Italy. Eligible patients were nonsmokers; had no hypertension or coronary heart disease; were taking no hypolipidemic drugs, diuretics, beta-blockers, or thyroxin; and had normal renal function. After an initial 4-week placebo washout period, patients were randomized to receive repaglinide 1 mg/d or glimepiride 1 mg/d. The dose of study drug was optimized over an 8-week titration period, which was followed by a 12-month treatment period. Measures of glycemic control (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], fasting plasma glucose [FPG], postprandial plasma glucose [PPG], fasting plasma insulin [FPI], postprandial plasma insulin [PPI]) and the other metabolic parameters of interest were assessed after 6 and 12 months of treatment.One hundred twenty-four patients (63 women, 61 men) completed the study, 62 in each treatment group. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics between groups. After 6 and 12 months of treatment, FPG levels and HbA1c values were significantly reduced from baseline in both groups (6 months, P < 0.05; 12 months, P < 0.01). After 6 months, PPG levels were significantly decreased only in the repaglinide group (P < 0.05 vs baseline); at 12 months, however, PPG levels were significantly reduced from baseline in both groups (P < 0.01 repaglinide, P < 0.05 glimepiride). No significant changes from baseline in FPI or PPI levels were seen in either group at 6 months, although FPI levels were significantly increased in the repaglinide group at 12 months (P < 0.05). Repaglinide significantly lowered levels of Lp(a), PAI-1, and Hcy after 12 months (all, P < 0.05 vs baseline). Glimepiride significantly lowered levels of Lp(a) and Hcy after 6 months (both, P < 0.05 vs baseline) and levels of Lp(a) (P < 0.01 vs baseline), Hcy (P < 0.01 vs baseline), and PAI-1 (P < 0.05 vs baseline) after 12 months.Repaglinide and glimepiride improved glycemic control and reduced levels of other metabolic parameters of interest in this population of patients with type 2 diabetes. It is possible that the reductions in Lp(a), PAI-1, and Hcy were the result of improved glucose metabolism; however, the possibility that repaglinide and glimepiride may have a direct effect on these parameters should not be excluded
Perindopril and candesartan comparative efficacy and safety in type II diabetic hypertensive patients.
No full text- …
