124,716 research outputs found
Ophthalmic complications of targeted cancer therapy and recently recognized ophthalmic complications of traditional chemotherapy
No full textAs our understanding of cancer pathophysiology has increased, so have the number of targeted therapeutic agents available. By targeting specific molecules involved in tumorigenesis, targeted therapeutic agents offer the potential for significant efficacy against tumor cells while minimizing the adverse effects. We highlight the recently recognized ophthalmic complications of targeted cancer therapy, as well as recently recognized complications of traditional chemotherapeutic agents. © 2014 Elsevier Inc.Akinleye A, 2013, J HEMATOL ONCOL, V6, DOI 10.1186-1756-8722-6-27; Anforth R, 2013, LANCET ONCOL, V14, pE11, DOI 10.1016-S1470-2045(12)70413-8; Arnault JP, 2009, J CLIN ONCOL, V27, pE59, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2009.23.4823; Babu K. Govind, 2007, International Ophthalmology, V27, P43, DOI 10.1007-s10792-007-9038-9; Belum VR, 2013, CURR ONCOL REP, V15, P249, DOI 10.1007-s11912-013-0308-6; Bonner JA, 2006, NEW ENGL J MED, V354, P567, DOI 10.1056-NEJMoa053422; Borkar DS, 2013, SUPPORT CARE CANCER, V21, P1167, DOI 10.1007-s00520-012-1645-y; Borodic G, 2011, OPHTHAL PLAST RECONS, V27, pE87, DOI 10.1097-IOP.0b013e3181ef72a1; Boussemart L, 2013, ANN ONCOL, V24, P1691, DOI 10.1093-annonc-mdt015; Bouwhuis MG, 2011, CURR OPIN ONCOL, V23, P170, DOI 10.1097-CCO.0b013e328341edff; Burris HA, 2011, J CLIN ONCOL, V29, P398, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2010.29.5865; Burstein HJ, 2000, J CLIN ONCOL, V18, P1212; Bussone Guillaume, 2010, Clin Exp Rheumatol, V28, P90; Chu EY, 2012, J AM ACAD DERMATOL, V67, P1265, DOI 10.1016-j.jaad.2012.04.008; Demetri GD, 2002, NEW ENGL J MED, V347, P472, DOI 10.1056-NEJMoa020461; De Vita F, 2010, CANCER TREAT REV, V36, pS11, DOI 10.1016-S0305-7372(10)70014-1; Di Giacomo AM, 2010, SEMIN ONCOL, V37, P499, DOI 10.1053-j.seminoncol.2010.09.007; Dogan SS, 2009, HEMATOL ONCOL CLIN N, V23, P109, DOI 10.1016-j.hoc.2008.11.003; Esmaeli B, 2004, EYE, V18, P760, DOI 10.1038-sj.eye.6701315; Esmaeli B, 2002, ANN ONCOL, V13, P218, DOI 10.1093-annonc-mdf036; Esmaeli Bita, 2005, Clin Breast Cancer, V5, P455, DOI 10.3816-CBC.2005.n.004; Esmaeli B, 2006, J CLIN ONCOL, V24, P3619, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2005.04.4453; Esmaeli B, 2003, OPHTHALMIC PLAST REC, V19, P305, DOI 10.1097-01.IOP.0000075016.29682.E0; Esmaeli B, 2002, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V120, P1180; Esmaeli B, 2002, CANCER, V95, P881, DOI 10.1002-cncr.10729; Esmaeli B, 2003, CANCER, V98, P504, DOI 10.1002-cncr.11527; Esmaeli B, 2005, AM J OPHTHALMOL, V140, P325, DOI 10.1016-j.ajo.2005.01.052; Fabre-Guillevin E, 1999, LANCET, V354, P1181, DOI 10.1016-S0140-6736(99)03019-6; Falchook GS, 2012, LANCET, V379, P1893, DOI 10.1016-S0140-6736(12)60398-5; Falchook GS, 2012, LANCET ONCOL, V13, P782, DOI 10.1016-S1470-2045(12)70269-3; Flaherty KT, 2012, NEW ENGL J MED, V367, P107, DOI 10.1056-NEJMoa1203421; Foerster CG, 2008, CORNEA, V27, P612, DOI 10.1097-ICO.0b013e318166f483; Fraunfelder FW, 2003, NEW ENGL J MED, V348, P1187, DOI 10.1056-NEJM200303203481225; Fraunfelder FT, 2012, CUTAN OCUL TOXICOL, V31, P195, DOI 10.3109-15569527.2011.636118; Fraunfelder FW, 2003, J OCUL PHARMACOL TH, V19, P371, DOI 10.1089-108076803322279426; Garibaldi DC, 2007, OPHTHAL PLAST RECONS, V23, P62, DOI 10.1097-IOP.0b013e31802d9025; Guarneri V, 2010, CANCER TREAT REV, V36, pS62, DOI 10.1016-S0305-7372(10)70022-0; Haura EB, 2010, CLIN CANCER RES, V16, P2450, DOI 10.1158-1078-0432.CCR-09-1920; Hemmati I, 2012, CLIN RHEUMATOL, V31, P1403, DOI 10.1007-s10067-012-2035-z; Ho WL, 2013, ACTA OPHTHALMOL, V91, P604, DOI 10.1111-j.1755-3768.2012.02518.x; Hong DS, 2008, ARCH DERMATOL, V144, P779, DOI 10.1001-archderm.144.6.779; Huang WH, 2009, J OCUL PHARMACOL TH, V25, P519, DOI 10.1089-jop.2009.0060; Infante JR, 2013, EUR J CANCER, V49, P2077, DOI 10.1016-j.ejca.2013.03.020; Infante JR, 2012, LANCET ONCOL, V13, P773, DOI 10.1016-S1470-2045(12)70270-X; Johnson KS, 2009, CORNEA, V28, P706, DOI 10.1097-ICO.0b013e31818fdbc6; Kaur Harpreet, 2011, Endocr Pract, V17, pe101, DOI 10.4158-EP11081.CR; Keenan JD, 2010, CORNEA, V29, P583, DOI 10.1097-ICO.0b013e3181b55cd8; Kim N, 2012, ANN ONCOL, V23, P2065, DOI 10.1093-annonc-mds106; Kusumi E, 2004, LEUKEMIA, V18, P1138, DOI 10.1038-sj.leu.2403364; Kwon SI, 2008, JPN J OPHTHALMOL, V52, P331, DOI 10.1007-s10384-008-0561-7; Lacouture ME, 2012, J CLIN ONCOL, V30, P329, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2011.38.2895; Larson JSM, 2007, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V125, P985, DOI 10.1001-archopht.125.7.985; Leyssens B, 2010, ANN ONCOL, V21, P419, DOI 10.1093-annonc-mdp319; Long GV, 2012, LANCET ONCOL, V13, P1087, DOI 10.1016-S1470-2045(12)70431-X; LoRusso PM, 2010, CLIN CANCER RES, V16, P1924, DOI 10.1158-1078-0432.CCR-09-1883; Macarulla T., 2012, ANN ONCOL, V23, piv19; Maker AV, 2006, J IMMUNOTHER, V29, P455, DOI 10.1097-01.cji.0000208259.73167.58; Maloney DG, 1997, BLOOD, V90, P2188; Masood I, 2005, J CATARACT REFR SURG, V31, P2427, DOI 10.1016-j.jcrs.2005.10.029; McClelland Collin M, 2010, Clin Ophthalmol, V4, P427; Methvin AB, 2007, OPHTHAL PLAST RECONS, V23, P63, DOI 10.1097-IOP.0b013e31802d97f0; Moore MJ, 2007, J CLIN ONCOL, V25, P1960, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2006.07.9525; Morris LGT, 2011, CURR ONCOL, V18, P145; MURILLAS R, 1995, EMBO J, V14, P5216; Musolino A, 2011, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V117, P1837, DOI 10.1002-cncr.25771; Nakamura Y, 2001, EXP EYE RES, V72, P511, DOI 10.1006-exer.2000.0979; Ng JD, 2011, MD ANDERSON SOLID TU, P327, DOI 10.1007-978-1-4419-0374-7_27; Olsen E, 2001, J CLIN ONCOL, V19, P376; Oribe Naoya, 2004, Haematologica, V89, pEIM14; Park M, 2007, LEUKEMIA LYMPHOMA, V48, P808, DOI 10.1080-10428190701268783; Pascual JC, 2004, BRIT J DERMATOL, V151, P1111, DOI 10.1111-j.1365-2133.2004.06265.x; Patel DV, 2013, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V120, P773, DOI 10.1016-j.ophtha.2012.10.028; Pazianas M, 2013, J BONE MINER RES, V28, P455, DOI 10.1002-jbmr.1783; Perez-Fidalgo JA, 2008, AN MED INTERN, V25, P178; Phillips PM, 2008, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V126, P137, DOI 10.1001-archophthalmol.2007.17; Pietras K, 2001, CANCER RES, V61, P2929; Procianoy F, 2010, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V21, P1057, DOI 10.1007-s00198-009-1048-1; Radaelli F, 2007, INT J HEMATOL, V86, P390, DOI 10.1532-IJH97.E0741; Ravnan MC, 2012, CLIN THER, V34, P1474, DOI 10.1016-j.clinthera.2012.06.009; Reid IR, 2010, J CLIN ENDOCR METAB, V95, P4380, DOI 10.1210-jc.2010-0597; Renouf DJ, 2012, J CLIN ONCOL, V30, P3277, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2011.41.5851; Robert C, 2011, CURR OPIN ONCOL, V23, P177, DOI 10.1097-CCO.0b013e3283436e8c; Robinson MR, 2004, J IMMUNOTHER, V27, P478, DOI 10.1097-00002371-200411000-00008; Rodt SA, 1996, J PHYSIOL-LONDON, V495, P193; Roth Daniel B, 2009, Retin Cases Brief Rep, V3, P161, DOI 10.1097-ICB.0b013e318177f9d7; Ruddle JB, 2007, LEUKEMIA LYMPHOMA, V48, P655, DOI 10.1080-10428190601186192; Ruddle JB, 2006, BRIT J OPHTHALMOL, V90, P1070, DOI 10.1136-bjo.2006.091165; Saleh M, 2011, ACTA ONCOL, V50, P477, DOI 10.3109-0284186X.2011.555781; Sasaki T, 2012, JPN J OPHTHALMOL, V56, P214, DOI 10.1007-s10384-012-0127-6; Savar A, 2011, MD ANDERSON SOLID TU, P251, DOI 10.1007-978-1-4419-0374-7_20; Sharma NS, 2008, NEW ENGL J MED, V359, P1410, DOI 10.1056-NEJMc0803366; Shepherd FA, 2005, NEW ENGL J MED, V353, P123, DOI 10.1056-NEJMoa050753; Shome D, 2008, OPHTHALMOLOGY, V115, P483, DOI 10.1016-j.ophtha.2007.11.016; Skolnick Craig A, 2003, Eye Contact Lens, V29, P134, DOI 10.1097-01.ICL.0000062464.79558.5A; Smith KJ, 2009, DERMATOL SURG, V35, P1766, DOI 10.1111-j.1524-4725.2009.01289.x; Specenier P, 2007, Ann Oncol, V18, P961, DOI 10.1093-annonc-mdm116; Stahl JL, 1999, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V117, P493; Subramanian PS, 2003, ARCH OPHTHALMOL-CHIC, V121, P1335, DOI 10.1001-archopht.121.9.1335; Teitelbaum BA, 2003, OPTOMETRY VISION SCI, V80, P277, DOI 10.1097-00006324-200304000-00004; Telander David G, 2007, Semin Ophthalmol, V22, P151, DOI 10.1080-08820530701457373; Tobinai K, 1998, ANN ONCOL, V9, P527, DOI 10.1023-A:1008265313133; Tsalic M, 2006, MED ONCOL, V23, P57, DOI 10.1385-MO:23:1:57; Tsoucalas GI, 2012, HELL J NUCL MED, V15, P159, DOI 10.1967-s002449910037; Tullo AB, 2005, EYE, V19, P729, DOI 10.1038-sj.eye.6701630; Vaccaro M, 2009, CLIN EXP DERMATOL, V34, P402, DOI 10.1111-j.1365-2230.2008.02842.x; Van Cutsem E, 2007, J CLIN ONCOL, V25, P1658, DOI 10.1200-JCO.2006.08.1620; Vano-Galvan S, 2010, J AM ACAD DERMATOL, V62, P531, DOI 10.1016-j.jaad.2009.02.023; Voskens CJ, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, DOI 10.1371-journal.pone.0053745; Weber J, 2009, CANCER IMMUNOL IMMUN, V58, P823, DOI 10.1007-s00262-008-0653-8; Yeo Jennifer, 2010, N Z Med J, V123, P50; Zhang G, 2007, CORNEA, V26, P858, DOI 10.1097-ICO.0b013e318064584a0
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
No full textThe 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
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
No full textWe 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
Pragmatic Case Studies as a Source of Unity in Applied Psychology
No full textTo unify or not to unify applied psychology: that is the question. In this article we review pendulum swings in the historical efforts to answer this question—from a comprehensive, positivist, “top-down,” deductive yes between the 1930s and the early 60s, to a postmodern no since then. A rationale and proposal for a limited, “bottom-up,” inductive yes in applied psychology is then presented, employing a case-based paradigm that integrates both positivist and postmodern themes and components. This paradigm is labeled “pragmatic psychology” and, its specific use of case studies, the “Pragmatic Case Study Method” (“PCS Method”). We call for the creation of peer-reviewed journal-databases of pragmatic case studies as a foundational source of unifying applied knowledge in our discipline. As one example, the potential of the PCS Method for unifying different angles of theoretical regard is illustrated in an area of applied psychology, psychotherapy, via the case of Mrs. B. The article then turns to the broader historical and epistemological arguments for the unifying nature of the PCS Method in both applied and basic psychology.Peer reviewe
Dr. Edwin Wright Collection: Author Unknown
No full textNotes - The author relates several short stories about his neighbours including Alex McDonell, homesteading and life around Meanook and Athabasca (1 page
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
No full textWe 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
Measurement of the ratio of branching fractions B(B0→K∗0γ )/B(B0s→φγ ) and the directCP asymmetry inB 0→K∗0γ
No full textThe ratio of branching fractions of the radiative B decays B0→K⁎0γ and B0s→ϕγ has been measured using an integrated luminosity of 1.0 fb−1 of pp collision data collected by the LHCb experiment at a centre-of-mass energy of s√=7TeV. The value obtained is
B(B0→K⁎0γ)B(B0s→ϕγ)=1.23±0.06(stat.)±0.04(syst.)±0.10(fs/fd),
where the first uncertainty is statistical, the second is the experimental systematic uncertainty and the third is associated with the ratio of fragmentation fractions fs/fd. Using the world average value for B(B0→K⁎0γ), the branching fraction B(B0s→ϕγ) is measured to be (3.5±0.4)×10−5.
The direct CP asymmetry in B0→K⁎0γ decays has also been measured with the same data and found to be
ACP(B0→K⁎0γ)=(0.8±1.7(stat.)±0.9(syst.))%.
Both measurements are the most precise to date and are in agreement with the previous experimental results and theoretical expectations
The construction of Karen Karnak: The multi-author-function
No full textThis thesis is situated within the comparatively recent developments of Web 2.0 and the emergence of interactive WikiMedia, and explores the mode of authorship within a Read/Write culture compared to that of a Read/Only tradition. The hypothesis of this study is that the role of the audience has become merged with the author, and as such, represents new functions and attributes, distinct from a more conventional concept of authorship, in which the roles of audience and author are more separate. Read/Write and participatory culture, as defined by this study, is focused on collaboration, and includes the influences of D.I.Y. culture, Open-Source practices and the production of text by multiple authors. Multi-authorship presents a re-thinking of several concepts which support the notion of the individual author, since the focus of multi-authorship is not on attribution and ownership of a finished text, but on the continued malleability of a text. Modes of multi-authorship, demonstrated in the use of the pseudonyms Alan Smithee and Karen Eliot, represent declarative authors whose names signify multiple origins, whilst concurrently indicating a distinct body of work. The function of these names form an important context to this study, since primary research involves the construction of an experimental mode of multi-authorship utilising WikiMedia technology and the interaction of thirty nine participants, who are invited to create a body of work under the collective pseudonym Karen Karnak. The data generated by this experiment is analysed using aspects of Michel Foucault's author-function to identify and determine power structures inherent in the WikiMedia context. The interplay of power structures, including concepts such as identity, ownership and the body of work, affect the resulting mode of authorship and contribute to the construction of Karen Karnak, suggesting further areas of research into the emerging multi-author
Branching fraction and CP asymmetry of the decays B+→K0Sπ+ and B+→K0SK+
No full textAn analysis of B+ → K0
Sπ+ and B+ → K0
S K+ decays is performed with the LHCb experiment. The pp
collision data used correspond to integrated luminosities of 1 fb−1 and 2 fb−1 collected at centre-ofmass
energies of
√
s = 7 TeV and
√
s = 8 TeV, respectively. The ratio of branching fractions and the
direct CP asymmetries are measured to be B(B+ → K0
S K+
)/B(B+ → K0
Sπ+
) = 0.064 ± 0.009 (stat.) ±
0.004 (syst.), ACP(B+ → K0
Sπ+
) = −0.022 ± 0.025 (stat.) ± 0.010 (syst.) and ACP(B+ → K0
S K+
) =
−0.21 ± 0.14 (stat.) ± 0.01 (syst.). The data sample taken at
√
s = 7 TeV is used to search for
B+
c
→ K0
S K+ decays and results in the upper limit ( fc · B(B+
c
→ K0
S K+
))/( fu · B(B+ → K0
Sπ+
)) <
5.8 × 10−2 at 90% confidence level, where fc and fu denote the hadronisation fractions of a ¯b
quark
into a B+
c or a B+ meson, respectively
Study of the decay mechanism for B+ -> p(p)over-barK(+) and B+ -> p(p)over-bar pi(+)
No full textWe study the characteristics of the low mass p (p) over bar enhancements near threshold in the three-body decays B+ -> p (p) over barK(+) and B+ -> p (p) over bar pi(+). We observe that the proton polar angle distributions in the p (p) over bar helicity frame in the two decays have the opposite polarity, and measure the forward-backward asymmetries as a function of the p mass for the p (p) over barK(+) mode. We also search for the intermediate two-body decays, B+ -> (p) over bar Delta(++) and B+ -> p (Delta) over bar (0), and set upper limits on their branching fractions. These results are obtained from a 414 fb(-1) data sample that contains 449 x 10(6) B (B) over bar events collected near the Gamma(4S) resonance with the Belle detector at the KEKB asymmetric-energy e(+)e(-) collider. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.IPE
- …
