1,721,492 research outputs found

    Definition of non-responders: biological markers

    No full text
    Identification of reliable biomarkers in multiple sclerosis patients would be highly desirable to help disease activity and progression monitoring, and evaluate response to treatments. The field has gradually shifted from the aim to find the perfect surrogate marker to the construction of composite markers with higher performances, taking advantage of the technologies allowing unbiased screening (i.e., microarrays, proteomics, etc.). Despite the fact that very interesting results have been produced, no approach has yet made it to the patient's bedside

    INCREASE OF MYELOID MICROVESICLES IN THE CEREBROSPINAL FLUID AS BIOMARKER OF MICROGLIA/MACROPHAGE ACTIVATION IN NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS

    No full text
    The present invention relates to a method for the diagnostic and/or prognostic of a neurological disease characterized by an inflammation process in a subject comprising measuring the amount of myeloid derived microvesicles in a cerebrospinal fluid sample obtained from the subject. The invention further relates to a method for predicting and /or monitoring the efficacy of a treatment for a neurological pathology or for monitoring a neurological disease progression

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    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
    corecore