1,721,352 research outputs found
Short-term reproducibility of proximal femur bone mineral density in the elderly
No full textDensitometric measurements are prone to imprecision in elderly subjects and the present study was primarily designed to dissect out the effects of age and bone mineral density on proximal femur dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) reproducibility. The study comprised 17 elderly women (mean age 74.6 years, range 65-84 years), 13 early postmenopausal women with osteopenia (mean age 56.2 years, range 50-63 years), and 17 elderly men (mean age 73.8 years, range 65-86 years). Each subject was given triplicate proximal femur scans by a QDR 2000 Densitometer (Hologic Inc., Waltham, MA) with repositioning between scans. Because of subject selection in the early postmenopausal women there were no significant differences in bone mineral density (BMD) at any site among the three groups. Despite this, reproducibility errors expressed as either coefficient of variation (CV) % or mean standard deviation (SD) were greater in the elderly subjects, regardless of gender, when compared with the younger female subjects. The variability in measurement errors with age were least marked for the total hip and trochanteric sites. Within the elderly subjects, BMD appeared to exert little influence on measurement errors. We conclude that short-term proximal femur reproducibility is dependent on age-related factors other than BMD. There is no influence of gender on the measurement errors. It is Likely that local factors (e.g., hip osteoarthritis) or general frailty may influence repositioning but this needs further exploration. In the meantime, the total hip and trochanteric sites should be used as they provide the most reproducible measurements in the elderly
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
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe 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
Interpretation and use of FRAX in clinical practice
No full textSummary: The introduction of the WHO FRAX® algorithms has facilitated the assessment of fracture risk on the basis of fracture probability. Its use in fracture risk prediction has strengths, but also limitations of which the clinician should be aware and are the focus of this review Introduction: The International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) appointed a joint Task Force to develop resource documents in order to make recommendations on how to improve FRAX and better inform clinicians who use FRAX. The Task Force met in November 2010 for 3 days to discuss these topics which form the focus of this review. Methods: This study reviews the resource documents and joint position statements of ISCD and IOF. Results: Details on the clinical risk factors currently used in FRAX are provided, and the reasons for the exclusion of others are provided. Recommendations are made for the development of surrogate models where country-specific FRAX models are not available. Conclusions: The wish list of clinicians for the modulation of FRAX is large, but in many instances, these wishes cannot presently be fulfilled; however, an explanation and understanding of the reasons may be helpful in translating the information provided by FRAX into clinical practice. © 2011 International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation.ADAMS J, 2010, CAN QUS CALCANEUS BE; Etminan M, 2008, DRUG SAFETY, V31, P409, DOI 10.2165-00002018-200831050-00005; *ASS SUISS OST, 2011, OST REC 2010; Baim S, 2008, J CLIN DENSITOM, V11, P75, DOI 10.1016-j.jocd.2007.12.007; BARON JA, 1994, EPIDEMIOLOGY, V5, P42, DOI 10.1097-00001648-199401000-00008; Berg KM, 2008, AM J MED, V121, P406, DOI 10.1016-j.amjmed.2007.12.012; Bergmann P, 2009, INT J CLIN PRACT, V63, P19, DOI 10.1111-j.1742-1241.2008.01911.x; Bischoff-Ferrari HA, 2009, BRIT MED J, V339, DOI 10.1136-bmj.b3692; Black DM, 1999, J BONE MINER RES, V14, P821, DOI 10.1359-jbmr.1999.14.5.821; Blake GM, 2003, J BONE MINER RES, V18, P1955, DOI 10.1359-jbmr.2003.18.11.1955; BLANK R, 2011, J CLIN DENS IN PRESS; BOW CH, 2011, OSTEOPOROS IN PRESS; Brown JP, 2009, CLIN BIOCHEM, V42, P929, DOI 10.1016-j.clinbiochem.2009.04.001; BROY B, 2011, J CLIN DENS IN PRESS; Bulajic-Kopjar Marija, 1998, Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening, V118, P30; Cameron I. D., 2010, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, V1, DOI [005410.001002-14651858.CD14005465.pub14651852, DOI 10.1002-14651858.CD00565.PUB2]; CAULEY JA, 2011, J CIN DENSI IN PRESS; Chang JT, 2004, BRIT MED J, V328, P680, DOI 10.1136-bmj.328.7441.680; Chevalley T, 2002, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V13, P113, DOI 10.1007-s001980200002; Compston J, 2009, MATURITAS, V62, P105, DOI 10.1016-j.maturitas.2008.11.022; Confavreux CB, 2011, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V22, P1023, DOI 10.1007-s00198-010-1462-4; Cooper C, 2011, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V22, P1277, DOI 10.1007-s00198-011-1601-6; CUMMINGS SR, 1995, NEW ENGL J MED, V332, P767, DOI 10.1056-NEJM199503233321202; Czerwinski E, 2009, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V20, P1363, DOI 10.1007-s00198-008-0787-8; Dam TT, 2010, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V21, P1341, DOI 10.1007-s00198-009-1076-x; Dawson-Hughes B, 2008, J CLIN ENDOCR METAB, V93, P2463, DOI 10.1210-jc.2008-0926; De Laet C, 2005, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V16, P313, DOI 10.1007-s00198-004-1689-z; Delmas PD, 2003, BONE, V33, P522, DOI 10.1016-S8756-3282(03)00241-2; DIMAI HP, 2011, J CLIN DENS IN PRESS; ELFFORS I, 1994, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V4, P253, DOI 10.1007-BF01623349; Faulkner KG, 1999, J CLIN DENSITOM, V2, P343, DOI 10.1385-JCD:2:3:343; FINSEN V, 1987, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P104; Fox KM, 1998, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V8, P557, DOI 10.1007-s001980050099; Fujiwara S, 2008, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V19, P429, DOI 10.1007-s00198-007-0544-4; Fukunaga M, 2006, JAPANESE GUIDELINES; Gillespie LD, 2009, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI 10.1002-14651858.CD007146.pub2; Grossman JM, 2010, ARTHRIT CARE RES, V62, P1515, DOI 10.1002-acr.20295; Gullberg B, 1997, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V7, P407, DOI 10.1007-PL00004148; Hans D, 2008, J BONE MINER RES, V23, P1045, DOI [10.1359-jbmr.080229, 10.1359-JBMR.080229]; HANS D, 2011, J CLIN DENS IN PRESS; Hippisley-Cox J, 2009, BRIT MED J, V339, DOI 10.1136-bmj.b4229; JACOBSEN SJ, 1990, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V264, P500, DOI 10.1001-jama.264.4.500; Johansson H, 2011, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V22, P453, DOI 10.1007-s00198-010-1218-1; Johnell O, 1997, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V7, P138, DOI 10.1007-BF01623689; Johnell O, 2005, J BONE MINER RES, V20, P1185, DOI 10.1359-JBMR.050304; JONSSON B, 1992, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V2, P269, DOI 10.1007-BF01623181; Kaastad TS, 1998, BONE, V22, P175, DOI 10.1016-S8756-3282(97)00247-0; Kanis J, 2010, ARCH OSTEOPOROS, DOI [10.1007-s11657-010-0045-5, DOI 10.1007-S11657-010-0045-5]; Kanis JA, 2008, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V19, P1395, DOI 10.1007-s00198-008-0712-1; Kanis JA, 2008, ASSESSMENT OSTEOPORO; Kanis JA, 2005, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V16, P155, DOI 10.1007-s00198-004-1640-3; Kanis JA, 2008, BONE, V42, P467, DOI 10.1016-j.bone.2007.11.001; Kanis JA, 2009, BONE, V44, P734, DOI 10.1016-j.bone.2009.01.373; Kanis JA, 2006, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V17, P527, DOI 10.1007-s00198-005-0014-9; Kanis JA, 2010, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V21, P35, DOI 10.1007-s00198-009-1033-8; Kanis JA, 2004, BONE, V35, P1029, DOI 10.1016-j.bone.2004.06.017; Kanis JA, 2008, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V19, P385, DOI 10.1007-s00198-007-0543-5; Kanis JA, 2001, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V12, P417, DOI 10.1007-s001980170112; Kanis JA, 2007, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V18, P1033, DOI 10.1007-s00198-007-0343-y; KANIS JA, 2010, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V22, P809; Kanis JA, 2002, BONE, V30, P251, DOI 10.1016-S8756-3282(01)00653-6; Kanis JA, 2004, J BONE MINER RES, V19, P893, DOI 10.1359-JBMR.040134; Kanis JA, 2005, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V16, P737, DOI 10.1007-s00198-004-1734-y; Kanis JA, 2008, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V19, P399, DOI 10.1007-s00198-008-0560-z; Kayan K, 2009, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V20, P2055, DOI 10.1007-s00198-009-0942-x; Kjensli A, 2009, EUR RESPIR J, V33, P1018, DOI 10.1183-09031936.00073908; Lakatos P, 2011, ARCH OSTEOPOROS, DOI [10.1007-s11657-010-0048-2, DOI 10.1007-S11657-010-0048-2]; Lauderdale DS, 1998, AM J PUBLIC HEALTH, V88, P1245, DOI 10.2105-AJPH.88.8.1245; Law MR, 1997, BRIT MED J, V315, P841; LEIB ES, 2011, J CLIN DENS IN PRESS; LESLIE WD, 2010, J BONE MINER RES S1, V25, pS60; Leslie WD, 2011, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V22, P839, DOI 10.1007-s00198-010-1461-5; Leslie WD, 2007, J BONE MINER RES, V22, P476, DOI 10.1359-JBMR.061112; LEVINE S, 1970, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American Volume, V52, P1193; LEWIECKI EM, 2011, J CLIN DENS IN PRESS; Lippuner K, 2010, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V21, P381, DOI 10.1007-s00198-009-0975-1; Lippuner K, 1997, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V7, P414, DOI 10.1007-PL00004149; Looker AC, 1998, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V8, P468, DOI 10.1007-s001980050093; Lunt M, 2003, BONE, V33, P505, DOI 10.1016-S8756-3282(03)00248-5; MADHOK R, 1993, ACTA ORTHOP SCAND, V64, P543, DOI 10.3109-17453679308993689; Marshall D, 1996, BRIT MED J, V312, P1254; MASUD T, 2011, J CLIN DENS IN PRESS; MATKOVIC V, 1979, AM J CLIN NUTR, V32, P540; McCloskey EV, 2007, J BONE MINER RES, V22, P135, DOI 10.1359-JBMR.061008; McClung MR, 2001, NEW ENGL J MED, V344, P333, DOI 10.1056-NEJM200102013440503; Melton III LJ, 1995, OSTEOPOROSIS ETIOLOG, P225; Melton LJ, 1999, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V9, P29, DOI 10.1007-s001980050113; National Osteoporosis Foundation, 2008, CLIN GUID PREV TREAT; Neuprez A, 2009, Rev Med Liege, V64, P612; Nguyen ND, 2008, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V19, P1431, DOI 10.1007-s00198-008-0588-0; Office of the Surgeon General (US), 2004, BON HLTH OST REP SUR; Oliver D, 1997, BRIT MED J, V315, P1049; Papaioannou A, 2010, CAN MED ASSOC J, V182, P1864, DOI 10.1503-cmaj.100771; Puisto V, 2011, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V22, P63, DOI 10.1007-s00198-010-1195-4; Sanders KM, 1998, J BONE MINER RES, V13, P1337, DOI 10.1359-jbmr.1998.13.8.1337; Singer BR, 1998, J BONE JOINT SURG BR, V80B, P234; Siris ES, 2007, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V18, P761, DOI 10.1007-s00198-006-0306-8; Socialstyrelsen, 2010, NAT RIKTL ROR SJUKD; Stone KL, 2003, J BONE MINER RES, V18, P1947, DOI 10.1359-jbmr.2003.18.11.1947; Szulc P, 2008, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V19, P1683, DOI 10.1007-s00198-008-0660-9; Toyabe S, 2010, BMC HEALTH SERV RES, V10, DOI 10.1186-1472-6963-10-106; Calonge N, 2011, ANN INTERN MED, V154, P356, DOI 10.1059-0003-4819-154-5-201103010-00307; van Staa TP, 2001, BRIT J CLIN PHARMACO, V51, P601, DOI 10.1046-j.0306-5251.2001.bjcp.1385.x; Van Staa TP, 2000, J BONE MINER RES, V15, P993, DOI 10.1359-jbmr.2000.15.6.993; van Staa TP, 2000, RHEUMATOLOGY, V39, P1383, DOI 10.1093-rheumatology-39.12.1383; van Staa TP, 2001, J BONE MINER RES, V16, P581, DOI 10.1359-jbmr.2001.16.3.581; Vasikaran S, 2011, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V22, P391, DOI 10.1007-s00198-010-1501-1; Vasikaran SD, 2008, CRIT REV CL LAB SCI, V45, P221, DOI 10.1080-10408360801949442 ; VESTERGAARD P, 2010, ALCOHOL ISCD IOF FRA; Vestergaard P, 2003, J INTERN MED, V254, P572, DOI 10.1111-j.1365-2796.2003.01232.x; Wittich A, 2010, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V21, P1803, DOI 10.1007-s00198-009-1135-3; World Health Organization, 2007, ASS OST PRIM HLTH CA; Zingmond DS, 2004, OSTEOPOROSIS INT, V15, P603, DOI 10.1007-s00198-004-1592-7109918
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe 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.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
