130,588 research outputs found
MeSH term explosion and author rank improve expert recommendations
No full textInformation overload is an often-cited phenomenon that reduces the productivity, efficiency and efficacy of scientists. One challenge for scientists is to find appropriate collaborators in their research. The literature describes various solutions to the problem of expertise location, but most current approaches do not appear to be very suitable for expert recommendations in biomedical research. In this study, we present the development and initial evaluation of a vector space model-based algorithm to calculate researcher similarity using four inputs: 1) MeSH terms of publications; 2) MeSH terms and author rank; 3) exploded MeSH terms; and 4) exploded MeSH terms and author rank. We developed and evaluated the algorithm using a data set of 17,525 authors and their 22,542 papers. On average, our algorithms correctly predicted 2.5 of the top 5/10 coauthors of individual scientists. Exploded MeSH and author rank outperformed all other algorithms in accuracy, followed closely by MeSH and author rank. Our results show that the accuracy of MeSH term-based matching can be enhanced with other metadata such as author rank
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
"Closing the R&D Gap, Evaluating the Sources of R&D Spending"
No full textBoth spending and tax policies have been implemented in the United States with the goal of stimulating private sector research and development (R&D). Karier questions whether current R&D policy, especially the research and experimentation tax credit, can contribute to closing the gap between nondefense expenditures on R&D in the United States and such expenditures in other countries, such as Japan and Germany. He also explores possible changes to our current R&D policy to make it more effective.
Should we use lung protective ventilation for non-ARDS patients?
No full textAn evaluation of a recent study by Serpa Neto A, Cardoso SO & Manetta JA et al: Association between Uses of Lung-Protective Ventilation with Lower Tidal Volume and Clinical Outcomes among Patients without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome a Meta-analysis. JAMA, October 24/31, 2012—Vol 308, No. 16. PMID: 23093163
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
Scholarly Communication and Publishing Lunch and Learn Talk #11: The ULS Open Access Author Fee Fund
No full textAt the May 2014 talk, you will learn about the ULS Open Access Author Fee Fund--what it is, why we do it, how it works, and how the program is going so far
The R&D Tax Incentives
No full textThis article sets out some background information and reflections of the author on the R&D tax incentive schemes included in the Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB) Proposal. In particular the author analyzes the stimulus to private R&D through ad hoc tax incentives included in the CCTB Proposal and dives into the actual provisions included in the Proposal highlighting the most relevant issues connected with their design and interpretation. Moreover, the author explores the interaction between the CCTB Proposal and the granting by Member States of domestic R&D tax incentives
A trial of intracranial pressure monitoring in traumatic brain injury
No full textBackground\ud
Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is considered the standard of care for severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and is used frequently, but the efficacy of treatment based on monitoring in improving the outcome has not been rigorously assessed.\ud
\ud
Methods\ud
Objective: The objective was to compare efficacy of guideline-based management in which a protocol for monitoring intraparenchymal ICP was used (ICP group) or a protocol in which treatment was based on imaging and clinical examination (exam group).\ud
\ud
Design: A multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted.\ud
\ud
Setting: The trial was set in ICUs in Bolivia or Ecuador.\ud
\ud
Subjects: Patients had severe TBI (n = 324) and were 13 years of age or older.\ud
\ud
Interventions: Patients were randomly allocated to ICP monitoring or clinical exam-based monitoring.\ud
\ud
Outcomes: The primary outcome was a composite of survival time, impaired consciousness, functional status at 3 and 6 months, and neuropsychological status at 6 months; neuropsychological status was assessed by an examiner who was unaware of the protocol assignment. This composite measure was based on performance across 21 measures of functional and cognitive status and was calculated as a percentile (with 0 indicating the worst performance, and 100 the best performance).\ud
\ud
Results\ud
There was no significant between-group difference in the primary outcome, a composite measure based on percentile performance across 21 measures of functional and cognitive status (score 56 in the pressure-monitoring group versus 53 in the imaging-clinical examination group; P = 0.49). Six-month mortality rates were 39% in the pressure-monitoring group and 41% in the imaging-clinical examination group (P = 0.60). The median lengths of stay in the ICU were similar in the two groups (12 days in the pressure-monitoring group and 9 days in the imaging-clinical examination group; P = 0.25), although the number of days of brain-specific treatments (for example, administration of hyperosmolar fluids and the use of hyperventilation) in the ICU was higher in the imaging-clinical examination group than in the pressure-monitoring group (4.8 versus 3.4, P = 0.002). The distributions of serious adverse events were similar in the two groups.\ud
\ud
Conclusions\ud
For patients with severe TBI, care focused on maintaining monitored ICP at 20 mmHg or less was not shown to be superior to care based on imaging and clinical examination
- …
