1,721,010 research outputs found
Assessment Trial (EODAT) group. Characteristic of misclassified discs in the European Optic Disc Assessment Trial
No full textSwitching to preservative-free latanoprost: impact on tolerability and patient satisfaction [Corrigendum]
No full textMuñoz Negrete FJ, Lemij HG, Erb C. Clinical Ophthalmology. 2017;11:557–566.On page 557, Abstract, the second sentence “This multicenter, international (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain), epidemiological convenience sample survey among patients commencing treatment with preservative-free latanoprost collected data on patient satisfaction with particular regard to tolerability” should read “This multicenter, international (Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain), epidemiological convenience sample survey among patients commencing with preservative-free latanoprost collected data on patient satisfaction with particular regard to tolerability”.On page 558, Methods section, Inclusion criteria subheading, 1st sentence, the drug name Monoprost® should have been Monopost®.On page 559, Methods section, Analysis of variables subheading, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, the drug name Monoprost® should have been Monopost®.Read the original articl
Assessment of stereoscopic optic disc photographs in glaucoma by European Ophthalmologists
No full textClinical assessment of stereoscopic optic disc photographs for glaucoma: the European Optic Disc Assessment Trial (EODAT)
No full textPurpose: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of judging optic disc photographs for glaucoma by ophthalmologists.
Design: Evaluation of diagnostic test and technology.
Participants: A total of 243 of 875 invited ophthalmologists in 11 European countries.
Methods: We determined how well each participant classified 40 healthy eyes and 48 glaucomatous eyes with
varying severity of the disease on stereoscopic slides. Duplicate slides were provided for determining intraobserver agreement. All eyes were also imaged with the GDx with variable corneal compensation (GDx-VCC) (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Jena, Germany) and the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT) I (Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Heidel- berg, Germany). Diagnostic accuracies of clinicians were compared with those of the best machine classifiers.
Main Outcome Measures: Accuracy of classification, expressed as sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy. Intraobserver agreement (K).
Results: The overall diagnostic accuracy of ophthalmologists was 80.5% (standard deviation [SD], 6.8; range, 61.4%–94.3%). The machine classifiers outperformed most observers in diagnostic accuracy; the GDx-VCC nerve fiber indicator and the HRT’s best classifier correctly classified 93.2% and 89.8% of eyes, respectively. The intraobserver agreement (K) varied between -0.13 and 1.0 and was on average good (0.7).
Conclusions: In general, ophthalmologists classify optic disc photographs moderately well for detecting glaucoma. There is, however, large variability in diagnostic accuracy among and agreement within clinicians. Common imaging devices outperform most clinicians in classifying optic discs
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
- …
