130,431 research outputs found
Relationship between cooking rate and Warner-Bratzler shear force from pork chops cooked to two degrees of doneness
No full textMany factors can combine to affect the tenderness of pork chops, ranging from pre-slaughter factors (sire line, sex, animal handling), to inherent factors in both direct (sarcomere length, collagen content, postmortem proteolysis) and indirect (pH, WHC, color, marbling) ways. Other factors such as choice of cooking method and degree of doneness can be influenced by consumer preparation of pork. Being able to use cooking rate as a possible predictor of tenderness could impact cooking decisions in the industry. Consequently, knowing if pork chop cooking rate is related to tenderness could allow consumers to prepare chops accordingly in a way that maximizes tenderness for a good eating experience at home. As research is limited on cooking rates of pork chops, the objective was to determine the relationship between cook rate and Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) values of pork chops cooked to two degrees of doneness (DoD) (N=503 for 63⁰C and N=357 for 71⁰C). Ventral loin and chop quality traits were measured on loins after aging 14 d. Chops were cooked on Farberware open-hearth grills (temperature monitored with Omega data logging thermometer). Slopes of regression lines and coefficients of determination between cook rate and WBSF values for both DoD were determined using the REG procedure of SAS and considered significant at P≤0.05. Stepwise regression analysis of quality traits and cook rate with WBSF utilized the REG procedure of SAS. As cook rate increased, WBSF values decreased regardless of DoD (P≤0.05). Although slopes of the calculated regression lines for both sets of chops were significant, reported slopes indicate the change in tenderness due to increased cook rate is limited (β1=-0.18939 for 63⁰C; β1=-0.21668 for 71⁰C). Cook rate only explained 2.0% and 5.4% of variability in WBSF of chops cooked to 63⁰C and 71⁰C, respectively. Cook rate explained 7.8% and 25.6% of variability in cook loss of chops cooked to 63⁰C and 71⁰C. Cook loss explained 10.2% and 20.1% of variability in WBSF of chops cooked to 63⁰C and 71⁰C. In stepwise regression, cook loss was the most influential trait in both DoD, followed by pH in 63⁰C and marbling in 71⁰C. Prediction equations explained 17% of variability in WBSF for 63⁰C and 22% of variability in 71⁰C chops. Because cook rate represented such a small percentage of variation in this study, it is likely that variation in tenderness of chops cooked to the same DoD is due to other factors. The findings of this study indicate that cook rate had minimal effect on the tenderness of pork chops cooked to two DoD.Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'U of I Access', the embargo will last until 2023-05-01The student, Taylor Nethery, accepted the attached license on 2021-04-20 at 19:33.The student, Taylor Nethery, submitted this Thesis for approval on 2021-04-20 at 19:40.This Thesis was approved for publication on 2021-04-27 at 18:39.DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #16449 on 2021-09-16 at 17:04:10Made available in DSpace on 2021-09-17T02:34:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2
NETHERY-THESIS-2021.pdf: 677106 bytes, checksum: ad7da2f21b1d3c2a352348fdcf8da968 (MD5)
LICENSE.txt: 4211 bytes, checksum: ebd5a2f9dcbae7a38fc95a0e9e46a0ef (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2021-04-27Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 118550
Lift date: 2023-09-17T02:34:57Z
Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD systemAuthor requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD systemU of I Onl
The northern Budawang Range and the upper Clyde River Valley [cartographic material] /
No full text6th ed. / J.W.D. Nethery, C.M.W., Mar. 1978. Map showing tracks, camping caves and camping sites. Relief shown by spot heights and hachures.; Also available online http://nla.gov.au/nla.map-vn193223
Once-daily nepafenac ophthalmic suspension 0.3% to prevent and treat ocular inflammation and pain after cataract surgery: Phase 3 study
No full textPurposeTo evaluate once-daily nepafenac 0.3% to prevent and treat ocular pain and inflammation after cataract surgery.SettingSixty-five centers in the United States and Europe.DesignRandomized double-masked vehicle- and active-controlled phase 3 study.MethodsPatients received nepafenac 0.3% once daily, nepafenac 0.1% 3 times daily, or their respective vehicles from day −1 to day 14 after cataract extraction. An additional drop of study drug was administered 30 to 120 minutes preoperatively. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with a cure for inflammation (score of 0 for both aqueous cells and flare) at day 14.ResultsOf randomized patients, 817 received nepafenac 0.3%, 819 received nepafenac 0.1%, and 200 and 206 received the respective vehicles. Significantly more nepafenac 0.3% patients had no inflammation (68.4% versus 34.0%) and were pain free (91.0% versus 49.7%) at day 14 than vehicle patients (both P<.0001). Nepafenac 0.3% was noninferior to nepafenac 0.1% for inflammation (95% confidence interval [CI], −5.73% to 3.17%) and pain-free rates (95% CI, −3.08% to 2.70%). At all postoperative visits, fewer treatment failures (P≤.0012) and more clinical successes (P≤.0264) were observed with nepafenac 0.3% versus vehicle. Nepafenac 0.3% was well tolerated and had a safety profile comparable to that of nepafenac 0.1%.ConclusionsOnce-daily nepafenac 0.3% was noninferior to nepafenac 0.1% 3 times daily for prevention and treatment of ocular inflammation and pain following cataract surgery. The safety of nepafenac 0.3% was comparable to that of nepafenac 0.1%, with the added convenience of once-daily dosing.Financial DisclosureDrs. Modi, Lehmann, Walters, Fong, Christie, Roel, Nethery, and Reiser have been paid consultants to Alcon Research, Ltd. Ms. Sager is an employee of Alcon Research, Ltd. Drs. Tsorbatzoglou, Philipson, and Traverso have no financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned
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.
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
- …
