1,720,961 research outputs found
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
Usporedba analitičkih značajki hematoloških analizatora s peterodijelnom diferencijalnom krvnom slikom
No full textCilj istraživanja
Cilj rada je prikazati verifikacije analitičkih značajki različitih hematoloških analizatora s
peterodijelnom diferencijalnom krvnom slikom (Siemens Advia 2120i, Sysmex XN-1000,
Mindray BC-5310, Beckman Coulter DxH 900) te kritički usporediti njihove značajke po
segmentima verifikacijskog protokola.
Materijali i metode
Ispitivani su parametri kompletne krvne slike s diferencijalnom krvnom slikom.
Verifikacijski protokol obuhvaća: procjenu preciznosti, točnosti, provjeru linearnosti
mjerenja, verifikaciju i određivanje granica slijepe probe (LoB), granica detekcije (LoD) i
granica kvantifikacije (LoQ) analita te procjenu utjecaja mogućeg prijenosa uzorka nakon
analize (engl. carryover). Za statističku obradu podataka korišten je statistički program
MedCalc 12.6.2.0 (Ostend, Belgija) i Microsoft Office Excel. Kriteriji prihvatljivosti su
definirani na temelju suvremenih literaturnih podataka, kriterija proizvođača i biološke
varijabilnosti.
Rezultati
Verifikacijom ponovljivosti i preciznosti mjerenja dokazana je raznolikost rezultata koja
upućuje na različite značajke analizatora. Prihvatljivost dobivenih rezultata uvelike ovisi o
definiranim kriterijima prihvatljivosti. Ispitivanje točnosti mjerenja usporedbom s definiranim
referentnim analizatorom (Siemens Advia 2120i) pokazalo je višestruke statistički značajne
razlike. Uspješno su verificirani i određeni LoB, LoD i LoQ analita. Nezadovoljavajući LoQ
je za trombocite kod Sysmex XN-1000 što je vjerojatno rezultat nepostignutog uzorka
niskog broja trombocita. Ispitivane linearnosti mjernog raspona ne zadovoljaju kriterije za
eritrocite i hemoglobin na Mindray BC-5310CRP. Ispitivanjem carryover-a zadovoljeni su
svi kriteriji, osim za hemoglobin određen Siemens Advia 2120i, pri čemu je zadovoljen
postavljen kriterij proizvođača (≤1) ali ne i literaturni kriterij (<0,4).
Zaključak
Analitičke značajke analizatora opisane proizvođačevom validacijom nije moguće u
potpunosti zadovoljiti u rutinskom laboratorijskom radu. Prilikom korisničke verifikacije
potrebna je svjesnost ograničenja i razlika među platformama različitih proizvođača.Objectives
The paper aims to present verifications of the analytical features of various 5-part
differential hematology analyzers (Siemens Advia 2120i, Sysmex XN-1000, Mindray BC5310, Beckman Coulter DxH 900) and to critically compare their performance by
verification protocol segments.
Materials and Methods
The complete blood count parameters with the differential blood count were examined.
The verification protocol includes assessment of precision, accuracy, linearity, verification
and determination of limits of blank (LoB), detection (LoD) and quantification (LoQ) and
carryover. The obtained results will be statistically processed using the statistical program
MedCalc 12.6.2.0 (Ostend, Belgium) and Microsoft Office Excel. Acceptability criteria are
defined based on up-to-date literature data, manufacturer's criteria and biological
variability.
Results
The variety of repeatability and precision results were proven, leading to different
performance of the analyzers. The acceptability largely depends on the defined acceptance
criteria. The accuracy was determined by comparing it with a defined reference analyzer
(Siemens Advia 2120i), which showed multiple statistically significant differences. The
LoB, LoD and LoQ were successfully verified and determined, except for platelets LoQ on
Sysmex XN-1000, which is likely the result of an unreachable low platelet count. Measuring
range linearity does not meet criteria for erythrocytes and hemoglobin on Mindray BC5310CRP. The carryover tests met the requirements except for hemoglobin by Siemens
Advia 2120i, where the manufacturer's criterion (≤1) was met, but not the literature one
(<0.4).
Conclusion
Analytical features declared by manufacturer's validation are difficult to achieve in
routine laboratory conditions. During user verification, it is necessary to be aware of the
limitations and differences between analyzers from different manufacturers
Usporedba analitičkih značajki hematoloških analizatora s peterodijelnom diferencijalnom krvnom slikom
No full textCilj istraživanja
Cilj rada je prikazati verifikacije analitičkih značajki različitih hematoloških analizatora s
peterodijelnom diferencijalnom krvnom slikom (Siemens Advia 2120i, Sysmex XN-1000,
Mindray BC-5310, Beckman Coulter DxH 900) te kritički usporediti njihove značajke po
segmentima verifikacijskog protokola.
Materijali i metode
Ispitivani su parametri kompletne krvne slike s diferencijalnom krvnom slikom.
Verifikacijski protokol obuhvaća: procjenu preciznosti, točnosti, provjeru linearnosti
mjerenja, verifikaciju i određivanje granica slijepe probe (LoB), granica detekcije (LoD) i
granica kvantifikacije (LoQ) analita te procjenu utjecaja mogućeg prijenosa uzorka nakon
analize (engl. carryover). Za statističku obradu podataka korišten je statistički program
MedCalc 12.6.2.0 (Ostend, Belgija) i Microsoft Office Excel. Kriteriji prihvatljivosti su
definirani na temelju suvremenih literaturnih podataka, kriterija proizvođača i biološke
varijabilnosti.
Rezultati
Verifikacijom ponovljivosti i preciznosti mjerenja dokazana je raznolikost rezultata koja
upućuje na različite značajke analizatora. Prihvatljivost dobivenih rezultata uvelike ovisi o
definiranim kriterijima prihvatljivosti. Ispitivanje točnosti mjerenja usporedbom s definiranim
referentnim analizatorom (Siemens Advia 2120i) pokazalo je višestruke statistički značajne
razlike. Uspješno su verificirani i određeni LoB, LoD i LoQ analita. Nezadovoljavajući LoQ
je za trombocite kod Sysmex XN-1000 što je vjerojatno rezultat nepostignutog uzorka
niskog broja trombocita. Ispitivane linearnosti mjernog raspona ne zadovoljaju kriterije za
eritrocite i hemoglobin na Mindray BC-5310CRP. Ispitivanjem carryover-a zadovoljeni su
svi kriteriji, osim za hemoglobin određen Siemens Advia 2120i, pri čemu je zadovoljen
postavljen kriterij proizvođača (≤1) ali ne i literaturni kriterij (<0,4).
Zaključak
Analitičke značajke analizatora opisane proizvođačevom validacijom nije moguće u
potpunosti zadovoljiti u rutinskom laboratorijskom radu. Prilikom korisničke verifikacije
potrebna je svjesnost ograničenja i razlika među platformama različitih proizvođača.Objectives
The paper aims to present verifications of the analytical features of various 5-part
differential hematology analyzers (Siemens Advia 2120i, Sysmex XN-1000, Mindray BC5310, Beckman Coulter DxH 900) and to critically compare their performance by
verification protocol segments.
Materials and Methods
The complete blood count parameters with the differential blood count were examined.
The verification protocol includes assessment of precision, accuracy, linearity, verification
and determination of limits of blank (LoB), detection (LoD) and quantification (LoQ) and
carryover. The obtained results will be statistically processed using the statistical program
MedCalc 12.6.2.0 (Ostend, Belgium) and Microsoft Office Excel. Acceptability criteria are
defined based on up-to-date literature data, manufacturer's criteria and biological
variability.
Results
The variety of repeatability and precision results were proven, leading to different
performance of the analyzers. The acceptability largely depends on the defined acceptance
criteria. The accuracy was determined by comparing it with a defined reference analyzer
(Siemens Advia 2120i), which showed multiple statistically significant differences. The
LoB, LoD and LoQ were successfully verified and determined, except for platelets LoQ on
Sysmex XN-1000, which is likely the result of an unreachable low platelet count. Measuring
range linearity does not meet criteria for erythrocytes and hemoglobin on Mindray BC5310CRP. The carryover tests met the requirements except for hemoglobin by Siemens
Advia 2120i, where the manufacturer's criterion (≤1) was met, but not the literature one
(<0.4).
Conclusion
Analytical features declared by manufacturer's validation are difficult to achieve in
routine laboratory conditions. During user verification, it is necessary to be aware of the
limitations and differences between analyzers from different manufacturers
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
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
- …
