1,720,958 research outputs found
Visual improvement in amblyopic eye following treatment induced vision loss in dominant eye with uveal melanoma
Visual improvement in amblyopic eye following treatment-induced vision loss in dominant eye with uveal melanoma
Visual improvement in amblyopic eye following treatment-induced vision loss in dominant eye with uveal melanoma
Visual improvement in amblyopic eye following treatment-induced vision loss in dominant eye with uveal melanoma
Objective: To determine the frequency and amount of visual improvement in amblyopic eyes of adults following visual loss in the dominant eye resulting from treatment of uveal melanoma. Methods and analysis: Retrospective case series of adult patients with amblyopia and dominant eye visual loss resulting from treatment of uveal melanoma. Review of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in each eye (amblyopia eye vs melanoma eye) at date first seen and over time following treatment of uveal melanoma. BCVA in each eye was graded as improved (>2 logarithm of minimal angle of resolution (logMAR) lines) or unimproved (<2 logMAR lines). Results: Twenty-one patients that met the inclusion criteria. Mean age at presentation was 56 years (range 39-73 years). Following treatment of the uveal melanoma and decline of BCVA in the dominant, the BCVA in the amblyopic eye improved in 11/21 (52%; 95% CI 30% to 74 %) patients. The degree of visual loss in the melanoma eye was to the level of the amblyopic eye or worse in 14 patients. In this group, BCVA improved in the amblyopic eye in 9/14 (64%; 95% CI 35% to 87 %) patients. Of these nine with improved eyes, the mean starting visual acuity was logMAR 0.6 (20/80) with mean improvement of logMAR 0.4 (4 lines±0.13 (range 0.2-0.6). Eight of nine eyes achieved a BCVA of 20/25 (n=3) or 20/20 (n=5). Conclusion: Visual acuity in the amblyopic eye of adults can improve following visual loss in the contralateral dominant eye associated with treatment for uveal melanoma
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
The 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
“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
We 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
We 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
- …
