1,720,971 research outputs found

    Serum antibodies to polioviruses in a Tuscan population, Italy

    No full text
    In order to study the serological status of a population against poliomyelitis, neutralizing antibody for the three types of polioviruses were examined in 742 serum specimens from individuals aged from 1 to 70 years and over were collected during 1985. Sixty-two percent of the sera had antibodies (titre ≥ 1:8) to all three polioviruses, while 5% had no poliovirus antibody at all. However the rates of seropositivity did vary with age: the 10-19 age group had the lowest frequency of antibody (38%) to the three viruses and the difference between the percentage of this group and the previous (1-10 years) and following ones (20-70 years and over) was highly significant. The results of this seroprevalence survey indicate a gap in immunity to poliomyelitis in the population examined

    Detection of coliphages and enteroviruses in sewage and aerosol from an activated sludge wastewater treatment plant

    No full text
    Coliphages and enteroviruses were monitored over 12 months in sewage and air adjacent to an activated sludge plant. Both showed temporal variation but the mean count of phages in enterovirus‐positive samples was not significantly different from that in enterovirus‐negative samples. Hence coliphages are not necessarily a good indicator of enteroviruses in sewage and aerosols

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Get PDF
    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
    corecore