1,722,123 research outputs found
New psychoactive substances in emergency medicine
No full textZusammenfassung Neue psychoaktive Substanzen (NPS) sind eine heterogene Gruppe von synthetischen berauschenden Stoffen. Gemeinsam ist ihnen ihr „neues“ Auftreten als Rauschdroge. Viele imitieren bekannte Drogen, teilweise sind es Abkömmlinge von vor Jahren als Medikament entwickelten Substanzen. Durch veränderte oder gänzlich neu entwickelte chemische Strukturen erhalten die NPS häufig eine massiv gesteigerte Wirkung. Diese umfasst nicht nur die von Konsumierenden gewünschten Effekte, sondern auch die unerwünschten Wirkungen mit teilweise fatalen Folgen. Der Konsum von NPS ist ein seit Jahren bestehendes Phänomen zunehmenden Ausmaßes. 2018 hatten 2,6 % der deutschen Erwachsenen schon einmal Erfahrungen mit NPS gemacht. Für die Behandelnden stellen NPS-Intoxikierte aufgrund der Heterogenität der Substanzen, aber auch aufgrund der zum Teil auch für die Konsumierenden unvorhersehbaren Effekte eine Herausforderung dar. Oft wird die klinische Einschätzung durch das Vorliegen einer Mischintoxikation erschwert. Sicherheit bringt nur die systematische toxikologische Analytik, da konventionelle Schnell- oder Bedside-Tests viele Substanzen nicht erfassen. Es existiert keine globale Definition von NPS. Eine praktische, klinische Einteilung unterscheidet vier Gruppen: synthetische Stimulanzien, synthetische Cannabinoide, synthetische Halluzinogene und synthetische Beruhigungsmittel. Methodisch erfolgten eine selektive Literaturrecherche in PubMed sowie eine themenbezogene Auswertung der Daten des Giftinformationszentrums-Nord und des Europäischen Drogenberichts der EMCDDA 2021.Abstract New psychoactive substances (NPS) are a heterogeneous group of synthetic intoxicating substances. What they have in common is their “new” appearance as a narcotic drug. Many of them imitate known drugs; some of them are derivatives of substances developed as drugs many years ago. Changed or completely newly developed chemical structures often give the NPS a massively increased effect. This includes not only the effects desired by the consumer, but also the undesirable effects with sometimes fatal consequences. The use of NPS has been an increasing phenomenon for years. In 2018, 2.6% of German adults had already had experience with NPS. NPS-intoxicated persons represent a challenge for the treating physicians not only because of the heterogeneity of the substances, but also because of the unpredictable effects for the users. The clinical assessment is often made more difficult due to the presence of a mixed intoxication. Only systemic toxicological analysis—generally not readily available—provides safety, as conventional rapid or bedside tests do not record many substances. There is no global definition of NPS. A practical, clinical classification differentiates into four groups: synthetic stimulants, synthetic cannabinoids, synthetic hallucinogens, and synthetic sedatives
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
- …
