1,721,037 research outputs found
Reproducibility of Middle Cerebral Artery Stenosis Measurements by DSA: Comparison of the NASCET and WASID Methods.
No full textTo evaluate the intra- and inter-observer variability of the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) and Warfarin-Aspirin Symptomatic Intracranial Disease (WASID) criteria for the evaluation of middle cerebral artery (MCA) stenosis using digital subtraction angiography (DSA).DSA images of 114 cases with 131 stenotic MCAs were retrospectively analyzed. Two radiologists and a researcher measured the degree of MCA stenosis independently using both NASCET and WASID methods. To determine intra-observer agreement, all the observers reevaluated the degree of MCA stenosis 4 weeks later. The linear relation and coefficient of variation (CV) between the measurements made by the two methods were assessed by correlation coefficient and multi-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA), respectively. Intra- and inter-observer variability of the two methods was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Spearman's R value, Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots.Despite the fact that the degree of MCA stenosis measured by NASCET was lower than measured using the WASID method, there was good linear correlation between the measurements made by the two methods (for the mean measurements of the 3 observers, NASCET% = 0.891 × WASID% - 1.89%; ICC, Spearman's R value and Pearson correlation were 0.874, 0.855, and 0.874, respectively). The CVs of both intra- and inter-observer measurements of MCA stenosis using WASID were significantly lower than that using NASCET confirmed by the multi-factor ANOVA results, which showed only the measurement methods of MCA stenosis had significant effects on the CVs both in intra- and inter-observer measurements (both P values < 0.001). Intra-observer measurements showed good or excellent agreement with respect to WASID and NASCET evaluation (ICC, 0.656 to 0.817 and 0.635 to 0.761, respectively). Good agreement for the WASID evaluation (ICC, 0.592 to 0.628) and for the NASCET evaluation (ICC, 0.529 to 0.568) was observed for inter-observer measurements. Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that the WASID method had better reproducibility and intra-observer agreement than NASCET method for evaluating MCA stenosis.Both NASCET and WASID methods have an acceptable level of agreement; however, the WASID method had better reproducibility for the evaluation of MCA stenosis, and thus the WASID method may serve as a standard for measuring the degree of MCA stenosis
Do Patient Characteristics Explain the Differences in Outcome Between Medically Treated Patients in SAMMPRIS and WASID?
No full textThe Stenting and Aggressive Medical Management for Preventing Recurrent Stroke in Intracranial Stenosis (SAMMPRIS) medical group had a much lower primary end point rate than predicted from the preceding Warfarin Aspirin Symptomatic Intracranial Disease (WASID) trial. This result has been attributed to the aggressive medical therapy used in SAMMPRIS, but an alternative hypothesis is that SAMMPRIS patients were at lower risk. We undertook analyses to evaluate these competing hypotheses.
Using proportional hazards regression, we compared the SAMMPRIS primary end point between SAMMPRIS medical patients and WASID patients meeting the same qualifying criteria adjusted for confounding baseline characteristics.
The unadjusted comparison of the SAMMPRIS primary end point showed a significantly higher risk for WASID patients (P=0.009, logrank test) with 12 month Kaplan-Meier estimates of 21.9% in WASID and 12.6% in SAMMPRIS and hazard ratio 1.9 (95% confidence interval =1.2-3.0). The analyses identified the following confounding factors that varied between the studies and that conferred a higher risk: lack of statin use at enrollment (hazard ratio =1.8, 95% confidence interval =1.1-2.9, P=0.027) that was more prevalent among WASID patients (39% versus 14%, P<0.0001) and prior infarcts in the territory of the symptomatic vessel (hazard ratio =1.8, 95% confidence interval =1.1-2.9, P=0.023) that was more prevalent among SAMMPRIS patients (34% versus 22%, P=0.015).The hazard ratio for WASID versus SAMMPRIS adjusted for these 2 characteristics was 1.9 (95% confidence interval =1.1-3.2).
After adjustment for confounding baseline characteristics, WASID patients had an almost 2-fold higher risk of the SAMMPRIS primary end point, which supports the hypothesis that the lower rate of the primary end point in the medical arm of SAMMPRIS compared with WASID patients was as a result of the aggressive medical management used in SAMMPRIS.
URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00576693
Bland-Altman plots of inter-observer reproducibility of the NASCET and WASID methods.
No full text<p>(A, C and E) WASID method for Observers 1&2, 1&3 and 2&3, respectively. (B, D and F) NASCET method for Observers 1&2, 1&3 and 2&3, respectively.</p
Bland-Altman plots of intra-observer reproducibility of the NASCET and WASID methods.
No full text<p>(A, C and E) WASID method for Observer 1, 2 and 3, respectively. (B, D and F) NASCET method for Observer 1, 2 and 3, respectively.</p
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
- …
