1,720,987 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
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
Changes in dispensing of medicines proposed for re-purposing in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia
Full text linkAbstract Purpose We quantified changes in dispensing of common medicines proposed for “re-purposing” due to their perceived benefits as therapeutic or preventive treatments for COVID-19 in Australia, a country with relatively low COVID-19 incidence in 2020. Methods We performed an interrupted time series analysis and cross-sectional study using nationwide dispensing claims data (January 2017-November 2020). We focused on six subsidised medicines proposed for re-purposing: hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin, colchicine, corticosteroids, and calcitriol (Vitamin D analogue). We quantified changes in monthly dispensing and initiation trends during COVID-19 (March-November 2020) using autoregressive integrated moving average models (ARIMA) and compared characteristics of initiators in 2020 and 2019. Result In March 2020, we observed a 99% (95%CI 96%-103%) increase in hydroxychloroquine dispensing (of which approximately 30% attributable to new use), and a 201% increase (95%CI 186%-215%) in initiation, with a shift towards prescribing by general practitioners (42% in 2020 vs 25% in 2019) rather than specialists. These increases subsidised following regulatory restrictions on prescribing to relevant specialties. There was also a small but sustained increase in ivermectin dispensing over multiple months, with a 80% (95%CI 42%-119%) increase in initiation in May 2020 following its first identification as potentially disease-modifying in April 2020. Other than increases in March related to stockpiling among existing users, we observed no increases in initiation of calcitriol or colchicine during COVID-19. Dispensing of corticosteroids and azithromycin remained low after March 2020. Conclusions Most increases in dispensing observed early on during COVID-19 were temporary and appear to be related to stockpiling among existing users. However, we observed increases in initiation of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and a shift in prescribing patterns, indicating that a small proportion may be COVID-19 related. A quick response by regulators can help limit inappropriate repurposing to lessen the impact on medicine supply and patient harms. Key points In Australia, a country with low incidence of COVID-19 in 2020, most increases in dispensing of medicines proposed for re-purposing for treatment or prevention of COVID-19 were temporary and appeared to be related to stockpiling among existing users We observed a dramatic increase in new users of hydroxychloroquine in March and April 2020, with a shift toward prescribing by general practitioners instead of rheumatologists which subsided after the introduction of restrictions on its prescribing by non-specialists Dispensing of ivermectin also increased during COVID-19, but occurred later and was spread out over several months When such situations arise, a quick response by regulators can help limit inappropriate repurposing to reduce the potential for medicine supply shortages and patient harm
The OMOP common data model in Australian primary care data: Building a quality research ready harmonised dataset
No full textBACKGROUND: The use of routinely collected health data for secondary research purposes is increasingly recognised as a methodology that advances medical research, improves patient outcomes, and guides policy. This secondary data, as found in electronic medical records (EMRs), can be optimised through conversion into a uniform data structure to enable analysis alongside other comparable health metric datasets. This can be achieved with the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model (OMOP-CDM), which employs a standardised vocabulary to facilitate systematic analysis across various observational databases. The concept behind the OMOP-CDM is the conversion of data into a common format through the harmonisation of terminologies, vocabularies, and coding schemes within a unique repository. The OMOP model enhances research capacity through the development of shared analytic and prediction techniques; pharmacovigilance for the active surveillance of drug safety; and 'validation' analyses across multiple institutions across Australia, the United States, Europe, and the Asia Pacific. In this research, we aim to investigate the use of the open-source OMOP-CDM in the PATRON primary care data repository. METHODS: We used standard structured query language (SQL) to construct, extract, transform, and load scripts to convert the data to the OMOP-CDM. The process of mapping distinct free-text terms extracted from various EMRs presented a substantial challenge, as many terms could not be automatically matched to standard vocabularies through direct text comparison. This resulted in a number of terms that required manual assignment. To address this issue, we implemented a strategy where our clinical mappers were instructed to focus only on terms that appeared with sufficient frequency. We established a specific threshold value for each domain, ensuring that more than 95% of all records were linked to an approved vocabulary like SNOMED once appropriate mapping was completed. To assess the data quality of the resultant OMOP dataset we utilised the OHDSI Data Quality Dashboard (DQD) to evaluate the plausibility, conformity, and comprehensiveness of the data in the PATRON repository according to the Kahn framework. RESULTS: Across three primary care EMR systems we converted data on 2.03 million active patients to version 5.4 of the OMOP common data model. The DQD assessment involved a total of 3,570 individual evaluations. Each evaluation compared the outcome against a predefined threshold. A 'FAIL' occurred when the percentage of non-compliant rows exceeded the specified threshold value. In this assessment of the primary care OMOP database described here, we achieved an overall pass rate of 97%. CONCLUSION: The OMOP CDM's widespread international use, support, and training provides a well-established pathway for data standardisation in collaborative research. Its compatibility allows the sharing of analysis packages across local and international research groups, which facilitates rapid and reproducible data comparisons. A suite of open-source tools, including the OHDSI Data Quality Dashboard (Version 1.4.1), supports the model. Its simplicity and standards-based approach facilitates adoption and integration into existing data processes
Trial registration of abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists Meetings 2010-2016: A review of prospective trial registration and selective outcome reporting
No full textMandatory prospective trial registration was introduced in 2005 to reduce publication bias and selective outcome reporting. In this study, we measured the proportion of prospective trial registration in randomized controlled trials in the anesthesia literature after this introduction, discrepancies between these trial protocols and subsequent publications, the association between being prospectively registered and reporting positive or negative results, and between being prospectively registered and achieving publication. We reviewed all abstracts from the American Society of Anesthesiologists annual meetings between 2010-2016 and included randomized controlled trials in humans. The abstract conclusions were scored as positive or negative according to predetermined definitions. We conducted a systematic search for trial registration and subsequent publication. Of the 9789 abstracts reviewed, 1070 abstracts were included. 222 (21%) of these abstracts had undergone prospective trial registration. 168/222 (76%) had a corresponding journal publication. 81(48%) had a major discrepancy between registration and publication. 149 (67%) of the abstracts with registration had positive outcomes compared with 616 (73%) of those without (Odds Ratio 0.77; 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.06; P = 0.105). Abstracts that had been registered were more likely to proceed to publication than those that had not (Odds Ratio 3.82; 95% CI 2.73 to 5.35; P < 0.001). The proportion of randomized controlled trials being prospectively registered in anesthesia remains low. Discrepancies between registry entries and corresponding journal publications are common. There was no association between prospective trial registration and subsequent positive outcomes. There was a strong association between prospective trial registration and the likelihood of progression to journal publication
- …
