How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps

The recent literature is replete with papers evaluating computational tools (often those operating on 3D structures) for their performance in a certain set of tasks. Most commonly these papers compare a number of docking tools for their performance in cognate re-docking (pose prediction) and/or virtual screening. Related papers have been published on ligand-based tools: pose prediction by conformer generators and virtual screening using a variety of ligand-based approaches. The reliability of these comparisons is critically affected by a number of factors usually ignored by the authors, including bias in the datasets used in virtual screening, the metrics used to assess performance in virtual screening and pose prediction and errors in crystal structures used

How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps

The recent literature is replete with papers evaluating computational tools (often those operating on 3D structures) for their performance in a certain set of tasks. Most commonly these papers compare a number of docking tools for their performance in cognate re-docking (pose prediction) and/or virtual screening. Related papers have been published on ligand-based tools: pose prediction by conformer generators and virtual screening using a variety of ligand-based approaches. The reliability of these comparisons is critically affected by a number of factors usually ignored by the authors, including bias in the datasets used in virtual screening, the metrics used to assess performance in virtual screening and pose prediction and errors in crystal structures used

Pratos e mais pratos: louças domésticas, divisões culturais e limites sociais no Rio de Janeiro, século XIX

Reply to ten comments on a paper published in the last issue of this journal. The discussion follows along six main lines: History museums, identity, ideology and the category of nation; the need of material collections and their modalities: patrimonial, operational, virtual; theater versus laboratory; visitors and their ambiguities; Public History: the museum and the academy.Resposta aos comentários de dez especialistas que contribuíram no debate de texto publicado no último número desta revista. A discussão orientou-se segundo seis tópicos principais: museus históricos, identidade, ideologia e a categoria de nação; a necessidade de acervos materiais e suas modalidades: acervo patrimonial, operacional, virtual; teatro versus laboratório; o público e suas ambigüidades; História Pública: o museu e a Academia

Annual review of patients with sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome--a pragmatic randomised trial of nurse home visit versus consultant clinic review.

BACKGROUND: This pragmatic randomised, controlled trial investigated annual review of patients with sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome (SAHS). Clinical outcomes and costs were compared for consultant clinic review versus specialist nurse home visit. METHOD: One hundred and seventy-four patients were randomised to annual review by consultant clinic appointment or by specialist nurse home visit. SAHS symptoms, Epworth score, hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), Short Form-36 (SF-36) and hours of use of constant positive airway pressure (CPAP) were measured before and 3 months after review. The costs and patient preference for review were determined. RESULTS: After review, both groups significantly increased CPAP use (mean (SD) increase: nurse, 0.66 (1.71) h; consultant, 0.45 (1.69) h) and reduced symptom scores (nurse, -2 (7); consultant, -3 (9)), compared to baseline. There were no differences between groups in these improvements, or in HADS or SF-36 scores. Average duration of a nurse home visit, excluding travel time, was 26 (6) min. Total NHS cost per visit was 52.26 UK pounds (49.85) ($83.62 (79.76)), of which 6.57 UK pounds (1.43) ($10.51 (2.29)) reflected time spent with the patient and the remainder was travel cost. Average duration of consultant review was 10 (6) min, total NHS cost 6.21 UK pounds (3.99) ($9.94 (6.38)). However, the cost to the patient of attending the clinic was 23.63 UK pounds (23.21) ($37.81 (37.13)). Patient preference for review was nurse 16%, consultant 19%, and no preference 65%. CONCLUSION: Following annual review, use of CPAP increased and symptoms improved. Outcomes were similar for consultant and nurse led review. Home visits were expensive for the healthcare provider, whereas clinic attendance incurred substantial costs to the patient. The majority of patients would accept nurse review for their sleep apnea management