2,188 research outputs found

    Influence of Dilute Acetic Acid Treatments on American Pondweed Winter Buds in the Nevada Irrigation District, California

    Get PDF
    American pondweed ( Potamogeton nodosus Poir.) is commonly found in northern California irrigation canals. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that exposure of American pondweed winter buds to dilute acetic acid under field conditions would result in reduced subsequent biomass

    Benign breast disease - the risks of communicating risk

    Get PDF

    DataHub: Collaborative Data Science & Dataset Version Management at Scale

    Get PDF
    Relational databases have limited support for data collaboration, where teams collaboratively curate and analyze large datasets. Inspired by software version control systems like git, we propose (a) a dataset version control system, giving users the ability to create, branch, merge, difference and search large, divergent collections of datasets, and (b) a platform, DataHub, that gives users the ability to perform collaborative data analysis building on this version control system. We outline the challenges in providing dataset version control at scale.Comment: 7 page

    Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview.

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVES: To investigate initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale (GCRS: an instrument to assess the effectiveness of communication across an entire doctor-patient consultation, based on the Calgary-Cambridge guide to the medical interview), in simulated patient consultations. DESIGN: Multiple ratings of simulated general practitioner (GP)-patient consultations by trained GP evaluators. SETTING: UK primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 21 GPs and six trained GP evaluators. OUTCOME MEASURES: GCRS score. METHODS: 6 GP raters used GCRS to rate randomly assigned video recordings of GP consultations with simulated patients. Each of the 42 consultations was rated separately by four raters. We considered whether a fixed difference between scores had the same meaning at all levels of performance. We then examined the reliability of GCRS using mixed linear regression models. We augmented our regression model to also examine whether there were systematic biases between the scores given by different raters and to look for possible order effects. RESULTS: Assessing the communication quality of individual consultations, GCRS achieved a reliability of 0.73 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.79) for two raters, 0.80 (0.54 to 0.85) for three and 0.85 (0.61 to 0.88) for four. We found an average difference of 1.65 (on a 0-10 scale) in the scores given by the least and most generous raters: adjusting for this evaluator bias increased reliability to 0.78 (0.53 to 0.83) for two raters; 0.85 (0.63 to 0.88) for three and 0.88 (0.69 to 0.91) for four. There were considerable order effects, with later consultations (after 15-20 ratings) receiving, on average, scores more than one point higher on a 0-10 scale. CONCLUSIONS: GCRS shows good reliability with three raters assessing each consultation. We are currently developing the scale further by assessing a large sample of real-world consultations

    Opportunity lost: End‐of‐life discussions in cancer patients who die in the hospital

    Full text link
    Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98330/1/jhm1989.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98330/2/jhm1989-sup-0001-SuppInfo.pd

    Quantum Chaos of Bogoliubov Waves for a Bose-Einstein Condensate in Stadium Billiards

    Full text link
    We investigate the possibility of quantum (or wave) chaos for the Bogoliubov excitations of a Bose-Einstein condensate in billiards. Because of the mean field interaction in the condensate, the Bogoliubov excitations are very different from the single particle excitations in a non-interacting system. Nevertheless, we predict that the statistical distribution of level spacings is unchanged by mapping the non-Hermitian Bogoliubov operator to a real symmetric matrix. We numerically test our prediction by using a phase shift method for calculating the excitation energies.Comment: minor change, 4 pages, 4 figures, to appear in Phys. Rev. Let

    Mammography Facility Characteristics Associated With Interpretive Accuracy of Screening Mammography

    Get PDF
    BackgroundAlthough interpretive performance varies substantially among radiologists, such variation has not been examined among mammography facilities. Understanding sources of facility variation could become a foundation for improving interpretive performance.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study conducted between 1996 and 2002, we surveyed 53 facilities to evaluate associations between facility structure, interpretive process characteristics, and interpretive performance of screening mammography (ie, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value [PPV1], and the likelihood of cancer among women who were referred for biopsy [PPV2]). Measures of interpretive performance were ascertained prospectively from mammography interpretations and cancer data collected by the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses estimated the association between facility characteristics and mammography interpretive performance or accuracy (area under the ROC curve [AUC]). All P values were two-sided.ResultsOf the 53 eligible facilities, data on 44 could be analyzed. These 44 facilities accounted for 484 463 screening mammograms performed on 237 669 women, of whom 2686 were diagnosed with breast cancer during follow-up. Among the 44 facilities, mean sensitivity was 79.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 74.3% to 84.9%), mean specificity was 90.2% (95% CI = 88.3% to 92.0%), mean PPV1 was 4.1% (95% CI = 3.5% to 4.7%), and mean PPV2 was 38.8% (95% CI = 32.6% to 45.0%). The facilities varied statistically significantly in specificity (P < .001), PPV1 (P < .001), and PPV2 (P = .002) but not in sensitivity (P = .99). AUC was higher among facilities that offered screening mammograms alone vs those that offered screening and diagnostic mammograms (0.943 vs 0.911, P = .006), had a breast imaging specialist interpreting mammograms vs not (0.932 vs 0.905, P = .004), did not perform double reading vs independent double reading vs consensus double reading (0.925 vs 0.915 vs 0.887, P = .034), or conducted audit reviews two or more times per year vs annually vs at an unknown frequency (0.929 vs 0.904 vs 0.900, P = .018).ConclusionMammography interpretive performance varies statistically significantly by facility

    Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography.

    Get PDF
    BackgroundReactions to uncertainty in clinical medicine can affect decision making.ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which radiologists' reactions to uncertainty influence diagnostic mammography interpretation.DesignCross-sectional responses to a mailed survey assessed reactions to uncertainty using a well-validated instrument. Responses were linked to radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretive performance obtained from three regional mammography registries.ParticipantsOne hundred thirty-two radiologists from New Hampshire, Colorado, and Washington.MeasurementMean scores and either standard errors or confidence intervals were used to assess physicians' reactions to uncertainty. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit via generalized estimating equations to assess the impact of uncertainty on diagnostic mammography interpretive performance while adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsWhen examining radiologists' interpretation of additional diagnostic mammograms (those after screening mammograms that detected abnormalities), a 5-point increase in the reactions to uncertainty score was associated with a 17% higher odds of having a positive mammogram given cancer was diagnosed during follow-up (sensitivity), a 6% lower odds of a negative mammogram given no cancer (specificity), a 4% lower odds (not significant) of a cancer diagnosis given a positive mammogram (positive predictive value [PPV]), and a 5% higher odds of having a positive mammogram (abnormal interpretation).ConclusionMammograms interpreted by radiologists who have more discomfort with uncertainty have higher likelihood of being recalled
    corecore