Pattern Recognition Mechanisms and St. Thomas' Theory of Abstraction

Bobik Joseph, M. Sayre Kenneth. Pattern Recognition Mechanisms and St. Thomas' Theory of Abstraction. In: Revue Philosophique de Louvain. Troisième série, tome 61, n°69, 1963. pp. 24-43

Evaluation of three field-based methods for quantifying soil carbon

Citation: Izaurralde, Roberto C., Charles W. Rice, Lucian Wielopolski, Michael H. Ebinger, James B. Reeves Iii, Allison M. Thomson, Ronny Harris, et al. “Evaluation of Three Field-Based Methods for Quantifying Soil Carbon.” PLOS ONE 8, no. 1 (January 31, 2013): e55560. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055560.Three advanced technologies to measure soil carbon (C) density (g C mˉ²) are deployed in the field and the results compared against those obtained by the dry combustion (DC) method. The advanced methods are: a) Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (LIBS), b) Diffuse Reflectance Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (DRIFTS), and c) Inelastic Neutron Scattering (INS). The measurements and soil samples were acquired at Beltsville, MD, USA and at Centro International para el Mejoramiento del Maı´z y el Trigo (CIMMYT) at El Bata´n, Mexico. At Beltsville, soil samples were extracted at three depth intervals (0–5, 5–15, and 15–30 cm) and processed for analysis in the field with the LIBS and DRIFTS instruments. The INS instrument determined soil C density to a depth of 30 cm via scanning and stationary measurements. Subsequently, soil core samples were analyzed in the laboratory for soil bulk density (kg mˉ³), C concentration (g kgˉ¹) by DC, and results reported as soil C density (kg mˉ²). Results from each technique were derived independently and contributed to a blind test against results from the reference (DC) method. A similar procedure was employed at CIMMYT in Mexico employing but only with the LIBS and DRIFTS instruments. Following conversion to common units, we found that the LIBS, DRIFTS, and INS results can be compared directly with those obtained by the DC method. The first two methods and the standard DC require soil sampling and need soil bulk density information to convert soil C concentrations to soil C densities while the INS method does not require soil sampling. We conclude that, in comparison with the DC method, the three instruments (a) showed acceptable performances although further work is needed to improve calibration techniques and (b) demonstrated their portability and their capacity to perform under field conditions

Development, diagnostic performance, and interobserver agreement of a 18F-flurpiridaz PET automated perfusion quantitation system

BackgroundComputerized methodologies standardize the myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) interpretation process.MethodsTo develop an automated relative perfusion quantitation approach for 18F-flurpiridaz, PET MPI studies from all phase III trial participants of 18F-flurpiridaz were divided into 3 groups. Count distributions were obtained in N = 40 normal patients undergoing pharmacological or exercise stress. Then, N = 90 additional studies were selected in a derivation group. Following receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, various standard deviations below the mean normal were used as cutoffs for significant CAD, and interobserver variability determined. Finally, diagnostic performance was compared between blinded visual readers and blinded derivations of automated relative quantitation in the remaining N = 548 validation patients.ResultsBoth approaches yielded comparable accuracies for the detection of global CAD, reaching 71% and 72% by visual reads, and 72% and 68% by automated relative quantitation, when using CAD ≥ 70% or ≥ 50% stenosis for significance, respectively. Similar results were observed when analyzing individual coronary territories. In both pharmacological and exercise stress, automated relative quantitation demonstrated significantly more interobserver agreement than visual reads.ConclusionsOur automated method of 18F-flurpiridaz relative perfusion analysis provides a quantitative, objective, and highly reproducible assessment of PET MPI in normal and CAD subjects undergoing either pharmacological or exercise stress