Sentences with phrase «authors reviewed data»

To examine this condition's connection to alcohol consumption, the study authors reviewed data collected from 82,737 women via the Nurses» Health Study II.

The authors reviewed data on 2,613 patients who were evaluated for unexplained joint pain after total hip and / or knee replacement.

Not exact matches

Subsequently, another peer - reviewed article argued that the findings reported in this post (and affiliated article) were biased and that the authors» data do not provide evidence of non-citizen voting in U.S. elections.»

The authors» responsibilities were as follows — CNM: had leadership responsibility for the research planning and execution, wrote the manuscript, and had primary responsibility for the final content of the manuscript; CNM, HE, and BN: formulated the study idea and designed the research; EV and JM: managed the day - to - day conduct of the study and oversaw the data collection; YJ: performed statistical analyses of the study data; and all authors: provided critical review and commentary on the draft of the manuscript and read and approved the final manuscript.

The authors» responsibilities were as follows — EJB: conceived the research aims, wrote the manuscript, and had primary responsibility for the final content of the manuscript; EJB, SN, and CT - S: analyzed the data; EJB, SN, CT - S, and ER: interpreted the results; EJB and BK: conducted the literature search; EJB, BK, and ER: designed the research, EJB and AJ: conducted the data extraction, and all authors: critically reviewed the manuscript for its content and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

Two review authors extracted data independently.

The 2 review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data, and contacted study authors for additional information.

Trial quality was assessed and data were extracted by one review author and checked by the other author.

For eligible studies, two review authors extracted the data using the agreed form.

Studies had to be case control for the purpose of the statistical analysis; have breastfeeding as a measured exposure and leukemia as a measured outcome; include data on breastfeeding duration in months, including but not limited to, 6 months or more (where relevant data were unavailable in the publication, the authors of the studies were contacted); and been published in peer - reviewed journals with full text available in English.

The two review authors as independently as possible assessed trial quality and extracted data.

We have therefore updated our review in an attempt to address these issues, using, insofar as possible, data provided by the authors of individual studies, to establish with greater precision the strength of the relation between infant feeding and blood cholesterol.

Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed by one reviewer and then checked by a second review author.

Since 2006, she has co-ordinated the review process, written to authors for additional information, managed data for the review, re-extracted data from papers, re-entered data into Review Manager, re-entered data for the included studies section, analysed and interpreted data, and provided a clinical and policy perspereview process, written to authors for additional information, managed data for the review, re-extracted data from papers, re-entered data into Review Manager, re-entered data for the included studies section, analysed and interpreted data, and provided a clinical and policy perspereview, re-extracted data from papers, re-entered data into Review Manager, re-entered data for the included studies section, analysed and interpreted data, and provided a clinical and policy perspeReview Manager, re-entered data for the included studies section, analysed and interpreted data, and provided a clinical and policy perspective.

Seven additional references with relevant data were also included: 3 studies were identified by an ongoing OVID alert system for a related review (9, 14, 15), 2 were cited from reference lists of eligible studies (16, 17), 1 article was written by 2 of the authors (RMM and GDS)(18), and 1 meeting abstract was also identified (19).

At least two review authors extracted the data using the agreed form.

After reviewing the Cassini data, the authors think that this destruction of methane occurred from 2006 to 2008 during the last phases of the previous solar maximum.

Furthermore, in order to improve accountability, a senior author from each laboratory or group participating in the collaboration must now certify that she or he has reviewed the original data and its representation.

As associate professor and first - author Johan Bollen writes in an e-mail to Science Careers, they wanted their new system to «enable scientists to set their own priorities, fund scientists... not projects, avoid proposal writing and reviewing, avoid administrative burdens, encourage all scientists to participate collectively in the definition of scientific priorities, encourage innovation, reward scientists that make significant contributions to data, software, methods, and systems, avoid funding death spirals (no funding - > no research - > no funding) but still reward high levels of productivity, create the proper incentives for scholarly communication (publishing to communicate, not to improve bibliometrics), enable funding of daring and risky research, and so on.»

Some journals now require a senior author from each lab to review all of the data generated by their labs and its interpretation.

An often understated influence When the majority of the review authors ranked the quality of the evidence supporting each of the claims, Cooper found no correlation between the amount of volunteer - collected data backing up each claim and the confidence the researchers had in the claim's reliability.

NDS encompass a broad set of sources, from internet search data to social media posts to Wikipedia access logs, even restaurant reservations and reviews and news sources, according to co-lead author Benjamin Althouse from the Santa Fe Institute, New Mexico, USA.

When they reviewed data on 1 million children ages 10 and younger, the authors found a deep racial divide in diagnosis rates of strabismus.

To demonstrate use of the new nomenclature, the authors of the study review recently published news species descriptions in the ichthyological literature that include DNA data and apply the GenSeq nomenclature to sequences referenced in those publications.

Second, Science will require that the senior author for each laboratory or group confirm that he or she has personally reviewed the original data generated by that unit, ascertaining that the data selected for publication in specific figures and tables have been appropriately presented.

Thirty one authors collaborated on the review paper, which combines data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species, peer - reviewed scientific literature and United Nations databases to analyze the status, threats and conservation efforts of the world's more than 500 primate species.

In order to make this work, the authors describe necessary steps of a rigorous informed consent process that outlines the risks and uncertainties, close involvement of institutional review boards, and multicenter trials to collect data.

The authors of a new study reviewing the volume data, detailed on Monday in the journal Nature Geoscience, are quick to caution, though, that one single year of rebound doesn't suggest any sea ice recovery, as the overall trend is still downward.

Authors will benefit from the robust journal activities including very rapid review (average time to decision is less than 23 days, 14 days to online publication), high visibility and impact (papers publicized on journal website, monthly newsletters, Facebook, Twitter, 2011 impact factor 3.368,), and author services (connection to nomenclature services, pre-publication annotation of data for submission to data resources and repositories, as well as video and other alternative content as part of the embedded content).

AUTHOR»S PREVIEW I would like to acknowledge this is a debatable subject firstly because the human metabolic system is highly adaptive to a variety exogenous protein foods, secondly because one protein protocol «Size» may not fit all, and lastly because we are still fine - tuning from the data collected in peer - reviewed research of the appropriately interpreted information for reliable conclusions.

As we show in our article (with the data attached so that anyone can choose to review or re-analyze it), our more appropriate analytic strategy clearly demonstrates how the CRP authors overstated their findings.

However, the authors of the review state that this data was not reported well enough to be taken in total confidence even though the findings do suggest «several potential benefits» for students.

In a forthcoming article in Education Finance and Policy, a peer - reviewed scholarly journal, Ruttaya Tongrut and I show that teacher pay estimates based on the household survey data used by these authors are unreliable and seriouslyunder - report true teacher pay.

In this paper, the authors review some of these challenges, discuss how the challenges have been approached when using cross-sectional data, and describe a method that analyzes longitudinal, student - level data to provide an improved estimate of graduation and dropout rates.

Venables, author of the 2014 ASCD book How Teachers Can Turn Data into Action, addresses how to systematically review and respond to dData into Action, addresses how to systematically review and respond to datadata.

Recently on the Brookings blog, authors Michael Hansen and Diana Quintero reviewed the data and put together a profile of the American social studies educator.

In reviewing the actual enrollment data for just remedial English, the authors applied a remedial rate of slightly more than 8 percent for two - year institutions to each institution's total enrollment for a multiplier of 0.0814; slightly more than 1 percent for four - year very high research institutions for a multiplier of 0.0107; and almost 5 percent for other four - year institutions for a multiplier of 0.0471.

In the end, while the authors of this chapter do not disclose the actual correlations between their two measures and value - added, specifically (although from the appendix one can infer that the correlation between value - added and Tripod output is around r = 0.45 as based on an unadjusted r - squared), and I should mention this is a HUGE shortcoming of this chapter (one that would not have passed peer review should this chapter have been submitted to a journal for publication), the authors do mention that «the conceptual overlap between the frameworks is substantial and that empirical patterns in the data show similarities.»

I have reviewed the next of nine articles (# 3 of 9) here, titled «Exploring the Potential of Value - Added Performance Measures to Affect the Quality of the Teacher Workforce» as authored by Dan Goldhaber — Professor at the University of Washington Bothell, Director of the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER), and a Vice-President at the American Institutes of Research (AIR).

Announced in May 2009, AmazonEncore is a program which identifies exceptional books and emerging authors using information on Amazon.com, such as customer reviews and sales data.

Looking to the gender of the authors of the books reviewed, cross factoring this with data on the price, genre and how the books were published brought the study's authors to a lousy conclusion: Books written by women that are released by mainstream publishing houses sell, on average, for 45 % less than those written by men.

Introduced in May 2009, AmazonEncore uses information on Amazon.com, such as customer reviews and sales data, to identify exceptional books and emerging authors.

This competition analysis screen gives you information related to the title, subtitle, author name, age, keyword data, review data, price and sales data, for each book ranking for a particular idea keyword.

We review the manuscript and the data provided on our submissions form or author query letter.

Readers» Favorite's book reviews and book awards have been accepted into the CLCD, a world leader in the collection of professional reviews and awards data, providing our authors with free exposure to a huge variety of literary professionals, libraries, schools, publishers and book sellers.

Each book's entry on the eBookstore showcases the cover, the author, a synopsis, reviews, and some bibliographic data on the book, including page count.

The Managing Editor takes care of electronically posting the reviews to authors, publishers, subscribers to our publications, and Gale Cengage Learning (for their Book Review Index data base program for library systems throughout the U.S. and Canada).

As long as you claim your titles Amazon is pretty good at putting new editions in with the same review and other meta - data — it has to be a good match, though, i.e. same title, author.

I imagine, given that Amazon's motto is customer service and pleasing the customer first, that when customers borrow a book and leave it a good review (or borrow it and read it quickly — data Amazon has but we as authors don't get), that Amazon assumes the book is good.