2,497 publications from this institution
This paper presents a method of using texture mapping with mipmapping to render a VLSI layout. Texture mapping is used to save already rasterized areas of the layout from frame to frame, and to take advantage of any hardware accelerated capabilities of the host platform. Mipmapping is used to select which textures to display so that the amount of information sent to the display is bounded, and the image rendered on the display is filtered correctly. Additionally, two caching schemes are employed. The first, used to bound memory consumption, is a general purpose cache that holds textures spatially close to the user's current viewpoint. The second, used to speed up the rendering process, is a cache of heavily used sub-designs that are precomputed so rasterization on the fly is not necessary.
Importance Both citation and funding metrics converge in shaping current perceptions of academic success. Objective To evaluate what proportion of the most-cited US-based scientists are funded by biomedical federal agencies and whether funded scientists are more cited than nonfunded ones. Design, Setting, and Participants This survey study used linkage of a Scopus-based database on top-cited US researchers (according to a composite citation metric) and the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database of federal funding (33 biomedical federal agencies). Matching was based on name and institution. US-based top-cited scientists who were allocated to any of 69 scientific subfields highly related to biomedicine were considered in the main analysis. Data were downloaded on June 11, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures Proportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists who had any (1996-2022), recent (2015-2022), and current (2021-2022) funding. Comparisons of funded and nonfunded scientists assessed total citations and a composite citation index. Results There were 204 603 records in RePORTER (1996-2022) and 75 316 US-based top-cited scientists in the career-long citation database; 40 887 scientists were included in the main analysis. The proportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists (according to career-long citation impact) who had received any federal funding from biomedical research agencies was 62.7% (25 650 of 40 887) for any funding (1996-2022), 23.1% (9427 of 40 887) for recent funding (2015-2022), and 14.1% (5778 of 40 887) for current funding (2021-2022). Respective proportions were 64.8%, 31.4%, and 20.9%, for top-cited scientists according to recent single-year citation impact. There was large variability across scientific subfields (eg, current funding: 31% of career-long impact top-cited scientists in geriatrics, 30% in bioinformatics and 29% in developmental biology, but 0% in legal and forensic medicine, general psychology and cognitive sciences, and gender studies). Funded top-cited researchers were overall more cited than nonfunded top-cited scientists (median [IQR], 9594 [5650-1703] vs 5352 [3057-9890] citations; P < .001) and substantial difference remained after adjusting for subfield and years since first publication. Differences were more prominent in some specific biomedical subfields. Conclusions and Relevance In this survey study, biomedical federal funding had offered support to approximately two-thirds of the top-cited biomedical scientists at some point during the last quarter century, but only a small minority of top-cited scientists had current federal biomedical funding. The large unevenness across subfields needs to be addressed with ways that improve equity, efficiency, excellence, and translational potential.
Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Journals JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
As a kid I was considered somewhat of a terror. But not in the usual way you would imagine for a little boy. Outwardly I was polite, mild mannered, and rarely fought with anyone. But on the inside, I was hyper-curious. I had to know how everything worked. What's inside that? What would happen if I did this? These experiments often used force, which broke most of the objects I explored. Some of the items were mine, and that was ok since I was able to see inside and could still play with parts and the box the toy came in. Unfortunately, some of the items belonged to others, and they didn't appreciate their toys being broken, which led to my reputation.
Different modeling approaches can be used to calculate excess deaths for the COVID-19 pandemic period. We compared 6 calculations of excess deaths (4 previously published and two new ones that we performed with and without age-adjustment) for 2020-2021. With each approach, we calculated excess deaths metrics and the ratio R of excess deaths over recorded COVID-19 deaths. The main analysis focused on 33 high-income countries with weekly deaths in the Human Mortality Database (HMD at mortality.org) and reliable death registration. Secondary analyses compared calculations for other countries, whenever available. Across the 33 high-income countries, excess deaths were 2.0-2.8 million without age-adjustment, and 1.6-2.1 million with age-adjustment with large differences across countries. In our analyses after age-adjustment, 8 of 33 countries had no overall excess deaths; there was a death deficit in children; and 0.478 million (29.7%) of the excess deaths were in people <65 years old. In countries like France, Germany, Italy, and Spain excess death estimates differed 2 to 4-fold between highest and lowest figures. The R values’ range exceeded 0.3 in all 33 countries. In 16 of 33 countries, the range of R exceeded 1. In 25 of 33 countries some calculations suggest R>1 (excess deaths exceeding COVID-19 deaths) while others suggest R<1 (excess deaths smaller than COVID-19 deaths). Inferred data from 4 evaluations for 42 countries and from 3 evaluations for another 98 countries are very tenuous Estimates of excess deaths are analysis-dependent and age-adjustment is important to consider. Excess deaths may be lower than previously calculated.