2,497 publications from this institution
Background: Epidemiological studies often test relationships of single nutrients with disease or examine food patterns e.g. the Mediterranean diet. A nutrient-wide approach is useful to test associations between nutrients (derived from both foods and supplements) and blood pressure (BP), with proper adjustment for multiple comparisons. Methods: Data from 4,680 participants ages 40–59 in the International Study of Macro/Micro-nutrients and Blood Pressure (INTERMAP) were stratified randomly into training and testing sets. NHANES cohorts of 1999–2000 to 2005–2006 were used for external validation. We performed multiple linear regression analyses associating each of 87 nutrients and urine electrolytes with systolic and diastolic BP in the INTERMAP training set. Significant findings were validated in the INTERMAP testing set and further in the NHANES cohorts (False Discovery Rate<5% in training, p < 0.05 for internal and external validation). Results: Among the validated nutrients (False Discovery Rate<5% in training, p < 0.05 for internal and external validation), alcohol was directly associated, while dietary phosphorus, magnesium, folacin, and riboflavin were inversely associated with systolic and diastolic BP. In addition, sodium to potassium ratio were directly and dietary fiber, iron, thiamin, and copper were inversely associated with systolic BP. Inclusion of nutrient intake from supplements in addition to food intake of nutrients did not alter the aforementioned associations for fiber, phosphorus and magnesium intake and attenuated the associations between folacin, thiamin and riboflavin intake with BP. Conclusion: Our analysis highlights previously unstudied or unconfirmed associations between B vitamins, minerals and BP, and offers a systematic unbiased approach to the evaluation and validation of other important nutrient-BP associations.
There is a prolific sector of professional contracting companies that perform network meta-analyses. Industry commissions many network meta-analyses, but most are not registered before or published after analyses in the scientific literature. Mechanisms to improve publication rates of network meta-analysis commissioned by industry are warranted.
Data supporting the charts in https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02479-7. Based on a snapshot of Scopus dated July 2019, across around the 7 Million author profiles that have 5 or more publications in Scopus. Information about the compilation of the dataset of which this aggregate is derived is available with the article dataset: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/btchxktzyw/1
Understanding the etiology of mental diseases has been a high-profile holy grail of basic research and has absorbed the effort of many thousands of scientists at a cost of many billions of dollars ...
Eat, drink, be merry, and boost prescriptions.
The number of retracted articles has grown fast. However, the extent to which researchers and the public are made adequately aware of these retractions and how the media and social media respond to them remains unknown. Here, we aimed to evaluate the media and social media attention received by retracted articles and assess also the attention they receive post-retraction versus pre-retraction. We downloaded all records of retracted literature maintained by the Retraction Watch Database and originally published between January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015. For all 3,008 retracted articles with a separate DOI for the original and its retraction, we downloaded the respective Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) (from Altmetric) and citation count (from Crossref), for the original article and its retraction notice on June 6, 2018. We also compared the AAS of a random sample of 572 retracted full journal articles available on PubMed to that of unretracted full articles matched from the same issue and journal. 1,687 (56.1%) of retracted research articles received some amount of Altmetric attention, and 165 (5.5%) were even considered popular (AAS>20). 31 (1.0%) of 2,953 with a record on Crossref received >100 citations by June 6, 2018. Popular articles received substantially more attention than their retraction, even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction (Median difference, 29; 95% CI, 17–61). Unreliable results were the most frequent reason for retraction of popular articles (32; 19%), while fake peer review was the most common reason (421; 15%) for the retraction of other articles. In comparison to matched articles, retracted articles tended to receive more Altmetric attention (23/31 matched groups; P-value, 0.01), even after adjusting for attention received post-retraction. Our findings reveal that retracted articles may receive high attention from media and social media and that for popular articles, pre-retraction attention far outweighs post-retraction attention.
The CMOS-storage emitter-access (CSEA) memory cell offers faster access than the MOS cells used in conventional BiCMOS SRAMs but using it in large memory arrays poses several problems. Novel BiCMOS circuit approaches to address the problems of decoding power, electronic noise, level translation, and write disturbance are described. Results on a 64-kb CSEA SRAM using these techniques are reported. The device, fabricated in an 0.8- mu m BiCMOS technology, achieves read access and write pulse time of less than 4 ns while dissipating 1.7 W at a case temperature of 70 degrees C.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">></ETX>
This Formal Comment presents an update to citation databases of top-cited scientists across all scientific fields, including more granular information on diverse indicators.
