 Oct 2020

dylanvann.com dylanvann.com

Beautiful, except that switching albums does not update the PhotoGrid. This is not the automatic reactivity we were promised by Svelte.

 May 2020

medium.com medium.com

Given the massive amount of stars it had acquired on Github and the fairly quick and easy setup, it seemed very promising. When it comes down to its isomorphic functionality, it’s hard to match. But when it we started using the static export features, we were dropped on our faces with a very ungraceful transition from isomorphic to static that came with a cold side of faulty hotreloading, strange routing strategies and highly bloated bundles:

 Jun 2019

www.ksl.com www.ksl.com

“Because the bully had no prior record of bullying, and even though there were so many different days and incidents of physical assault, it was treated as a onetime offense, and for a onetime offense you just get a short talk and a call home,”
In order for suspension and expulsion, there must be multiple offense. In this case, there are witnesses and a confession, but that is not enough. Even though there were many different days and incidents of physical assault this is considered a onetime offense? A short talk and a phone call home is the consequences of a death threat and physical assault? Where is the importance of bullying would not be tolerated? Where is the importance of ensuring the victim's safety? This is why this whole system fail to tackle on the issue of bullying. The limit of what the school can do is unjust. How is that resolved? The victim and their family would still feel unsafe, fear, and paranoia.

 Nov 2016

pnlpapp.herokuapp.com pnlpapp.herokuapp.com

t(27) = 0.41, p<0.05;
Is this t test correct? The t statistic and degrees of freedom you've provided don't seem to be consistent with any given pvalue given.

Did you receive permission to use field samples?

Have you explained what your exclusion and inclusion criteria were?

Have you considered including ORCIDs for every author? Although not compulsory, ORCIDs are a good way of making sure authors get credit for your work by distinguishing them from every other researcher in the world.

Have you included the term 'Randomised Trial' in your title?

Have you considered identifying the animals you used using a resource identifier? Although not compulsory, resource identifiers remove any ambiguity over which animals you used, and can make your work more discoverable.

Have you included a section where you explain author contributions? You should mention each author by their initials and explain how they contributed to the work.

Have you used the STARD reporting guideline? If so, you should say so in your methods.

t = 0.81,
Have you reported the degrees of freedom for this ttest?

t= 1.01,
Have you reported the degrees of freedom for this ttest?

t = 2.31,
Have you reported the degrees of freedom for this ttest?

References
Should your references follow a numerical system?

Kendall et al., 2005)
You have referenced this citation

Have you explained whether participants and personnel were blinded?

bstract
Have you included a 'Results' subsection in your abstract?

Van der Werf YD, Witter MP, Groenewegen HJ (2002) The intralaminar and midline nuclei of the thalamus. Anatomical and functional evidence for participation in processes of arousal and awareness. Brain Res Brain Res Rev 39:107140.
This reference is cited

Minamimoto T, Hori Y, Kimura M (2005) Complementary process to response bias in the centromedian nucleus of the thalamus. Science 308:17981801.
This reference is cited

Matsumoto N, Minamimoto T, Graybiel AM, Kimura M (2001) Neurons in the thalamic CMPf complex supply striatal neurons with information about behaviorally significant sensory events. J Neurophysiol 85:960976.
This reference is cited

Kinomura S, Larsson J, Gulyas B, Roland PE (1996) Activation by attention of the human reticular formation and thalamic intralaminar nuclei. Science 271:512515.
This reference is cited

Have you included a word count?

Did you receive ethical approval for this study?

This analysis revealed that the response to CL axon stimulation was consistently larger in amplitude than the response to Pf for both direct and indirect pathway MSNs (direct pathway: t(27) = 1.98, p<0.05).
It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

Secondly, the cortical response recovers more quickly than the thalamic response after both 10 Hz and 20 Hz stimulation (ratio of response to first pulse: 10 Hz; cortical 0.87 ± 0.05, vs. thalamic 0.57 ± 0.05, 20 Hz; cortical, 0.90 ± 0.12 vs. t(72) = 3.07, p<0.05).
It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

We found that the pairedpulse ratio (PPR) for afferents from CL are facilitating (t(55) = 2.02, p<0.05), whereas those from Pf are depressing (t(27) = 3.12, p<0.05).
It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

We found that CL synapses are dominated by AMPA receptormediated currents, whereas Pf synapses are dominated by NMDA receptormediated currents (t(27) = 5.31, p<0.01).
It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

Furthermore, the analysis revealed that the response to CL axon stimulation was larger in amplitude on direct pathway neurons (direct pathway: t(27) = 1.99, p<0.05; Table 1).
It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

Cortical synapses exhibit an NMDA/AMPA ratio in between those of CL and Pf synapses and dominated by NMDA receptormediated currents (mean NMDA/AMPA ratio for cortical: t(27) = 2.66, p<0.05).
It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

However, the same protocol applied to CL synapses did not lead to any change in the amplitude of evoked EPSPs (t(27) = 0.41, p<0.05; Figure 5A).
It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

The average amplitude of response following CL axon stimulation was 66.3 ± 13.5 pA (stim strength; 450 mW; n = 16), whereas those following Pf axon stimulation were significantly smaller at 30.7 ± 4.1 pA (stim strength: 980 mW; t = 0.81, p<0.05).
It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

The Pf response is significantly depressing following both the 10 and 20 Hz trains and the rate of recovery was the least of all three responses (t(44) = 3.10, p<0.05; Figure 3B).
It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

Whereas all responses depress eventually, only the responses of CL inputs are facilitating for the first few spikes during both 10 and 20 Hz stimulation CL (t(72) = 1.73, p<0.05;
It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

We found that the EPSC properties for CL and Pf synapses using this stimulation strength are remarkably similar, with some small differences in that CL EPSCs were larger in amplitude (t = 2.31, p<0.05) and Pf EPSCs slightly longer in duration (t= 1.01, p=0.02).
It's often good practice to accompany every p value with a confidence interval, or another measure of precision.

Figure 1A,
Have you included figures in this file?

Have you included an email address for every author?

Have you used and cited the CARE guidelines for reporting case studies? If so, you should say so in your methods section.

Did you get permission to use fossils? Who from? And are the fossils publically available?

Have you used the PRISMA guidelines for reporting systematic reviews? If so, you should say so in your methods section.

t = 2.31,
Have you stated that your data meets the assumptions for an ttest?

Have you used the MOOSE guidelines for reporting systematic reviews of observational studies? If so, you should state so in your methods.

Have you included a participant flow diagram? This is generally highly recommended for randomised trials.

Have you included a section called Ethical Approval?

bstract
Have you included a 'Purpose' subsection in your abstract?

Have you used the ENTREQ reporting guidelines? If so, you should say so in your methods.

Figure 4: NMDA / AMPA receptor ratio at CL, Pf and cortical synapses on MSNs Postsynaptic excitatory currents were recorded from MSN held at +40 mV to reveal both AMPA receptor and NMDA receptormediated currents or just AMPA receptormediated currents in the presence of dAP5. Each excitatory input has a distinct ratio of currents mediated by either receptor type. CL synapses on MSNs exhibit predominant AMPA receptormediated currents. Pf synapses on MSNs exhibit predominant NMDA receptormediated currents. Cortical inputs similarly exhibit predominant NMDA receptormediated expression, but to a lesser degree than Pf. The histogram shows the mean (± SEM) NMDA/AMPA receptor ratio for each synapse. Sourced from some citation
You've mentioned this figure in the article body

Have you said who funded this research? Make sure you used the right name.

Have you explained how you randomly allocated subjects into experimental groups?

When writing your manuscript, did you use the CONSORT guidelines for randomised trials? If so, you should say so in your methods section.

Have you included a section called "Consent for Publication"? If you are reporting individual level data you must obtain consent. Otherwise, you should write "Not Applicable"

Have you used and the REMARK reporting guidelines? If so, you should say so in your methods section

Have you used the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research? If so, you should mention it in your methods.

Did participants give informed consent?

Have you said which Ethical Review Board gave you ethical approval?

Does your work adhere to the ARVO statement?

P. Bolam
Have you provided an affiliation for this author? They don't seem to a member of any institution that you've mentioned.

P. Kossilo*
Have you provided an affiliation for this author? They don't seem to a member of any institution that you've mentioned.

J. Harwood*
Have you provided an affiliation for this author? They don't seem to a member of any institution that you've mentioned.

T. Ellender,
Have you provided an affiliation for this author? They don't seem to a member of any institution that you've mentioned.

Have you used the STROBE reporting guideline? If so, you should say so in your methods.

bstract
Have you included a 'Methods' subsection in your abstract?

p<0.05;
It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

p<0.05)
It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

p<0.01)
It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

p<0.05;
It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

p<0.05)
It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

p<0.05;
It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

p<0.05)
It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

p<0.05)
It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

p<0.05;
It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

p<0.05)
It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

p<0.05)
It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

p<0.05)
It's good practice to report p values exactly. So a p value of 0.46 would be reported as p = .46, not p < .05. An exception is for p values less than 0.001, which can always be reported as p < .001.

Have you explained how you decided what sample size you needed?

Table 1
Have you included a short legend for this table?

bstract
Have you included a 'Conclusions' subsection in your abstract?

Have you included a section called "Declarations"?

: t(27) = 1.98, p<0.05)
Have you justified using a 1 tailed ttest? This pvalue is not consistent with a 2tailed ttest.

Have you used the TRIPOD reporting guideline? If so, you should say so in your methods.

Have you used the SRQR reporting guideline? If so, you should say so in your methods.

Have you included your trial registration ID? Generally this is compulsory for clinical trials, and it should go at the end of your abstract. You should also include the registry name and date of registration. If your trial was registered retrospectively you should state that too.
Tags
 blinding
 ethics
 prisma_checklist_cited
 informed_consent
 funder_named
 author_institution_website
 orcid
 consort_checklist_cited
 randomisation
 ethics_board_named
 methods_h_ab_sub
 stard_checklist_cited
 pval_as_equalities
 entreq_checklist_cited
 introduction_h_ab_sub
 correct_ref_style_used_num
 conclusions_h_ab_sub
 tripod_checklist_cited
 failed
 arrive_checklist_cited
 srqr_checklist_cited
 power_calculation
 results_h_ab_sub
 arvo
 remark_checklist_cited
 reference_cited
 moose_checklist_cited
 t_tests_reported_well
 care_checklist_cited
 author_statement_h
 t_test_assumption
 exclusion_criteria
 figures_in_manuscript
 citation_referenced
 email_all_authors
 ethics_h
 clinical_trial_registration
 field_sample_permission
 table_c_has_legend
 title_keywords_consort
 rrid_animal
 consent_for_publication_h
 t_test_one_tail_declared
 fossil_permission
 participant_flow_diagram
 declarations_h
 ci_in_sent
 t_tests_two_tail
 figure_l_is_cited
 strobe_checklist_cited
 word_count_h
Annotators
URL
