4 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2019
    1. Results

      Results == Findings.

      I am aware that this section contains some statistical technique you did not learn in the course. Try to read the authors' descriptions, nonetheless, and see if you can make sense out of it. If the authors did their job, you should be able to understand their findings even if you might not appreciate the intricacies of their methodological choices.

      Please identify and highlight the key findings of this research.

  2. Nov 2017
    1. The most common eye finding in congenital toxoplasmosis is the presence of chorioretinal scars, reported in 79% of patients. These scars may occur anywhere in the retina but with a higher incidence in the macula.

      Ocular findings in Congenital Toxoplasomsis:

      • 79% patients have chorioretinal scars *Scar may involve macula with significant decrease in visual acuity
      • scar may involve periheral area with decreased acuity by dragging of macula

      Normal Retina

      Chorioretinal scar in congenital toxoplasmosis

      Other posterior ocular complications include:

      • retinal attachment and active chorioretinitis in 10%
      • Optic atrophy in 20%
      • Other findings may include: cataracts, microphtalmia, microcornea, nystagmus.
  3. Oct 2017
    1. participants are more likely to speak to people and organi-zations with large followings.

      This is interesting. Specifically in this case of healthcare conversation, people are definitely more likely to take advice or consultation from the organization or people with most following. It could be because we are inherently likely to believe those that are followed by many others.

  4. Jan 2014
    1. To summarize the survey's findings: Curation of digital data is a concern for a significant proportion of UCSB faculty and researchers. Curation of digital data is a concern for almost every department and unit on campus. Researchers almost universally view themselves as personally responsible for the curation of their data. Researchers view curation as a collaborative activity and collective responsibility. Departments have different curation requirements, and therefore may require different amounts and types of campus support. Researchers desire help with all data management activities related to curation, predominantly storage. Researchers may be underestimating the need for help using archival storage systems and dealing with attendant metadata issues. There are many sources of curation mandates, and researchers are increasingly under mandate to curate their data. Researchers under curation mandate are more likely to collaborate with other parties in curating their data, including with their local labs and departments. Researchers under curation mandate request more help with all curation-related activities; put another way, curation mandates are an effective means of raising curation awareness. The survey reflects the concerns of a broad cross-section of campus.

      Summary of survey findings.