The Experts below are selected from a list of 45495 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Nick Gibson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Comparisons of the Outcome Prediction Performance of Injury Severity Scoring Tools Using the Abbreviated Injury Scale 90 Update 98 (AIS 98) and 2005 Update 2008 (AIS 2008)
    Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference, 2011
    Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, David Mountain, Ian Jacobs, Nick Gibson
    Abstract:

    The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was revised in 2005 and updated in 2008 (AIS 2008). We aimed to compare the outcome prediction performance of AIS-based injury severity scoring tools by using AIS 2008 and AIS 98. We used all major trauma patients hospitalized to the Royal Perth Hospital between 1994 and 2008. We selected five AIS-based injury severity scoring tools, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), modified Anatomic Profile (mAP), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). We selected survival after injury as a target outcome. We used the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) as a performance measure. First, we compared the five tools using all cases whose records included all variables for the TRISS (Complete Dataset) using a 10-fold cross-validation. Second, we compared the ISS and NISS for AIS 98 and AIS 2008 using all subjects (whole Dataset). We identified 1,269 and 4,174 cases for a Complete Dataset and a whole Dataset, respectively. With the 10-fold cross-validation, there were no clear differences in the AUROCs between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based scores. With the second comparison, the AIS 98-based ISS performed significantly worse than the AIS 2008-based ISS (p

  • comparisons of the outcome prediction performance of injury severity scoring tools using the abbreviated injury scale 90 update 98 ais 98 and 2005 update 2008 ais 2008
    Annals of advances in automotive medicine Annual Scientific Conference ... Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Association for the, 2011
    Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, David Mountain, Ian Jacobs, Nick Gibson
    Abstract:

    The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was revised in 2005 and updated in 2008 (AIS 2008). We aimed to compare the outcome prediction performance of AIS-based injury severity scoring tools by using AIS 2008 and AIS 98. We used all major trauma patients hospitalized to the Royal Perth Hospital between 1994 and 2008. We selected five AIS-based injury severity scoring tools, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), modified Anatomic Profile (mAP), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). We selected survival after injury as a target outcome. We used the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) as a performance measure. First, we compared the five tools using all cases whose records included all variables for the TRISS (Complete Dataset) using a 10-fold cross-validation. Second, we compared the ISS and NISS for AIS 98 and AIS 2008 using all subjects (whole Dataset). We identified 1,269 and 4,174 cases for a Complete Dataset and a whole Dataset, respectively. With the 10-fold cross-validation, there were no clear differences in the AUROCs between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based scores. With the second comparison, the AIS 98-based ISS performed significantly worse than the AIS 2008-based ISS (p<0.0001), while there was no significant difference between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based NISSs. Researchers should be aware of these findings when they select an injury severity scoring tool for their studies.

Johan Fourie - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Hideo Tohira - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Comparisons of the Outcome Prediction Performance of Injury Severity Scoring Tools Using the Abbreviated Injury Scale 90 Update 98 (AIS 98) and 2005 Update 2008 (AIS 2008)
    Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference, 2011
    Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, David Mountain, Ian Jacobs, Nick Gibson
    Abstract:

    The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was revised in 2005 and updated in 2008 (AIS 2008). We aimed to compare the outcome prediction performance of AIS-based injury severity scoring tools by using AIS 2008 and AIS 98. We used all major trauma patients hospitalized to the Royal Perth Hospital between 1994 and 2008. We selected five AIS-based injury severity scoring tools, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), modified Anatomic Profile (mAP), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). We selected survival after injury as a target outcome. We used the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) as a performance measure. First, we compared the five tools using all cases whose records included all variables for the TRISS (Complete Dataset) using a 10-fold cross-validation. Second, we compared the ISS and NISS for AIS 98 and AIS 2008 using all subjects (whole Dataset). We identified 1,269 and 4,174 cases for a Complete Dataset and a whole Dataset, respectively. With the 10-fold cross-validation, there were no clear differences in the AUROCs between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based scores. With the second comparison, the AIS 98-based ISS performed significantly worse than the AIS 2008-based ISS (p

  • comparisons of the outcome prediction performance of injury severity scoring tools using the abbreviated injury scale 90 update 98 ais 98 and 2005 update 2008 ais 2008
    Annals of advances in automotive medicine Annual Scientific Conference ... Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Association for the, 2011
    Co-Authors: Hideo Tohira, David Mountain, Ian Jacobs, Nick Gibson
    Abstract:

    The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) was revised in 2005 and updated in 2008 (AIS 2008). We aimed to compare the outcome prediction performance of AIS-based injury severity scoring tools by using AIS 2008 and AIS 98. We used all major trauma patients hospitalized to the Royal Perth Hospital between 1994 and 2008. We selected five AIS-based injury severity scoring tools, including Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), modified Anatomic Profile (mAP), Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) and A Severity Characterization of Trauma (ASCOT). We selected survival after injury as a target outcome. We used the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) as a performance measure. First, we compared the five tools using all cases whose records included all variables for the TRISS (Complete Dataset) using a 10-fold cross-validation. Second, we compared the ISS and NISS for AIS 98 and AIS 2008 using all subjects (whole Dataset). We identified 1,269 and 4,174 cases for a Complete Dataset and a whole Dataset, respectively. With the 10-fold cross-validation, there were no clear differences in the AUROCs between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based scores. With the second comparison, the AIS 98-based ISS performed significantly worse than the AIS 2008-based ISS (p<0.0001), while there was no significant difference between the AIS 98- and AIS 2008-based NISSs. Researchers should be aware of these findings when they select an injury severity scoring tool for their studies.

Tim Caro - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Correction: Zebra stripes through the eyes of their predators, zebras, and humans
    PloS one, 2016
    Co-Authors: A D. Melin, Donald W. Kline, Chihiro Hiramatsu, Tim Caro
    Abstract:

    Fig 1 and its legend appear incorrectly in the published article. Please see the correct Fig 1 and its legend here. Fig 1 Photographs of (a) Plains zebra, (b) Grevy’s zebra, (c) Mountain zebra, and (d) African wild ass in the Tierpark Zoo, Berlin. The URL reference in the penultimate sentence of the Materials and Methods section under the heading “Collection of Digital Photographs” is incorrect. The correct sentence is: A Complete Dataset of all original and filtered images is available at the Harvard Dataverse, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/OHWWNR.

Jianwen Luo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Compressed sensing reconstruction of synthetic transmit aperture Dataset for volumetric diverging wave imaging.
    Physics in medicine and biology, 2019
    Co-Authors: Yinran Chen, Jing Liu, Julien Grondin, Elisa E. Konofagou, Jianwen Luo
    Abstract:

    A high volume rate and high performance ultrasound imaging method based on a matrix array is proposed by using compressed sensing (CS) to reconstruct the Complete Dataset of synthetic transmit aperture (STA) from three-dimensional (3D) diverging wave transmissions (i.e. 3D CS-STA). Hereto, a series of apodized 3D diverging waves are transmitted from a fixed virtual source, with the ith row of a Hadamard matrix taken as the apodization coefficients in the ith transmit event. Then CS is used to reconstruct the Complete Dataset, based on the linear relationship between the backscattered echoes and the Complete Dataset of 3D STA. Finally, standard STA beamforming is applied on the reconstructed Complete Dataset to obtain the volumetric image. Four layouts of element numbering for apodizations and transmit numbers of 16, 32 and 64 are investigated through computer simulations and phantom experiments. Furthermore, the proposed 3D CS-STA setups are compared with 3D single-line-transmit (SLT) and 3D diverging wave compounding (DWC). The results show that, (i) 3D CS-STA has competitive lateral resolutions to 3D STA, and their contrast ratios (CRs) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) approach to those of 3D STA as the number of transmit events increases in noise-free condition. (ii) the tested 3D CS-STA setups show good robustness in Complete Dataset reconstruction in the presence of different levels of noise. (iii) 3D CS-STA outperforms 3D SLT and 3D DWC. More specifically, the 3D CS-STA setup with 64 transmit events and the Random layout achieves ~31% improvement in lateral resolution, ~14% improvement in ratio of the estimated-to-true cystic areas, a higher volume rate, and competitive CR/CNR when compared with 3D DWC. The results demonstrate that 3D CS-STA has great potential of providing high quality volumetric image with a higher volume rate.