Project description:Molecules has started to institute a "Best Paper" award to recognize the most outstanding papers in the area of natural products, medicinal chemistry and molecular diversity published in Molecules. We are pleased to announce the second "Molecules Best Paper Award" for 2013.
Project description:Materials is instituting an annual award to recognize the outstanding papers in the area of materials science and engineering published in Materials. We are pleased to announce the first "Materials Best Paper Award" for 2013. Nominations were selected by the Section Editor-in-Chiefs and Editorial Board members of Materials from all papers published in 2009. [...].
Project description:Materials has established an annual award for the best article and for the best review published in Materials in order to acknowledge the outstanding contributions of our authors in the area of materials science and engineering.[...].
Project description:Materials instituted an annual award in order to acknowledge outstanding papers in the area of materials science and engineering published in Materials. [...].
Project description:BACKGROUND:Admission criteria and standardized management strategies for bronchiolitis are addressed in several guidelines and have shown to be beneficial; however, guidance regarding discharge criteria is limited and widely variable. We assessed the impact on clinical outcomes of a discharge protocol for children <2 years of age hospitalized with bronchiolitis in a tertiary care pediatric hospital. METHODS:In October 2013, a protocol to standardize the discharge of children with bronchiolitis was implemented in the infectious diseases (ID) ward but not in other pediatric units caring for these children (non-ID). The protocol included objective clinical criteria and a standardized oxygen weaning pathway. Patients were identified via International Classification of Diseases-9 codes and data manually reviewed. We compared length of stay (LOS) and readmission rates within 2 weeks of discharge according to protocol implementation (ID versus non-ID), adjusted for demographic factors, comorbidities, viral etiology and stratified by pediatric intensive care unit admission. RESULTS:From October 2013 to May 2015, 1118 children were hospitalized in ID and 695 in non-ID units. Median age was 4.5 months, 55% were males and 28% had comorbidities. LOS was 36% longer in non-ID units (risk ratio: 1.36 [1.27-1.45]; P < 0.001) adjusted for age, gender, comorbidities and viral etiology. Difference in LOS remained significant after excluding children with comorbidities and stratifying by pediatric intensive care unit admission. Readmission rates were comparable between units (ID, 2.9% versus non-ID, 2.6%). CONCLUSIONS:A standardized discharge protocol for bronchiolitis reduced LOS without increasing readmission rates. Unifying bronchiolitis discharge criteria and oxygen weaning pathways could positively impact hospital-based patient care for this condition.
Project description:Authorship of peer-reviewed journal articles and abstracts has become the primary currency and reward unit in academia. Such a reward is crucial for students and postdocs who are often under-compensated and thus highly value authorship as an incentive. While numerous scientific and publishing organizations have written guidelines for determining author qualifications and author order, there remains much ambiguity when it comes to how these criteria are weighed by research faculty. Here, we sought to provide some initial insight on how faculty view the relative importance of 11 criteria for scientific authorship. We distributed an online survey to 564 biomedical engineering, biology, and bioengineering faculty members at 10 research institutions across the United States. The response rate was approximately 18%, resulting in a final sample of 102 respondents. Results revealed an agreement on some criteria, such as time spent conducting experiments, but there was a lack of agreement regarding the role of funding procurement. This study provides quantitative assessments of how faculty members in the biosciences evaluate authorship criteria. We discuss the implications of these findings for researchers, especially new graduate students, to help navigate the discrepancy between official policies for authorship and the contributions that faculty truly value.
Project description:Current policies and interventions to enhance student success and retention are often tied to full-time enrollment, which are substantiated by studies associating part-time enrollment with lower retention and poorer academic outcomes. However, these findings are limited to studies of first-time college students and do not represent today's nontraditional undergraduate who may be transfer, online, and working adult students. To enhance retention of on-campus and hybrid online 2 + 2 transfer students in a STEM undergraduate program, need-based scholarships are awarded to students enrolled full-time as stipulated by the federal granting agency. Although the scholarship has helped >80 students to date, over 40% of eligible transfer students are excluded only because they are enrolled part-time, disproportionately affecting students in the hybrid online track who are more likely to be women and underrepresented minorities. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, this study explores enrollment behavior of transfer students (online and on-campus), its relationship with student characteristics and academic outcomes, and implications for scholarship eligibility. Full-time enrollment is a significant challenge for transfer students. While scholarship requirements are a key factor influencing full-time enrollment, online transfer students additionally cite work and family obligations as drivers of enrollment behavior. Thus, online 2 + 2 transfer students face different challenges than on-campus peers and are more likely to enroll part-time out of necessity, yet still have comparable GPA and graduation rates. These findings support a growing awareness of barriers nontraditional students face questioning the relevance of policies driven by "traditional" student outcomes, which perpetuate inequity in higher education.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10755-021-09549-7.
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there is a lack of clear definition for neonatal sepsis. The Pediatric Committee of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) developed consensus criteria to ensure a standardization for neonatal sepsis definition. However, there is no evidence supporting the accuracy of the EMA sepsis criteria in neonatal sepsis diagnosis. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EMA sepsis criteria for proven neonatal sepsis.MethodsA multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted from October 2015 to November 2018. Infants with a gestational age over 34th weeks, diagnosed with clinical sepsis and received antibiotics according to the EMA criteria or experienced neonatologists' opinion were included. Blood culture or multiplex real time-PCR or 16S-rRNA positive infants were accepted as "proven sepsis". The predictive performance of EMA criteria for proven sepsis was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve measures of receiver operator characteristic curves. Data-mining methods were used for further analysis.ResultsAmong the 245 included infants, the EMA criteria were positive in 97 infants (39.6%), while proven sepsis was diagnosed in 113 infants (46.1%). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the EMA criteria for proven sepsis were 44.2% (95%CI: 34.9-53.9), 64.4% (95%CI: 55.6-72.5), 55.1% (95%CI: 46.6-59.4) respectively. None of the clinical and laboratory parameters had sufficient performance individually in terms of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy measures. The diagnostic performance was similar when different clinical findings were added to the EMA sepsis criteria or assessment of the score was interpreted in different ways.ConclusionsResults highlighted that clinician opinion and standard laboratory tests are limited in the neonatal sepsis diagnosis. The EMA criteria also did not efficiently meet the diagnostic accuracy measures for neonatal sepsis. A predictive sepsis definition and rapid bedside point-of care tests are urgently needed.