bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Review of the genetics of thyroid tumours: diagnostic and prognostic implications
Authors: Gilfillan Christopher P. 
Published: February 2010

AbstractBackground:  Thyroid nodules are common, but only a small proportion harbour malignancy. Despite this, the frequency of thyroid cancer is on the increase and thyroid malignancy is the most common endocrine malignancy. Preoperative diagnosis is based on ultrasound and radionucleotide imaging as well as the fine‐needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB). These biopsies yield a large proportion of indeterminate results due to inadequate material for cytological diagnosis, or due to the cytological similarity of FAs and follicular carcinomas.Recent advances in the understanding of the molecular pathogenesis of thyroid malignancy have led to the detection of characteristic genetic alterations in FNABs. This technology has the potential to increase the specificity of this test, combining cytological with genetic testing to reduce the number of indeterminate results, thereby reducing the number of thyroidectomies performed for benign disease.Methods:  This review examines the evidence for the presence of the common genetic alterations in thyroid cancer and outlines the pathological and clinical correlations of these mutations. The practicality and utility of measuring these genetic alterations in FNAB specimens is also outlined as well as the potential for these tests to alter primary management and follow‐up of patients with nodular thyroid disease.Conclusion:  It is likely that a combination of molecular testing and cytological examination of FNAB specimens will prove to be the most efficient and specific method of diagnosing thyroid cancer preoperatively.
Infected pancreatic necrosis: minimizing the cut
Authors: Wysocki A. Peter , McKay Colin J. , Carter C. Ross 
Published: February 2010

AbstractThe challenge for the pancreatologist managing patients with infected pancreatic necrosis is to devise a treatment algorithm that enables recovery but at the same time limits the morbidity and mortality. The current gold standard remains open necrosectomy. Recent literature contains scattered reports of endoscopic, radiologic, laparoscopic, percutaneous and lumbotomy approaches to managing patients with this condition. This literature review addresses the role of techniques that aim to minimize the physiological insult to the patient with infected pancreatic necrosis.
Seat belt injury to the female breast: review and discussion of its surgical management
Authors: Paddle Alenka M. , Morrison Wayne A. 
Published: February 2010

AbstractWith the use of the three‐point lap–diagonal seat belt restraint, there has been a reduction in the number of deaths caused by automobile trauma. However, a new pattern of injury has emerged, the ‘seat‐belt syndrome’, which comprises a constellation of injuries including soft tissue injury to the breast. Given that seat belt legislation is becoming more widespread, it is likely that the incidence and reporting of these injuries will become more common. In this paper, we provide an overview of the varied clinical and radiological presentations, and suggested management of seat belt injury to the female breast. The consequences of such injury can be severe in their functional, psychosocial and aesthetic impact, and thus, using an index case as an example, the previously unreported area of breast reconstruction in a breast deformed as a result of blunt trauma is discussed, highlighting some of its challenges.
Intramural oesophageal dissection
Authors: Beumer Jesse D. , Devitt Peter G. , Thompson Sarah K. 
Published: February 2010

AbstractIntramural oesophageal dissection is an uncommon but important clinical condition. It often occurs in patients who are anticoagulated, and the clinical presentation may include chest pain, dysphagia and haematemesis. The aim of this review was to determine an appropriate treatment algorithm for patients with suspected intramural oesophageal dissection. We conducted a literature review using PubMed and MedLine up until December 2008. We also reported on our own case series of three patients with intramural oesophageal dissection presenting at two Adelaide hospitals over the past 5 years. Recognition of the risk factors and clinical symptoms associated with this condition is imperative to avoid unnecessary and potentially harmful investigations and therapy. Intramural oesophageal dissection usually follows a benign course requiring conservative therapy only.
Review of imaging of scaphoid fractures
Authors: Smith Michael , Bain Gregory I. , Turner Perry C. , Watts Adam C. 
Published: February 2010

AbstractScaphoid fractures are the most common fractures of the carpus, accounting for 79% of all carpal fractures. Early diagnosis of scaphoid fractures is imperative owing to potential complications following the fracture, including non‐union, avascular necrosis, carpal instability and osteoarthritis. Plain radiography remains the initial imaging modality to assess scaphoid fractures. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is excellent in the detection of clinically suspected, but initially radiographically negative, scaphoid fractures. Cost‐effectiveness analysis studies have demonstrated MRI is effective in this setting. Gadolinium enhanced MRI has been shown to be superior to unenhanced MRI in the detection of avascular necrosis. Computerized tomography scan is the preferred modality to assess the intricacies of scaphoid fracture, including fracture location and deformity, as well as union status. This review paper explores the recent advances in imaging of the scaphoid, with reference also to avascular necrosis and non‐union following a scaphoid fracture.
Special Issue: ‘Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century’– Preface
Authors: Gagnier Regenia 
Published: February 2010

AbstractThis article is the preface to the Literature Compass special issue on ‘Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century’.The special issue is made up of the following pieces:‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Preface’, Regenia Gagnier, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 33–34, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00672.x.‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Introduction’, Arthur F. Marotti, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 35–36, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00673.x.‘Electronic Archives and Critical Editing’, Jerome McGann, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 37–42, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00674.x.‘Theorizing the Digital Scholarly Edition’, Hans Walter Gabler, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 43–56, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00675.x.‘Editing Without Walls’, Peter Robinson, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 57–61, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00676.x.‘Our Affection for Books’, Susan J. Wolfson, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 62–71, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00677.x.‘His Days Among the Dead Are No Longer Passed: Editing Robert Southey’, Lynda Pratt, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 72–81, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00678.x.‘Different Demands, Different Priorities: Electronic and Print Editions’, Stuart Curran, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 82–88, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00679.x.‘Editing Manuscripts in Print and Digital Forms’, Arthur F. Marotti, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 89–94, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00680.x.‘All of the Above: The Importance of Multiple Editions of Renaissance Manuscripts’, Steven W. May, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 95–101, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00681.x.‘Editing Early Modern Women’s Manuscripts: Theory, Electronic Editions, and the Accidental Copy‐Text’, Margaret J.M. Ezell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 102–109, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00682.x.‘Different Strokes, Same Folk: Designing the Multi‐form Digital Edition’, Daniel Paul O’Donnell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 110–119, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00683.x.‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– A Conclusion’, Laura Mandell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 120–133, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00684.x.‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Combined Bibliography’, Marotti et al., Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 134–144, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00685.x.
Editing Without Walls
Authors: Robinson Peter 
Published: February 2010

AbstractThis article is part of a Literature Compass special issue on ‘Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century’.The special issue is made up of the following pieces:‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Preface’, Regenia Gagnier, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 33–34, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00672.x.‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Introduction’, Arthur F. Marotti, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 35–36, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00673.x.‘Electronic Archives and Critical Editing’, Jerome McGann, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 37–42, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00674.x.‘Theorizing the Digital Scholarly Edition’, Hans Walter Gabler, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 43–56, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00675.x.‘Editing Without Walls’, Peter Robinson, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 57–61, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00676.x.‘Our Affection for Books’, Susan J. Wolfson, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 62–71, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00677.x.‘His Days Among the Dead Are No Longer Passed: Editing Robert Southey’, Lynda Pratt, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 72–81, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00678.x.‘Different Demands, Different Priorities: Electronic and Print Editions’, Stuart Curran, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 82–88, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00679.x.‘Editing Manuscripts in Print and Digital Forms’, Arthur F. Marotti, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 89–94, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00680.x.‘All of the Above: The Importance of Multiple Editions of Renaissance Manuscripts’, Steven W. May, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 95–101, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00681.x.‘Editing Early Modern Women’s Manuscripts: Theory, Electronic Editions, and the Accidental Copy‐Text’, Margaret J.M. Ezell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 102–109, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00682.x.‘Different Strokes, Same Folk: Designing the Multi‐form Digital Edition’, Daniel Paul O’Donnell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 110–119, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00683.x.‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– A Conclusion’, Laura Mandell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 120–133, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00684.x.‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Combined Bibliography’, Marotti et al., Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 134–144, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00685.x.
Special Issue: ‘Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century’– A Conclusion
Authors: Mandell Laura 
Published: February 2010

AbstractThis piece is a conclusion to theLiterature Compassspecial issue on ‘Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century’.The special issue is made up of the following pieces:‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Preface’, Regenia Gagnier,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 33–34, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00672.x.‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Introduction’, Arthur F. Marotti,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 35–36, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00673.x.‘Electronic Archives and Critical Editing’, Jerome McGann,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 37–42, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00674.x.‘Theorizing the Digital Scholarly Edition’, Hans Walter Gabler,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 43–56, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00675.x.‘Editing Without Walls’, Peter Robinson,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 57–61, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00676.x.‘Our Affection for Books’, Susan J. Wolfson,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 62–71, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00677.x.‘His Days Among the Dead Are No Longer Passed: Editing Robert Southey’, Lynda Pratt,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 72–81, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00678.x.‘Different Demands, Different Priorities: Electronic and Print Editions’, Stuart Curran,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 82–88, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00679.x.‘Editing Manuscripts in Print and Digital Forms’, Arthur F. Marotti,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 89–94, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00680.x.‘All of the Above: The Importance of Multiple Editions of Renaissance Manuscripts’, Steven W. May,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 95–101, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00681.x.‘Editing Early Modern Women’s Manuscripts: Theory, Electronic Editions, and the Accidental Copy‐Text’, Margaret J.M. Ezell,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 102–109, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00682.x.‘Different Strokes, Same Folk: Designing the Multi‐form Digital Edition’, Daniel Paul O’Donnell,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 110–119, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00683.x.‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– A Conclusion’, Laura Mandell,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 120–133, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00684.x.‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Combined Bibliography’, Marotti et al.,Literature Compass7.2 (2010): 134–144, doi:10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00685.x.
Special Issue: ‘Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century’– Combined Bibliography
Authors: McGann Jerome , Gabler Hans Walter , Wolfson Susan J. , Pratt Lynda , Curran Stuart , Marotti Arthur F. , May Steven W. , Ezell Margaret J. M. , O’Donnell Daniel Paul , Mandell Laura 
Published: February 2010

AbstractThis piece is the combined bibliography for the Literature Compass special issue on ‘Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century’.The special issue is made up of the following pieces:‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Preface’, Regenia Gagnier, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 33–34, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00672.x.‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Introduction’, Arthur F. Marotti, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 35–36, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00673.x.‘Electronic Archives and Critical Editing’, Jerome McGann, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 37–42, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00674.x.‘Theorizing the Digital Scholarly Edition’, Hans Walter Gabler, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 43–56, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00675.x.‘Editing Without Walls’, Peter Robinson, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 57–61, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00676.x.‘Our Affection for Books’, Susan J. Wolfson, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 62–71, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00677.x.‘His Days Among the Dead Are No Longer Passed: Editing Robert Southey’, Lynda Pratt, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 72–81, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00678.x.‘Different Demands, Different Priorities: Electronic and Print Editions’, Stuart Curran, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 82–88, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00679.x.‘Editing Manuscripts in Print and Digital Forms’, Arthur F. Marotti, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 89–94, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00680.x.‘All of the Above: The Importance of Multiple Editions of Renaissance Manuscripts’, Steven W. May, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 95–101, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00681.x.‘Editing Early Modern Women’s Manuscripts: Theory, Electronic Editions, and the Accidental Copy‐Text’, Margaret J.M. Ezell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 102–109, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00682.x.‘Different Strokes, Same Folk: Designing the Multi‐form Digital Edition’, Daniel Paul O’Donnell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 110–119, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00683.x.‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– A Conclusion’, Laura Mandell, Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 120–133, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00684.x.‘Special Issue: “Scholarly Editing in the Twenty‐First Century”– Combined Bibliography’, Marotti et al., Literature Compass 7.2 (2010): 134–144, doi: 10.1111/j.1741‐4113.2009.00685.x.
(Re)Conceptualizating Race/Ethnic Relationships in US Schools: Toward a Multifaceted and Multilevel Framework
Authors: Ochoa Gilda L. 
Published: February 2010

AbstractSince the Civil Rights Movements, the emphasis on confronting power, inequality, and racism in US schools has receded. So too has the movement to reverse racial/ethnic segregation and enhance student interactions. Instead, much popular and academic discourse focuses on standardized tests and achievement gaps, leaving the social aspects of schooling and race/ethnic interactions under‐explored and largely ignored. Meanwhile, racial/ethnic tensions, hierarchies, inequalities, and the patterns, institutions, and systems that maintain them persist. During a period of growth in the percentages of Latina/o and Asian American/Pacific Islander students, this article argues for the importance of theorizing, researching, and reconceptualizing race/ethnic interactions in schools. Key to this process is adopting a multifaceted and multilevel approach. This involves moving beyond dichotomous thinking and instead adopting a framework that explores (1) the strengths of quantitative and qualitative research; (2) cross‐ and intra‐racial/ethnic relations; (3) the significance of race/ethnicity, class, and gender; (4) a conflict‐solidarity continuum of relationships; and (5) the salience of macro‐, meso‐, and micro‐dynamics on school interactions. The adoption of this approach allows for a more complex, nuanced, and contemporary analysis of the phenomena occurring in today’s schools, thereby facilitating the possibility for change.
Elbow Dislocation and Articular Fracture of the Distal Humerus
Authors: Guitton Thierry G. , Duckworth Andrew D. , Mcqueen Margaret M. , Kloen Peter , Ring David 
Published: February 2010

Background The present report describes subluxation and dislocation of the elbow with articular fracture of the distal humerus and injury to the medial collateral ligament, a type of elbow fracture-dislocation about which little is available in the literature. Methods Twenty-two patients with subluxation or dislocation of the elbow (with injury to the medial collateral ligament) and a fracture of the distal humerus articular surface (capitellum/trochlea) were identified. Seventeen patients had a minimum of 12 months follow-up and eight patients returned for a long-term follow-up at a median of 36 months (range 12 months to 154 months) after injury. Results Nine patients had one or more subsequent surgeries. Seven patients had surgery to address complications and two had a planned implant removal. The final median arc of elbow flexion was 120° (range 100° to 145°) and the median arc of forearm rotation was 175° (range 150° to 180°). The median Broberg and Morrey score was 88 points (range 63 points to 100 points) and the median Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand score was 9 points (range 1 point to 43 points). Discussion Some elbow dislocations and subluxations are associated with osteochondral fractures of the distal humeral articular surface.
METEOMOD: A numerical model for the calculation of melting‐crystallization relationships in meteoritic igneous systems
Authors: ARISKIN A. A. , PETAEV M. I. , BORISOV A. A. , BARMINA G. S. 
Published: February 2010

Abstract— The METEOMOD model is a computer program designed to calculate melting‐crystallization relationships in igneous systems compositionally similar to ordinary chondrites and basaltic achondrites. The core of METEOMOD is a set of empirically calibrated equations, called geothermometers, which describe equilibria between silicate melt and minerals such as olivine, orthopyroxene, pigeonite, augite, plagioclase, and metallic Fe in terms of pressure, temperature, and liquid compositions. The silicate mineral geothermometers are calibrated from a database containing the compositions of melts and minerals produced in melting experiments on 113 meteoritic and 141 synthetic systems. The metallic iron‐silicate melt geothermometer is calibrated from a database of 396 melting experiments.The Meteorite Melting Model or METEOMOD calculates crystallization temperatures and contents of major end members in mineral solid solutions with accuracies of ±10–15 °C and ±1–2 mol%, respectively. Input parameters for the program are (1) increment in crystallization degree; (2) one of 12fO2 buffers routinely used in petrology; (3) shift from the buffer in log units, if any; (4) a choice of equilibrium or fractional crystallization trajectory; (5) terminal crystallization degree; (6) contents of ten major elements in wt%; (7) a set of minor and trace elements in parts per million; (8) the number of initial compositions to be modeled in a single computation run. The output consists of a series of tables that list equilibrium temperatures, O fugacities, and proportions of melt and minerals and their compositions, as a function of the degree of crystallization.The results of application of METEOMOD to modeling of melting‐crystallization of the St. Severin LL chondrite are compared with the experimental data of Jurewicz et al. (1995).
Suevite breccia of the Ries impact crater, Germany: Petrography, chemistry and shock metamorphism of crystalline rock clasts
Authors: von ENGELHARDT Wolf 
Published: February 2010

Abstract— Clasts of deep‐seated crystalline basement rocks in suevites of the Ries crater, Germany, were catalogued lithologically and classified with regard to their degree of shock metamorphism. The sample suite consisted of 806 clasts from 10 outcrops in fallout suevites and 447 clasts from drill cores encountering crater suevite in the crater interior. These clasts can be grouped into seven types of metamorphic and nine types of igneous rocks. One hundred forty‐three clasts, representing these lithologies, were analyzed for major element bulk composition.The fallout suevite contains on average 4 vol% of crystalline basement clasts, 0.4 vol% of sedimentary rocks, 16 vol% of glass bodies (some of them aerodynamically shaped), and 79 vol% of groundmass. On average, 52% of all crystalline clasts are from metamorphic sources and 42% are of igneous origin. Using the shock classification of Stöffler (1974), 8% of all crystalline clasts appear unshocked (<10 Gpa), and 34, 30 and 27% of clasts are shocked to stages I (10–35 Gpa), II (35–45 GPa) and III (45–60 GPa), respectively. The bulk composition of suevite glasses is consistent with the modal proportions of crystalline rock types observed in the clast populations. This indicates that the glasses originate by shock‐fusion of a similarly composed basement.The crater suevite contains the same crystalline rock types that occur in the fallout suevites. The bore hole “Nördlingen 1973” yields an average of 62 vol% metamorphic and 38 vol% igneous rocks. The crater suevite differs from fallout suevites by a higher clast/glass ratio, by preponderance (65–95%) of clasts shocked to stage I only, and by the absence of aerodynamically shaped glass bodies.The source of crystalline clasts and melt particles of suevites is a volume of rocks, located deep in the crystalline basement, to which the projectile transmittted most of its energy so that only rocks of the basement were shocked by pressures exceeding 10 GPa (deep‐burst impact model). Fallout suevites were ejected, propelled by an expanding plume of vaporized rock, and withdrew preferentially from this volume melt and highly shocked clasts, leaving in the transient cavity the crater suevite with more clasts of modest shock levels and less melt.