cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12116724
title: Prognostic determinants in patients with non traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage: a real life report

description: <b>Background and aim</b>: Nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) remains a devastating disease for high in-hospital and long-term mortality and residual neurological disability. The aim of our study was to analyze the prognostic factors in patients managed for ICH in the real-life clinical practice. <b>Materials and Methods</b>: We retrospectively analyzed clinical and neuro-radiological data of consecutive patients admitted to our Hospital for ICH along 1 year. In-hospital mortality and 90-day modified Rankin scale (mRS) ≥4 were the study outcomes. Moreover, we compared patients admitted in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with patients admitted in Stroke Unit (SU). <b>Results</b>: Ninety-eight patients with mean age ± SD 78 ± 12 years were enrolled. In-hospital and 90-day mortality were 36.7% and 41.8%, respectively. Patients who died had a significantly higher percentage of ICH volume &gt;30 mL, irregular shape, lobar location, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), midline shift, hydrocephalus, hematoma enlargement, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤9 at hospital admission, early neurological worsening (ENW), higher Hemphill ICH score, and underwent oro-tracheal intubation more frequently compared with patients who survived. Patients admitted to ICU were younger and significantly more critical compared with those who were admitted to SU. In-hospital mortality in patients admitted to ICU was 52.6% compared with 25% in patients admitted to SU (p 10 mm were found independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality, while age was found as independent risk factor for 90-day mRS ≥4). <b>Conclusion</b>: In real life, prognosis of ICH is associated with clinical and radiological determinants. In our study ENW, hematoma enlargement, Hemphill ICH score ≥3 and midline shift &gt;10 mm were associated with short-term mortality risk, while age with 90-day mRS ≥4.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.11985864.v2
title: Implementation of a protocol using ketamine-propofol (‘ketofol’) in a 1 to 4 ratio for procedural sedation in adults at a university hospital emergency department – report on safety and effectiveness

description: <b>Objectives</b>: To test the feasibility of an evidence-based protocol for procedural sedation in adults at our emergency department, using a mixture of ketamine and propofol (‘ketofol’) in a 1 to 4 ratio. We hypothesize that the protocol is safe and effective and can facilitate procedural sedation. <b>Methods</b>: During 14 months, adults in need of procedural sedation at our university hospital emergency department were included in a prospective convenience sample study. Patients with important comorbidity were discussed with the anaesthesiology department for feasibility of sedation in the emergency department setting. Outcome measures were procedural success, respiratory and hemodynamic events, vomiting, agitation or hallucinations, recall and physician’s satisfaction. <b>Results</b>: Sixty-one patients between 18 and 89 years were included. All but one procedure were successful. Six respiratory events were registered in 6 patients (9.8%). These consisted of airway obstruction alleviated by airway repositioning and without influence on vital signs except for one brief episode of desaturation. Neither hemodynamic events nor vomiting were reported. Five patients (8.2%) experienced pleasant hallucinations and one patient (1.6%) became agitated upon awakening but recovered rapidly without medication. Three patients (4.9%) had recall and physician satisfaction rate was 93.4%. <b>Conclusion</b>: A feasibility trial of an implemented protocol for ketofol procedural sedation in adults showed only minor respiratory events, a low incidence of agitation or hallucinations, minimal recall and a high success and physician satisfaction rate. Despite a non-consecutive and limited sample used, ketofol in a 1 to 4 ratio appears safe and effective for use in the emergency department.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.11985864.v1
title: Implementation of a protocol using ketamine-propofol (‘ketofol’) in a 1 to 4 ratio for procedural sedation in adults at a university hospital emergency department – report on safety and effectiveness

description: <b>Objectives</b>: To test the feasibility of an evidence-based protocol for procedural sedation in adults at our emergency department, using a mixture of ketamine and propofol (‘ketofol’) in a 1 to 4 ratio. We hypothesize that the protocol is safe and effective and can facilitate procedural sedation. <b>Methods</b>: During 14 months, adults in need of procedural sedation at our university hospital emergency department were included in a prospective convenience sample study. Patients with important comorbidity were discussed with the anaesthesiology department for feasibility of sedation in the emergency department setting. Outcome measures were procedural success, respiratory and hemodynamic events, vomiting, agitation or hallucinations, recall and physician’s satisfaction. <b>Results</b>: Sixty-one patients between 18 and 89 years were included. All but one procedure were successful. Six respiratory events were registered in 6 patients (9.8%). These consisted of airway obstruction alleviated by airway repositioning and without influence on vital signs except for one brief episode of desaturation. Neither hemodynamic events nor vomiting were reported. Five patients (8.2%) experienced pleasant hallucinations and one patient (1.6%) became agitated upon awakening but recovered rapidly without medication. Three patients (4.9%) had recall and physician satisfaction rate was 93.4%. <b>Conclusion</b>: A feasibility trial of an implemented protocol for ketofol procedural sedation in adults showed only minor respiratory events, a low incidence of agitation or hallucinations, minimal recall and a high success and physician satisfaction rate. Despite a non-consecutive and limited sample used, ketofol in a 1 to 4 ratio appears safe and effective for use in the emergency department.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12116724.v2
title: Prognostic determinants in patients with non traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage: a real life report

description: <b>Background and aim</b>: Nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) remains a devastating disease for high in-hospital and long-term mortality and residual neurological disability. The aim of our study was to analyze the prognostic factors in patients managed for ICH in the real-life clinical practice. <b>Materials and Methods</b>: We retrospectively analyzed clinical and neuro-radiological data of consecutive patients admitted to our Hospital for ICH along 1 year. In-hospital mortality and 90-day modified Rankin scale (mRS) ≥4 were the study outcomes. Moreover, we compared patients admitted in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with patients admitted in Stroke Unit (SU). <b>Results</b>: Ninety-eight patients with mean age ± SD 78 ± 12 years were enrolled. In-hospital and 90-day mortality were 36.7% and 41.8%, respectively. Patients who died had a significantly higher percentage of ICH volume &gt;30 mL, irregular shape, lobar location, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), midline shift, hydrocephalus, hematoma enlargement, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤9 at hospital admission, early neurological worsening (ENW), higher Hemphill ICH score, and underwent oro-tracheal intubation more frequently compared with patients who survived. Patients admitted to ICU were younger and significantly more critical compared with those who were admitted to SU. In-hospital mortality in patients admitted to ICU was 52.6% compared with 25% in patients admitted to SU (p 10 mm were found independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality, while age was found as independent risk factor for 90-day mRS ≥4). <b>Conclusion</b>: In real life, prognosis of ICH is associated with clinical and radiological determinants. In our study ENW, hematoma enlargement, Hemphill ICH score ≥3 and midline shift &gt;10 mm were associated with short-term mortality risk, while age with 90-day mRS ≥4.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.12116724.v1
title: Prognostic determinants in patients with non traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage: a real life report

description: <b>Background and aim</b>: Nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) remains a devastating disease for high in-hospital and long-term mortality and residual neurological disability. The aim of our study was to analyze the prognostic factors in patients managed for ICH in the real-life clinical practice. <b>Materials and Methods</b>: We retrospectively analyzed clinical and neuro-radiological data of consecutive patients admitted to our Hospital for ICH along 1 year. In-hospital mortality and 90-day modified Rankin scale (mRS) ≥4 were the study outcomes. Moreover, we compared patients admitted in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) with patients admitted in Stroke Unit (SU). <b>Results</b>: Ninety-eight patients with mean age ± SD 78 ± 12 years were enrolled. In-hospital and 90-day mortality were 36.7% and 41.8%, respectively. Patients who died had a significantly higher percentage of ICH volume &gt;30 mL, irregular shape, lobar location, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), midline shift, hydrocephalus, hematoma enlargement, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤9 at hospital admission, early neurological worsening (ENW), higher Hemphill ICH score, and underwent oro-tracheal intubation more frequently compared with patients who survived. Patients admitted to ICU were younger and significantly more critical compared with those who were admitted to SU. In-hospital mortality in patients admitted to ICU was 52.6% compared with 25% in patients admitted to SU (p 10 mm were found independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality, while age was found as independent risk factor for 90-day mRS ≥4). <b>Conclusion</b>: In real life, prognosis of ICH is associated with clinical and radiological determinants. In our study ENW, hematoma enlargement, Hemphill ICH score ≥3 and midline shift &gt;10 mm were associated with short-term mortality risk, while age with 90-day mRS ≥4.
DOI: 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc28fscw
title: CCDC 2098618: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination

description: Related Article: Vyacheslav I. Supranovich, Alexander D. Volodin, Alexander A. Korlyukov, Jinbo Hu, Alexander D. Dilman|2021|J.Fluorine Chem.|250|109881|doi:10.1016/j.jfluchem.2021.109881
DOI: 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc28fsdx
title: CCDC 2098619: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination

description: Related Article: Vyacheslav I. Supranovich, Alexander D. Volodin, Alexander A. Korlyukov, Jinbo Hu, Alexander D. Dilman|2021|J.Fluorine Chem.|250|109881|doi:10.1016/j.jfluchem.2021.109881
DOI: 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc28fsfy
title: CCDC 2098620: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination

description: Related Article: Vyacheslav I. Supranovich, Alexander D. Volodin, Alexander A. Korlyukov, Jinbo Hu, Alexander D. Dilman|2021|J.Fluorine Chem.|250|109881|doi:10.1016/j.jfluchem.2021.109881
DOI: 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc28fsh0
title: CCDC 2098622: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination

description: Related Article: Vyacheslav I. Supranovich, Alexander D. Volodin, Alexander A. Korlyukov, Jinbo Hu, Alexander D. Dilman|2021|J.Fluorine Chem.|250|109881|doi:10.1016/j.jfluchem.2021.109881
DOI: 10.5517/ccdc.csd.cc28fsgz
title: CCDC 2098621: Experimental Crystal Structure Determination

description: Related Article: Vyacheslav I. Supranovich, Alexander D. Volodin, Alexander A. Korlyukov, Jinbo Hu, Alexander D. Dilman|2021|J.Fluorine Chem.|250|109881|doi:10.1016/j.jfluchem.2021.109881
DOI: 10.14457/cu.the.1978.5
title: ความคิดเห็นของครูประถมศึกษาในโรงเรียนสังกัดกรุงเทพมหานครต่อรายการโทรทัศน์เพื่อการศึกษา ปีการศึกษา 2520
DOI: 10.14457/cu.the.1979.3
title: การสร้างบทเรียนแบบโปรแกรมวิชาวิทยาศาสตร์ เรื่อง "มลภาวะ" สำหรับระดับมัธยมศึกษาตอนปลาย
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5270665
title: In-depth analysis of 18 case studies on state-of-the-art of cultural tourism interventions

description: The aim of Work Package 3 of the SmartCulTour project (www.smartcultour.eu) is to provide a state-of-the-art overview of cultural tourism interventions implemented in European cities and regions, thereby identifying best practices and the impacts and success conditions of cultural tourism interventions. Based on the previous, desk-researched 107 interesting cultural tourism interventions see "Desk research of 107 case studies on state-of-the-art of cultural tourism interventions", DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5213017 ), a further 18 interventions were selected for in-depth analysis. These 18 cultural tourism interventions were analyzed via a series of expert interviews, combined with document and literature analysis, performed in the period January 2021-March 2021. Description of the case studies follows a standardized <strong>case study data collection form</strong>. This form is included here as "Case study data collection form". The form collect data on: Context and background information; The 'reason why' of the intervention; The intervention; Resources and tools necessary to design and implement the interventions; Impacts (expected, perceived and measured); (Perceived) success conditions and limiting factors. The semi-structured interviews left some room for adaptability depending on the case studies. A <strong>general guide on potential interview questions</strong> is included here as "Potential questions list for case study interviews". All case studies are included as invididual odt-files, starting with "detailed case study + name of the intervention". At this moment 8 out of 18 interventions are provided, with a further 10 interventions being uploaded in a second Version expediently, after a final internal check.
description: See "Cultural tourism interventions towards sustainable development" (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5270771) for a summarizing report on the analysis of these 18 cultural tourism interventions.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5213017
title: Desk research of 107 case studies on state-of-the-art of cultural tourism interventions

description: The aim of Work Package 3 of the SmartCulTour project (www.smartcultour.eu) is to provide a state-of-the-art overview of cultural tourism interventions implemented in European cities and regions, thereby identifying best practices and the impacts and success conditions of cultural tourism interventions. To this end, the consortium identified 107 interesting cultural tourism interventions throughout Europe, with a <strong>geographical coverage</strong> of: Belgium (9), Italy (8), The Netherlands (8), Serbia (7), Romania (6), Croatia (5), Hungary (4), Portugal (4), Spain (4), United Kingdom (4), Finland (3), France (3), Sweden (3), Other countries (24), Multiple countries (15). The "Overview and taxonomy of 107 interventions" lists every intervention that was studied, as well as their respective classification given, based on the description and objective of the intervention. Within this table, a value of "1" is its primary categorization, with a value of "2" assigned to a secondary taxonomy. Each intervention can have multiple purposes and therefore belong to different categories.The taxonomy of cultural tourism interventions is further described in "State of the art of cultural tourism interventions" (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5270321). The 107 cultural tourism interventions were analyzed via desk research only during the period September 2020-January 2021, based on available secondary data and following a standardized <strong>data collection form</strong>. This form is included here as "Internal data collection form used for analysis". The forms collect data on: Context and background information; The 'reason why' of the intervention; The intervention; Resources and tools necessary to design and implement the interventions; Impacts (expected, perceived and measured); (Perceived) success conditions and limiting factors. The zip-file "Internal forms of 107 interventions" contains all 107 completed data collection forms.
description: See "State of the art of cultural tourism interventions" (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5270321) for a summarizing analysis and taxonomy of the 107 studied interventions.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5213016
title: Desk research of 107 case studies on state-of-the-art of cultural tourism interventions

description: The aim of Work Package 3 of the SmartCulTour project (www.smartcultour.eu) is to provide a state-of-the-art overview of cultural tourism interventions implemented in European cities and regions, thereby identifying best practices and the impacts and success conditions of cultural tourism interventions. To this end, the consortium identified 107 interesting cultural tourism interventions throughout Europe, with a <strong>geographical coverage</strong> of: Belgium (9), Italy (8), The Netherlands (8), Serbia (7), Romania (6), Croatia (5), Hungary (4), Portugal (4), Spain (4), United Kingdom (4), Finland (3), France (3), Sweden (3), Other countries (24), Multiple countries (15). The "Overview and taxonomy of 107 interventions" lists every intervention that was studied, as well as their respective classification given, based on the description and objective of the intervention. Within this table, a value of "1" is its primary categorization, with a value of "2" assigned to a secondary taxonomy. Each intervention can have multiple purposes and therefore belong to different categories.The taxonomy of cultural tourism interventions is further described in "State of the art of cultural tourism interventions" (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5270321). The 107 cultural tourism interventions were analyzed via desk research only during the period September 2020-January 2021, based on available secondary data and following a standardized <strong>data collection form</strong>. This form is included here as "Internal data collection form used for analysis". The forms collect data on: Context and background information; The 'reason why' of the intervention; The intervention; Resources and tools necessary to design and implement the interventions; Impacts (expected, perceived and measured); (Perceived) success conditions and limiting factors. The zip-file "Internal forms of 107 interventions" contains all 107 completed data collection forms.
description: See "State of the art of cultural tourism interventions" (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5270321) for a summarizing analysis and taxonomy of the 107 studied interventions.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5071261
title: Resident survey data for Living Lab regions

description: The datasets present collected data through resident surveys on the perceptions on tourism development and the state of cultural heritage, as part of the Horizon 2020 funded project SmartCulTour (www.smartcultour.eu). The data is collected <strong>on individual respondent level</strong> for Local Administrative Units (LAUs) for the following municipalities/cities: Spain: Huesca, Graus, Benasque, Barbastro, Ainsa, Jaca, Sariñena the Netherlands: Rotterdam, Dordrecht, Molenlanden, Ridderkerk, Zwijndrecht, Barendrecht, Delft Belgium: Dendermonde, Puurs-Sint-Amands, Bornem, Berlare, Aalst, Denderleeuw, Willebroek Croatia: Split, Trogir, Kaštela, Solin, Sinj, Dugopolje, Klis Finland: Utsjoki Italy: Vicenza, Caldogno, Grumolo, Pojana Maggiore, Lonigo, Montagnana The data is presented as cross-sectional data and available for the following <strong>year</strong>: 2020. Please consult the <strong>metadata</strong> on each dataset for an overview of collected indicators and units of measurement.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4993485
title: Resident survey data for Living Lab regions

description: The datasets present collected data through resident surveys on the perceptions on tourism development and the state of cultural heritage, as part of the Horizon 2020 funded project SmartCulTour (www.smartcultour.eu). The data is collected <strong>on individual respondent level</strong> for Local Administrative Units (LAUs) for the following municipalities/cities: Spain: Huesca, Graus, Benasque, Barbastro, Ainsa, Jaca, Sariñena the Netherlands: Rotterdam, Dordrecht, Molenlanden, Ridderkerk, Zwijndrecht, Barendrecht, Delft Belgium: Dendermonde, Puurs-Sint-Amands, Bornem, Berlare, Aalst, Denderleeuw, Willebroek Croatia: Split, Trogir, Kaštela, Solin, Sinj, Dugopolje, Klis Finland: Utsjoki Italy: Vicenza, Caldogno, Grumolo, Pojana Maggiore, Lonigo, Montagnana The data is presented as cross-sectional data and available for the following <strong>year</strong>: 2020. Please consult the <strong>metadata</strong> on each dataset for an overview of collected indicators and units of measurement.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4734098
title: Sustainable cultural tourism indicators on LAU-level - panel data 2007-2019

description: The datasets present collected data aimed at measuring the state of cultural tourism and economic development and resilience of a select set of potential cultural tourism destinations in Europe, as part of the Horizon 2020 funded project SmartCulTour (www.smartcultour.eu). The data is collected on the <strong>level</strong> of Local Administrative Units (LAUs) for the following municipalities/cities: Spain: Ainsa, Barbastro, Benasque, Graus, Huesca, Jaca, Sariñena the Netherlands: Rotterdam, Delft, Dordrecht, Molenlanden, Barendrecht, Ridderkerk, Zwijndrecht Finland: Utsjoki Italy: Vicenza, Caldogno, Pojana Maggiore, Grumolo delle Abbadesse, Lonigo, Montagna Croatia: Split, Trogir, Kaštela, Solin, Sinj, Dugopolje, Klis Belgium: Dendermonde, Puurs-Sint-Amands, Bornem, Berlare, Aalst, Denderleeuw, Willebroek The data is presented as panel data and available for the following <strong>years</strong>: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. Please consult the <strong>metadata</strong> on each dataset for an overview of collected indicators and units of measurement.
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4734097
title: Sustainable cultural tourism indicators on LAU-level - panel data 2007-2019

description: The datasets present collected data aimed at measuring the state of cultural tourism and economic development and resilience of a select set of potential cultural tourism destinations in Europe, as part of the Horizon 2020 funded project SmartCulTour (www.smartcultour.eu). The data is collected on the <strong>level</strong> of Local Administrative Units (LAUs) for the following municipalities/cities: Spain: Ainsa, Barbastro, Benasque, Graus, Huesca, Jaca, Sariñena the Netherlands: Rotterdam, Delft, Dordrecht, Molenlanden, Barendrecht, Ridderkerk, Zwijndrecht Finland: Utsjoki Italy: Vicenza, Caldogno, Pojana Maggiore, Grumolo delle Abbadesse, Lonigo, Montagna Croatia: Split, Trogir, Kaštela, Solin, Sinj, Dugopolje, Klis Belgium: Dendermonde, Puurs-Sint-Amands, Bornem, Berlare, Aalst, Denderleeuw, Willebroek The data is presented as panel data and available for the following <strong>years</strong>: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. Please consult the <strong>metadata</strong> on each dataset for an overview of collected indicators and units of measurement.
DOI: 10.5519/qd.oqntfxt8
title: Query on the Natural History Museum Data Portal (data.nhm.ac.uk) (1001 records)