cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20461990.v1
title: An assessment of orbital energy corrections for the direct random phase approximation and explicit <i>σ</i>-functionals

description: The <i>σ</i>-functionals developed in the Görling group [J. Chem. Phys. <b>154</b>, 014104 (2021); <i>ibid.</i> <b>155</b>, 134111 (2021)] facilitate impressive improvements over the direct random phase approximation (dRPA) and provide chemical accuracy for a broad spectrum of benchmarks concerning reaction energies and barrier heights, but struggle considerably with problems related to self-interaction. We herein assess two possible corrections to the orbital energies in the construction of the non-interacting response function for the dRPA and <i>σ</i>-functionals: (i) The scaling corrections of Yang and co-workers, which have been successfully applied within DFT, and (ii) the admixture of exact exchange in a post-SCF fashion similar to some double-hybrid functionals. An analysis of static shifts to the virtual orbital energies reveals the choice of corrections to be a difficult balancing act, as the effect of the corrections vastly differs between benchmark sets. Scaling corrections are found to provide substantial improvements to self-interaction problems, but seem adversarial for thermochemistry in combination with RPA. The post-SCF inclusion of exact exchange in combination with a semicanonical projection is shown to retain the accuracy of <i>σ</i>-functionals over a wide range of exact exchange admixtures and reduces the computational cost of the SCF calculation compared to hybrid functionals, but provides smaller improvements to self-interaction problems than scaling corrections for the most challenging cases.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20461875
title: Script for Quechua Collao Corpus

description: Script used for the Quechua Collao Corpus in https://figshare.com/articles/media/Quechua_Collao_for_Speech_Emotion_Recognition/20292516. Contains sets of words and sentences written in Quechua Collao for 9 emotions.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20461980
title: Clinically differential diagnosis of human granulocytic anaplasmosis and severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome

description: <strong>Objectives</strong> This study analyzed HGA and SFTS in patients with suspected tick-borne infection by focusing on key differences that clinicians can easily recognize. <strong>Methods</strong> A retrospective analysis was performed on confirmed patients with HGA or SFTS in 21 Korean hospitals from 2013 to 2020. A scoring system was developed by multivariate regression analysis and accuracy assessment of clinically easily discriminable parameters was performed. <strong>Results</strong> The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that sex-especially male sex (odds ratio [OR] 11.45, P=.012), neutropenia (&lt;1500) (OR 41.64, P&lt;.001), prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (OR 80.133, P&lt;.001), and normal C-reactive protein concentration (≤1.0 mg/dL; OR 166.855, P=.001) were significantly associated with SFTS but not with HGA. Each factor, such as meaningful variables, was given 1 point, and a receiver-operating characteristic curve with a cutoff value (&gt;1) in a 5-point scoring system (0–4 points) was analyzed to evaluate the accuracy of differentiation between HGA and SFTS. The system showed 94.5% sensitivity, 92.6% specificity, and an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.971 (0.949–0.9). <strong>Conclusions</strong> Where HGA and SFTS are endemic, the scoring system based on sex, neutrophil count, activated partial thromboplastin time, and C-reactive protein concentration is a test that can be quickly performed in the emergency room (ER) and administered to patients with suspected tick-borne infectious diseases. These diseases may be easily differentiated clinically using this model.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20461980.v1
title: Clinically differential diagnosis of human granulocytic anaplasmosis and severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome

description: <strong>Objectives</strong> This study analyzed HGA and SFTS in patients with suspected tick-borne infection by focusing on key differences that clinicians can easily recognize. <strong>Methods</strong> A retrospective analysis was performed on confirmed patients with HGA or SFTS in 21 Korean hospitals from 2013 to 2020. A scoring system was developed by multivariate regression analysis and accuracy assessment of clinically easily discriminable parameters was performed. <strong>Results</strong> The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that sex-especially male sex (odds ratio [OR] 11.45, P=.012), neutropenia (&lt;1500) (OR 41.64, P&lt;.001), prolonged activated partial thromboplastin time (OR 80.133, P&lt;.001), and normal C-reactive protein concentration (≤1.0 mg/dL; OR 166.855, P=.001) were significantly associated with SFTS but not with HGA. Each factor, such as meaningful variables, was given 1 point, and a receiver-operating characteristic curve with a cutoff value (&gt;1) in a 5-point scoring system (0–4 points) was analyzed to evaluate the accuracy of differentiation between HGA and SFTS. The system showed 94.5% sensitivity, 92.6% specificity, and an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.971 (0.949–0.9). <strong>Conclusions</strong> Where HGA and SFTS are endemic, the scoring system based on sex, neutrophil count, activated partial thromboplastin time, and C-reactive protein concentration is a test that can be quickly performed in the emergency room (ER) and administered to patients with suspected tick-borne infectious diseases. These diseases may be easily differentiated clinically using this model.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20261055
title: Supplementary Material for: Incidence and risk factors of left ventricular thrombus in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infraction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis

description: Objective: Left ventricular thrombosis (LVT) is a common complication of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study attempted to synthesize the available evidence to understand the incidence and risk factors of LVT in acute STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for studies published from January 2001 to January 2022. The random-effects and fixed-effects model meta-analysis estimated pooled incidence, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence interval (CI). Review Manager 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis performance. Results: The results of meta- analysis showed that the incidence of LVT in acute STEMI treated by primary PCI was 4% [95% CI (0.03, 0.05)], and the overall pooled incidence in patients with anterior STEMI was 10.0% [95% CI (0.07, 0.12)]. Anterior STEMI [OR =11.93, 95%CI (6.25,22.78), p =0.0003.], left anterior descending-related infarct [OR =6.85, 95%CI (3.70,12.66), p&lt; 0.00001.], left ventricular wall motion abnormalities [OR =7.53, 95%CI (3.18,17.82), p&lt; 0.00001.], and lower post-PCI LVEF [MD = 13.78, 95%CI (12.15, 15.41), p&lt; 0.00001.] were risk factors for post-PCI LVT. Conclusion: The incidence of LVT after acute STEMI in the PCI era remains high. This study provides a preliminary overview of STEMI patients at risk for post-PCI LVT and will help the design of prospective randomized controlled trials(RCTs) for the management and prevention of LVT.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462293
title: Additional file 1 of Comparative transcriptome analysis linked to key volatiles reveals molecular mechanisms of aroma compound biosynthesis in Prunus mume

description: Additional file 1: Fig. S1. KEGG pathway enrichment of the differential expressed genes at the three flowering stages of GF and LE. (|log2FC| &gt; 1, FDR &lt; 0.01). Fig. S2. Gene ontology pathway enrichment of the differential expressed genes at the three flowering stages of GF and LE. Fig. S3. Correlation analysis of other important volatile compounds with key genes. The colour of the heatmap ranges from purple (value, − 2.5) to yellow (value, + 2.5) on a natural logarithmic scale.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462293.v1
title: Additional file 1 of Comparative transcriptome analysis linked to key volatiles reveals molecular mechanisms of aroma compound biosynthesis in Prunus mume

description: Additional file 1: Fig. S1. KEGG pathway enrichment of the differential expressed genes at the three flowering stages of GF and LE. (|log2FC| &gt; 1, FDR &lt; 0.01). Fig. S2. Gene ontology pathway enrichment of the differential expressed genes at the three flowering stages of GF and LE. Fig. S3. Correlation analysis of other important volatile compounds with key genes. The colour of the heatmap ranges from purple (value, − 2.5) to yellow (value, + 2.5) on a natural logarithmic scale.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462296
title: Additional file 2 of Comparative transcriptome analysis linked to key volatiles reveals molecular mechanisms of aroma compound biosynthesis in Prunus mume

description: Additional file 2: Table S1. Identification of the aroma compound from the two Prunus mume cultivars. Table S2. Overview of the transcriptome sequencing dataset and mapping statistics from GF and LE petal samples. Table S3. Key DEGs identified by enrichment analysis at the different flowering stages, showing functional categories of significantly over-represented DEGs at S2, S3, S4 and in LE vs. GF. Table S4. The name of the pathway associated with each KEGG term. Table S5. List of 101 genes that may be directly involved in the biosynthesis of P. mume aroma compounds. Table S6. List of key regulatory genes in the biosynthesis of cinnamic acid, cinnamyl acetate, eugenol, benzyl acetate and key genes affecting the volatilisation of aroma compounds. Table S7. The primer sequences of genes used for quantitative real-time PCR. Table S8. Summary of samples information uploaded to NCBI.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462296.v1
title: Additional file 2 of Comparative transcriptome analysis linked to key volatiles reveals molecular mechanisms of aroma compound biosynthesis in Prunus mume

description: Additional file 2: Table S1. Identification of the aroma compound from the two Prunus mume cultivars. Table S2. Overview of the transcriptome sequencing dataset and mapping statistics from GF and LE petal samples. Table S3. Key DEGs identified by enrichment analysis at the different flowering stages, showing functional categories of significantly over-represented DEGs at S2, S3, S4 and in LE vs. GF. Table S4. The name of the pathway associated with each KEGG term. Table S5. List of 101 genes that may be directly involved in the biosynthesis of P. mume aroma compounds. Table S6. List of key regulatory genes in the biosynthesis of cinnamic acid, cinnamyl acetate, eugenol, benzyl acetate and key genes affecting the volatilisation of aroma compounds. Table S7. The primer sequences of genes used for quantitative real-time PCR. Table S8. Summary of samples information uploaded to NCBI.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462362
title: Additional file 2 of Single-cell diploid Hi-C reveals the role of spatial aggregations in complex rearrangements and KMT2A fusions in leukemia

description: Additional file 2: Table S1. Curated oncogenic fusions from the COSMIC and TumorFusions databases.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462362.v1
title: Additional file 2 of Single-cell diploid Hi-C reveals the role of spatial aggregations in complex rearrangements and KMT2A fusions in leukemia

description: Additional file 2: Table S1. Curated oncogenic fusions from the COSMIC and TumorFusions databases.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462304
title: Additional file 10 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 10. Significant gene ontology (GO) biological processes in FRAM vs NORM. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO biological process terms identified in the FRAM vs NORM comparison group. GO biological process terms uniquely identified in the FRAM vs NORM comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAM vs NORM” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462304.v1
title: Additional file 10 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 10. Significant gene ontology (GO) biological processes in FRAM vs NORM. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO biological process terms identified in the FRAM vs NORM comparison group. GO biological process terms uniquely identified in the FRAM vs NORM comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAM vs NORM” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462307.v1
title: Additional file 11 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 11. Significant gene ontology (GO) molecular functions in FRAM vs NORM. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO molecular function terms identified in the FRAM vs NORM comparison group. GO molecular function terms uniquely identified in the FRAM vs NORM comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAM vs NORM” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462310
title: Additional file 12 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 12. Significant gene ontology (GO) cellular components in FRAM vs NORM. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO cellular component terms identified in the FRAM vs NORM comparison group. GO cellular component terms uniquely identified in the FRAM vs NORM comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAM vs NORM” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462313
title: Additional file 13 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 13. Significant gene ontology (GO) biological processes in FRAF vs NORF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO biological process terms identified in the FRAF vs NORF comparison group. GO biological process terms uniquely identified in the FRAF vs NORF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAF vs NORF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462316
title: Additional file 14 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 14. Significant gene ontology (GO) molecular functions in FRAF vs NORF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO molecular function terms identified in the FRAF vs NORF comparison group. GO molecular function terms uniquely identified in the FRAF vs NORF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAF vs NORF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462307
title: Additional file 11 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 11. Significant gene ontology (GO) molecular functions in FRAM vs NORM. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO molecular function terms identified in the FRAM vs NORM comparison group. GO molecular function terms uniquely identified in the FRAM vs NORM comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAM vs NORM” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462310.v1
title: Additional file 12 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 12. Significant gene ontology (GO) cellular components in FRAM vs NORM. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO cellular component terms identified in the FRAM vs NORM comparison group. GO cellular component terms uniquely identified in the FRAM vs NORM comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAM vs NORM” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462313.v1
title: Additional file 13 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 13. Significant gene ontology (GO) biological processes in FRAF vs NORF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO biological process terms identified in the FRAF vs NORF comparison group. GO biological process terms uniquely identified in the FRAF vs NORF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAF vs NORF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462316.v1
title: Additional file 14 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 14. Significant gene ontology (GO) molecular functions in FRAF vs NORF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO molecular function terms identified in the FRAF vs NORF comparison group. GO molecular function terms uniquely identified in the FRAF vs NORF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAF vs NORF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462319.v1
title: Additional file 15 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 15. Significant gene ontology (GO) cellular components in FRAF vs NORF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO cellular component terms identified in the FRAF vs NORF comparison group. GO cellular component terms uniquely identified in the FRAF vs NORF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAF vs NORF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462322
title: Additional file 16 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 16. Significant gene ontology (GO) biological processes in FRAM vs FRAF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO biological process terms identified in the FRAM vs FRAF comparison group. GO biological process terms uniquely identified in the FRAM vs FRAF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAM vs FRAF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462319
title: Additional file 15 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 15. Significant gene ontology (GO) cellular components in FRAF vs NORF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO cellular component terms identified in the FRAF vs NORF comparison group. GO cellular component terms uniquely identified in the FRAF vs NORF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAF vs NORF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462322.v1
title: Additional file 16 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 16. Significant gene ontology (GO) biological processes in FRAM vs FRAF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO biological process terms identified in the FRAM vs FRAF comparison group. GO biological process terms uniquely identified in the FRAM vs FRAF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAM vs FRAF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462325
title: Additional file 17 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 17. Significant gene ontology (GO) molecular functions in FRAM vs FRAF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO molecular function terms identified in the FRAM vs FRAF comparison group. GO molecular function terms uniquely identified in the FRAM vs FRAF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAM vs FRAF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462328
title: Additional file 18 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 18. Significant gene ontology (GO) cellular components in FRAM vs FRAF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO cellular components terms identified in the FRAM vs FRAF comparison group. GO cellular components terms uniquely identified in the FRAM vs FRAF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAM vs FRAF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462328.v1
title: Additional file 18 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 18. Significant gene ontology (GO) cellular components in FRAM vs FRAF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO cellular components terms identified in the FRAM vs FRAF comparison group. GO cellular components terms uniquely identified in the FRAM vs FRAF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAM vs FRAF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462325.v1
title: Additional file 17 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 17. Significant gene ontology (GO) molecular functions in FRAM vs FRAF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO molecular function terms identified in the FRAM vs FRAF comparison group. GO molecular function terms uniquely identified in the FRAM vs FRAF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to FRAM vs FRAF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462331
title: Additional file 19 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 19. Significant gene ontology (GO) biological processes in NORM vs NORF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO biological process terms identified in the NORM vs NORFcomparison group. GO biological process terms uniquely identified in the NORM vs NORF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to NORM vs NORF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462331.v1
title: Additional file 19 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 19. Significant gene ontology (GO) biological processes in NORM vs NORF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO biological process terms identified in the NORM vs NORFcomparison group. GO biological process terms uniquely identified in the NORM vs NORF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to NORM vs NORF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462337.v1
title: Additional file 20 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 20. Significant gene ontology (GO) molecular functions in NORM vs NORF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO molecular function terms identified in the NORM vs NORF comparison group. GO molecular function terms uniquely identified in the NORM vs NORF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to NORM vs NORF” column.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20462340
title: Additional file 21 of Sex-specific transcriptome differences in a middle-aged frailty cohort

description: Additional file 21. Significant gene ontology (GO) cellular components in NORM vs NORF. The complete GO annotation description, GO accession number, and Z-score are provided for all significant GO cellular components terms identified in the NORM vs NORF comparison group. GO cellular components terms uniquely identified in the NORM vs NORF comparison group are denoted in the “Unique to NORM vs NORF” column.