dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
043. 513 ) and  Spinoza Prize SPI   78-409 ; the  New Scientific Frontiers  with  Precision Radio Interferometry Fellowship  awarded by the  South African Radio Astronomy Observatory (SARAO) , which is a facility of the  National Research Foundation (NRF) , an agency of the  Department of Science and Technology (DST) of South Africa ; the  Onsala Space Observatory (OSO)  national infrastructure, for the provisioning of its facilities/observational support (OSO receives funding through the  Swedish Research Council  under grant  2017-00648 ) the  Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics  (research at  Perimeter Institute  is supported by the  Government of Canada  through the  Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada  and by the  Province of Ontario  through the  Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade) ; the  Russian Science Foundation  (grant  17-12-01029 ); the  Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad  (grants  AYA2015-63939-C2-1-P ,  AYA2016-80889-P ); the  State Agency for Research of the Spanish MCIU through the "Center of Excellence Severo Ochoa " award for the  Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía  ( SEV-2017-0709 ); the  Toray Science Foundation ; the  US Department of Energy (USDOE)  through the  Los Alamos National Laboratory  (operated by  Triad National Security, LLC , for the  National Nuclear Security Administration of the USDOE  (Contract  89233218CNA000001 )); the  Italian Ministero dell'Istruzione Università e Ricerca  through the  grant Progetti Premiali 2012-iALMA  ( CUP C52I13000140001 );  ALMA North America Development Fund ; Chandra  TM6-17006X  and  DD7-18089X ; a Sprows Family VURF Fellowship; a  NSERC   Discovery Grant ; the  FRQNT Nouveaux Chercheurs program ;  CIFAR ; the  NINS program of Promoting Research by Networking among Institutions (Grant Number  01421701 ) ; MEXT as a priority issue (Elucidation of the fundamental laws and evolution of the universe) to be tackled by using post-K Computer and JICFuS; part of this work used XC50 at the  Center for Computational Astrophysics, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
The  LMT  project is a joint effort of the  Instituto Nacional de Astrofísica, Óptica y Electrónica (Mexico)  and the  University of Massachusetts at Amherst (USA). The IRAM 30-m telescope on Pico Veleta, Spain is operated by IRAM and supported by  CNRS  ( Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France ),  MPG  ( Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Germany)  and  IGN (Instituto Geográfico Nacional, Spain). The SMT is operated by the  Arizona Radio Observatory , a part of the  Steward Observatory of the University of Arizona , with financial support of operations from the  State of Arizona  and financial support for instrumentation development from the  NSF. Partial SPT support is provided by the  NSF Physics Frontier Center award  ( PHY-0114422 ) to the  Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago (USA) , the  Kavli Foundation , and the.
Observations and data analysis 2. 1 H. E. S. S. H. E. S. S. observations were carried out during two campaigns in 2013 and 2015. They were made in wobble mode with an offset range of 0. 2 • -0. 7 • , and an average zenith angle of 24. 5 •. After quality selection for smooth telescope operation and good weather conditions, 28. 3 hours of data out of the 38 hours of observations were kept. The monoscopic analysis pipeline used for this detection is the same as the one originally developed and validated on Vela pulsar data with CT5  [13]. It was used to reconstruct the shower direction, impact and energy of the primary γ-rays, based on the recorded shower images. The images were obtained after calibration and image cleaning. To compute the phase of each event, the time stamps provided by the central trigger system of H.
Fermi-LAT 62 months of Fermi data from 2008 to 2013 were used to derive the phasogram and phasedresolved spectra above two energy thresholds of 100 MeV and 10 GeV. Events were selected from the P8 Source class (event class = 128, event type =3) within a region of interest (ROI) of 10 • radius around the position of the pulsar, and P8R2_SOURCE_V6 IRFs were used. Only γ-ray events with reconstructed zenith angles smaller than 90 • were selected in order to reduce contamination by γ-rays from Earth's limb. The pulsar phase was computed for selected events using the Tempo2 Fermi plug-in  [23]  and the same ephemeris as that used for the H. E. S. S. data. An additional selection cut θ max = 0. 6 • was applied on the angular distance of each photon to the pulsar position for generation of the light curves.
Summary A significant pulsed signal from PSR B1706-44 has been detected with 28. 3 hours of observations with H. E. S. S. II-CT5 in monoscopic mode. This is the fourth detection of a pulsar from the ground, after the Crab, Vela and Geminga pulsars. The phasogram obtained with H. E. S. S. II-CT5 is similar to that of Fermi-LAT above 15 GeV, i. e. the peak P2 is clearly dominant over P1, in continuity with the trend seen at lower energies  [3]. The comparison of the CT5 spectrum with that obtained from 5 years of Fermi-LAT data above 10 GeV shows a very good agreement. The pulsed spectrum of PSR B1706-44 above 10 GeV is shown to be very steep (index∼ -3. 8 to 3. 9) with both Fermi-LAT and H. E. S. S. II-CT5 and similar to the Vela puslar  [13]. However, the lack of statistics in either instrument data prevents any conclusion on the absence or presence of a spectral curvature/cut-off.
Video tracking We mounted a motion sensitive video camera (webcam) on each artificial flower to automatically record bee visits  [9, 12]. The webcam (Logitech c250, Fremont, CA) was fitted with a neutral density filter (Neutral Density = 0. 6, Lee Filters, Andover, UK) to reduce the amount of light entering the lens. Each webcam was powered by a laptop computer running motion detection software (Zone Trigger 2, Omega Unfold, Quebec, Canada) programmed to record a video clip (minimum duration 5 s) every time a bee moved into the camera field of view until movement stopped. We therefore captured complete flower visits from the moment a bee landed to its departure. Viewing the landing platform from above enabled us to identify bees (from their dorsal numbered tags), their arrival and departure times, and whether they collected sucrose solution from the feeding cup.
Video clips in which two bees visited the flower simultaneously provided data about the nature and frequency of behavioural interactions between foragers on flowers (18% of the 5180 clips). Video clips with three or more bees on the same flower were rare (1. 1% of the 5180 clips) and difficult to interpret as all bees would often interact simultaneously. We therefore removed these videos from the analyses. We also mounted a webcam above the nest box entrance tube to record all arrivals at, and departures from, the colony by bees.
Data analyses Flower visitation matrices We ran all analyses in R (version 3. 2. 3). We extracted all flower visits made by each bee over the five days of the experiment from the video data. Because we were particularly interested in studying the movement patterns of foragers, we only retained the data from motivated bees that made more than 20 flower visits in total (i. e. 10 out of the 40 bees that left the colony at least once during the five days; see Additional file 2: dataset S1). To account for inter-individual variability in the foraging activity of bees we divided the overall flower visitation dataset into 20 sub-datasets representative of 20 different time intervals. Each of these time intervals was defined by the time taken by at least one bee to complete eight foraging bouts (in a foraging bout a bee leaves the nest, visits a series of flowers to fill its crop, then returns to the colony nest box), which varied from 50 to 116 min (N = 881 foraging bouts).
We modelled the outcomes of interactions for the joining bee as a binomial distribution using a generalized linear mixed effect model (GLMM) with the glmer function in the R package 'lme4'  [29] , using the identities of the two bees as crossed random effects to account for repeated encounters between bees. Predictors used in interaction terms were standardized (mean centred and divided by their standard deviation) to allow main effects interpretation. We also added the difference in activity, experience and body size between the two interacting bees and their absolute values as covariates.
Acknowledgements We thank  Oscar Ramos-Rodriguez  for assisting with data collection,  Holly Alexander  and  Oliver Brown  for helping evaluate video data and the  Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International (CABI) in Egham (Surrey, UK)  for hosting the flight cage during the experiments. We are also grateful to  Christophe Andalo ,  James D. Thomson  and an anonymous reviewer for their insightful comments on previous versions of the manuscript.
Funding This research was supported by a combined grant from the  Wellcome Trust , the  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council , and the  Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council  ( BB/F52765X/1 ) awarded to LC and  NER. Publication costs were supported by a  European Research Council  grant to LC ( ERC grant SpaceRadarPollinator ). While writing, CP was funded by a grant of the  Federal University of Toulouse (IDEX UNITI)  awarded to  Christophe Andalo , RJ and ML. NER was supported by  The W. Garfield Weston Foundation and Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada  ( NSERC Discovery 2015-06783 ). LC was supported by the  European Research Council  ( ERC grant SpaceRadarPollinator ) and by a  Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award. ML was supported by the  CNRS  and the  Agence Nationale de la Recherche  ( ANR-16-CE02-0002-01 ).
Study design and participants A 1:2 matched case-control study (by age, sex and treatment duration since initiated on ART) was conducted between June 2015 to July 2017 (study period). All adult HIV-positive patients (aged ≥15 years) who were on ART for at least 6 months and whose baseline CD4 lymphocyte count and WHO HIV stage details available using the ART electronic health record of Asella Hospital were our target population. This data ranges from January 2005 to May 2017, and only patients not died and had an active follow-up at the time of the study were included. Ninety-one patients who were receiving second-line ART were selected as cases. Treatment failure status for cases was confirmed by two viral load tests (viral load ≥1000 copies/mL), performed 3 months apart as per national guideline, before a change of ART regimen.
Controls were 182 patients with undetectable viral load (less than 50 copies/mL) who were taking first-line ART for at least 6 months. Details of the selection process are described below (Fig. 1 ). For each case, two controls were selected using a lottery method after being matched by age, sex, and duration on ART. We used the following technique for selecting controls for each case. For example, for a case who commenced ART in June 2005, we used an electronic ART database to find two controls who were also initiated on ART in June 2005 with similar gender and within ±5 years of age of the case.
Data collection tool and procedure The data collection tools were interview-questionnaire, electronic ART database, patient chart review and virologic test for selection of controls. In addition, other laboratory tests were also performed to detect chronic carrier state for infections, including HBV, HCV, H. pylori and Venereal disease research laboratory (VDRL) tests for both cases and controls. The questionnaire was first developed in English and translated into local languages, Oromiffa and Amharic, and cross-checked for consistency. It was piloted, modified and validated. Training was provided for the study team before the start of the project. The research team included the three investigators, two registered nurses who assisted patients to complete the questionnaire, five laboratory technicians and an IT professional to record all the observations into Epi-info software daily.
Data processing and analysis Data from Epi-Info was exported to SPSS statistics version 23. 0. Descriptive statistics were used to present socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Bivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out, and independent variables with p-values of ≤0. 2 were included in multivariate logistic regression analysis. Prior to the multivariate analysis, multicollinearity diagnostics was performed, and there were no significant interactions between independent variables. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as an effect measure. A p-value of equal or less than 0. 05 was considered as significant. The matching factors (age, sex and duration of ART) were included in the adjusted analysis.
Data source The United States National Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health manages the ClinicalTrials. gov website, which is an open registry of clinical trials. This registry is the world's largest database of publicly and privately supported clinical studies  [8] [9] [10]. ClinicalTrials. gov allows free access to information essential to understanding the research conducted (sponsor, country, primary and secondary objectives, inclusion and exclusion criteria, study population size, participating centers…). It has a research engine that expedites analysis of information concerning the clinical trials. Multicenter trials with the same protocol are considered as a single study in the database. A study must be registered by the person or organization with overall responsibility.
Study population We conducted our literature search in January 2015 and extracted data for the period from 2004 to 2011 inclusive, ie, 8 full years. In this way, the authors have 3 years to analyze their data, write and submit an article, and complete the publication process  [8] [9] [10]. Using the search engine, we selected trials in which the participants were assigned to receive one or more interventions, or no intervention, in order to assess the effects of these interventions on biomedical criteria or state of health. Clinical intervention studies have the highest level of proof. We excluded trials for which there was no information update for more than 2 years, observational studies, registries, and expanded access studies. Intervention studies had to be 'completed', i. e. , the study had to have been completed normally, the participants no longer being under observation or treated ('the last subject had been seen', 'the last visit concluded').
Publication search We started our publication search by examining the 'publication' field of the description of the trial in ClinicalTrial. gov. If an article was flagged, it was checked: name of the investigator, place, correspondence of dates, sponsor, trial conditions, and number of participants enrolled. If no article was found or if an article did not correspond, a manual search was done in Medline with the NCT number. In the absence of an identified article, we completed the search in Medline and Google Scholar with the type of intervention, study conditions, and name of the primary investigator. The articles identified were checked against the information on ClinicalTrials. gov: name of the investigator, place, correspondence of dates, sponsor, trial conditions, and number of participants enrolled.
Our results on a specific disease are comparable to those reported by Riveros et al. [67]  in a study using ClinicalTrials. gov and to the findings of a recent review of all articles on the subject  [68]. Taken together, these results therefore point to a general phenomenon with causes including lack of interest in the results on the part of sponsors or principal investigators  [66]  and rejection by journals of articles reporting negative results. The scientific community and the health authorities take the consequences of failure to publish very seriously  [69] , and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced the mandatory publication of the results of all clinical trials from July 2014 onwards. We wondered about the clinical applicability of trial data, given the age differences between trial participants and patients in the general population, outcomes reduced to psychological and cognitive variables, and, above all, studies limited to six months when, on average, the progression of Alzheimer disease exceeds 10 years.
Finally, adverse drug reactions were outcome measures in only 37% of published trials, with most trials lasting 3 to 6 months. The main limitations of our study are that it is based on data from investigators and on the classification drawn up by the National Library of Medicine in the ClinicalTrial. gov registry. Although it is the largest in the world, this registry does not include all trials conducted worldwide, notably those outside the English-speaking countries. Moreover, we have noted classification errors, which may have affected the queries made with the website's search engine.
7% SAE : 6. 7% Donepezil 2008 Mittelman NCT00467766 158 74 24 Caregiver Yes United No Mild to UK ** MS, 2008 States, moderate [16] Great Britain, Australia • Page 4 • Citation: Duco L, Legendre C, Chatellier G, Saint-Jean O (2016) Clinical Trials with Memantine and Cholinesterase Inhibitors in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders: A Cross Sectional Analysis. Trends Geriatr Healthc 1(1):1-13 Duco et al. Trends Geriatr Healthc 2016, 1(1):1-13 ISSN: 2689-9019 | Citation: Duco L, Legendre C, Chatellier G, Saint-Jean O (2016) Clinical Trials with Memantine and Cholinesterase Inhibitors in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders: A Cross Sectional Analysis. Trends Geriatr Healthc 1(1):1-13 Duco et al. Trends Geriatr Healthc 2016, 1(1):1-13 ISSN: 2689-9019 |.
: Duco L, Legendre C, Chatellier G, Saint-Jean O (2016) Clinical Trials with Memantine and Cholinesterase Inhibitors in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders: A Cross Sectional Analysis. Trends Geriatr Healthc 1(1):1-13 Citation: Duco L, Legendre C, Chatellier G, Saint-Jean O (2016) Clinical Trials with Memantine and Cholinesterase Citation: Duco L, Legendre C, Chatellier G, Saint-Jean O (2016) Clinical Trials with Memantine and Cholinesterase Inhibitors in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders: A Cross Sectional Analysis. Trends Geriatr Healthc Inhibitors in Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders: A Cross Sectional Analysis. Trends Geriatr Healthc 1(1):1-13 1(1):1-13 Galantamine, Memantine Rivastigmine 2011 Blesa 2008 Whyte EM, 2013 Wang T, NCT00227994 40 22 NCT00549601 139 70 65 77 3 6 3 Cognition, Cognition, Adverse Yes No Yes United China Spain No Yes No 1 standard Moderate to Mild to UK** UK ** AE (include Donepezil 2008 [36] 2013 [48] González Capacity Paraclinical drug States deviation severe moderate SAE) : 48.
8% R, 2011 of mobility variables reactions below age- to 55. 3% Memantine Memantine 2009 Aarsland D, 2009 2014 Dysken MW, 2014 [49] [60] NCT00630500 72 NCT00235716 613 76,5 6 78 12 measure Behavior Clinician's Functional autonomy Yes Yes Norway, Sweden, United States Yes Yes matched norms on the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test Mild to moderate Mild to moderate AE : 42. 8% memantine depending on AE (SAE rivastigmine eclude): 59% group placebo group, SAE : 2% 63% memantine to 6. 4% group depending on TEAE : 15. 8% the rivastigmine placebo group, 18. 7% group [37] Rivastigmine 2011 Nakamura NCT00423085 859 74 6 clinical Cognition, Yes Great Britain Japan Yes Moderate group, 50% memantine AE (include SAE) Y, 2011 impression Clinician's placebo group group : 77. 6% placebo [61] clinical SAE : UK ** SAE : 10% group, 86.
2% Memantine Memantine Memantine Memantine Ach Memantine Donepezil Memantine Rivastigmine Rivastigmine 2012 Cummings 2010 Emre M, 2010 [38] 2011 Ashford JW, 2011 [39] 2011 Chow TW, 2011 [40] 2012 Gordon ML, 2012 [50] 2010 Modrego PJ, 2010 [51] 2006 Dantoine T, 2006 [52] J, 2012 Memantine Rivastigmine 2010 Olin JT, 20010 [53] [62] Memantine 2011 Choi SH, Rivastigmine 2011 [54] NCT00855686 199 NCT00255086 13 NCT00594737 16 NCT00551161 11 NCT00505167 67 NCT00234637 202 NCT00506415 1584 NCT00305903 117 NCT01025466 176 73 73 59 76 77 77 75 78 75 6 13 6 12 6 7 12 6 4 Cognition, Clinician's clinical impression, Caregiver, Behavior, Functional autonomy impression Paraclinical variables Paraclinical variables Paraclinical variables Paraclinical variables Cognition Cognition, Functional Adverse drug reactions autonomy Individual rates having Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Europe Australia Turkey United States Canada United States Spain France Europe, United United States States, Canada, Great Britain Korea Yes Yes No No No No No No No Mild to moderate Mild to moderate Mild to moderate Mild to moderate Mild to moderate Moderate to severe Mild to moderate Moderate Moderate placebo group, rivastigmine AE (include 10% memantine group SAE) : 48% group SAE : 7% memantine group, 43% placebo group SAE : 15% memantine group, 10% placebo group UK ** placebo group, No adverse 5% to 11.
6% events were rivastigmine reported group, UK ** depending on the rivastigmine dose AE (SAE AE (include SAE) exclude) : 40. 8% : 68. 2% to 75% SAE : 7% depending on TEAE (SAE the rivastigmine exclude) : 81. 9% group SAE : 21. 6% SAE : 13. 3% 1 patient with AE : 53. 4% to 15. 7% SAE memantine + depending on finished rivastigmine the rivastigmine Memantine Rivastigmine 2014 Aguiar P, 2011 Herrmann N, 2011 [41] 2014 [63] Memantine 2011 Ondo WG, 2011 [42] Rivastigmine 2014 Emre M, 2014 [64] Memantine 2011 Schulz JB, 2011 [43] Rivastigmine 2008 Ballard C, 2008 [55] NCT00401167 31 NCT01183806 40 NCT00646204 40 NCT00623103 583 NCT00624026 107 NCT00099216 710 89 UK * * 6 3 69 4 72 19 74 4 73 6 Clinician's clinical impression, trials Quality of life Functional autonomy Clinician's clinical Adverse drug reactions, Individual rates having impression Cognition clinical Behaviour Cognition, finished Clinician's trials, No No No Yes Yes Yes Canada Brazil United States Europe, Canada, Turkey, United States Germany States, Great Britain, United No No Yes No No Yes Moderate to severe Mild to moderate Mild to severe Mild to moderate Moderate to severe Mild to moderate group group, 50.
6% AE (include SAE) : 45% SAE : 9. 7% rivastigmine UK ** group SAE : 4. 5% UK ** memantine + AE (SAE rivastigmine exclude) : group, 4. 8% 74% to 81% rivastigmine depending on group the rivastigmine rivastigmine group SAE : AE (include TEAE : 39. 2% SAE): 27% 29% Memantine *cholinesterase inhibitors 2012 Saxton J, NCT00469456 255 75 3 Cognition impression Yes Australia, Netherlands, Switzerland Yes Moderate AE : UK ** group, 5% placebo group **unknown 2012 [44] United TEAE : 49. 6% SAE : 15. 2 States, placcebo rivastigmine South Africa, group, 48. 9% group, 11% New Zealand memantine placebo group Rivastigmine 2009 Sadowsky CH, 2009 [56] NCT00428389 261 77 6 Individual rates having finished trials Yes United States No Mild to moderate group AE (include SAE : 10% SAE) : 31% placebo group, TEAE : 13% 3% memantine group SAE : 2.
3% Memantine Rivastigmine 2010 Farlow 2012 Wilkinson D, 2012 [45] MR, 2010 [57] NCT00862940 278 NCT00948766 713 74 77 12 6 Paraclinical variables Cognition, Functional autonomy Yes Yes Great Britain, Denmark, Netherlands United States Yes No Moderate Severe AE (SAE AE (include exclude) : 59. 7% SAE) : 50% in both group SAE : 21. 8% TEAE : 32% 2011 [58] Rivastigmine 2011 Alva G, NCT00099242 800 74 6 impression clinical Clinician's Cognition, Yes Korea, Israel, Europe, America, South States, United Yes moderate Mild to memantine placebo group groupe, 14% memantune SAE : 13% placebo group group, 22% UK ** Memantine 2013 Boxer AL, NCT00545974 81 66 6 Behavior Yes United Russian Yes Mild to AE : 66. 6% 2013 [46] Clinician's States Federation, moderate placebo clinical Taiwan, group, 71. 7% Rivastigmine 2011 Articus K, 2011 [59] NCT00561392 207 74 6 impression Individual rates having trials finished Yes Germany No Mild to moderate memantine AE (include group SAE) : 59.