75 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2018
  2. Jan 2018
  3. Sep 2017
    1. slightlyimprovedorsignificantlydeterioratedperformance

      How was performance evaluated? Was there an objective method to determine this? Given the different choices of nonlinear registration methods, was ANTs and other tools evaluated.

  4. Aug 2017
  5. Jan 2017
    1. Replication studies offer much more than technical details

      Another editorial highlighting that highlights the merits of replication beyond repeat and raises questions about the culture of science and confirmation bias.

  6. Nov 2016
    1. Bioinformatics is a disorganised disaster and I am too. So I made a shell.

      This is a shell-wrapper to minimize the effort needed to collect command line provenance.

      This post covers a lot of ground to describe practical and human requirements.

  7. Oct 2016
  8. Sep 2016
  9. Aug 2016

    Tags

    Annotators

    URL

  10. Jul 2016
  11. dat-data.com dat-data.com
  12. Jun 2016
  13. May 2016

    Tags

    Annotators

    URL

    Tags

    Annotators

    URL

    Tags

    Annotators

    URL

  14. Feb 2016
  15. Jun 2014
    1. For example, slicing a set of ordered series data by rows (spectral dimension) and columns (temporal dimension) is quite simple:

      This is indeed a simple example. However, could you provide a few non-trivial use cases that are made really simple?

    2. Despite these benefits, nanobiosensing research in general is faced with several hinderances.

      Despite these benefits, several issues impede nanobiosensing research.

    3. A Computational Framework for Plasmonic Nanobiosensing

      Quality of the approach: meets Quality of the writing: meets Quality of the figures/tables: below

      Is the code made publicly available and does the article sufficiently describe how to access it?

      yes

      Does the article present the problem in an appropriate context? Specifically, does it:

      • explain why the problem is important --> yes
        • describe in which situations it arises --> yes outline relevant previous work -> cannot judge provide background information for non-experts -> yes

      Is the content of the paper accessible to a computational scientist with no specific knowledge in the given field?

      the article does provide some background that made it easier for me to follow, but i simply do not have expertise in the underlying domain.

      Does the paper describe a well-formulated scientific or technical achievement?

      appears to.

      Are the technical and scientific decisions well-motivated and clearly explained? Are the code examples (if any) sound, clear, and well-written?

      these are primarily driven by the need for a simple way to interact with the sensors.

      Is the paper factual correct? Is the language and grammar of sufficient quality?

      there are a few typos that i have noted, but otherwise yes.

      Are the conclusions justified?

      yes - from the perspective of simplicity.

      Is prior work properly and fully cited?

      i cannot comment on this.

      Should any part of the article be shortened or expanded? Please explain. In your view, is the paper fit for publication in the conference proceedings? Please suggest specific improvements and indicate whether you think the article needs a significant rewrite (rather than a minor revision).

      yes

    1. OpenMG: A New Multigrid Implementation in Python

      Quality of the approach: meets Quality of the writing: meets Quality of the figures/tables: meets

      Is the code made publicly available and does the article sufficiently describe how to access it? yes

      Does the article present the problem in an appropriate context? Specifically, does it:

      • explain why the problem is important --> yes
      • describe in which situations it arises --> yes
      • outline relevant previous work -> some, cannot judge full extent
      • provide background information for non-experts -> yes

      Is the content of the paper accessible to a computational scientist with no specific knowledge in the given field?

      the article does provide some background that made it easier for me to follow, but i do not have sufficient expertise in Galerkin discretization approaches, but the general idea of using multi resolution solvers to iteratively approximate the true solution was conveyed in the article.

      Does the paper describe a well-formulated scientific or technical achievement?

      yes

      Are the technical and scientific decisions well-motivated and clearly explained? Are the code examples (if any) sound, clear, and well-written?

      yes. the code examples can be improved with better Python standards as noted.

      Is the paper factual correct? Is the language and grammar of sufficient quality? Are the conclusions justified?

      yes

      Is prior work properly and fully cited?

      i cannot comment on this.

      Should any part of the article be shortened or expanded? Please explain. In your view, is the paper fit for publication in the conference proceedings? Please suggest specific improvements and indicate whether you think the article needs a significant rewrite (rather than a minor revision).

      yes

  16. Feb 2014
    1. satra (LOG OUT) NEWS ABOUT DOWNLOAD CHANGES OF BRAIN ACTIVATION PRE- POST SHORT-TERM PSYCHODYNAMIC INPATIENT PSYCHOTHERAPY: AN FMRI STUDY OF PANIC DISORDER PATIENTS. Beutel ME, Stark R, Pan H, Silbersweig D, Dietrich S (2010) Psychiatry Res 184(2):96-104 [PubMed] [Neurosynth] [Full Text] Cognitive-behavioural interventions have been shown to change brain functioning. We used an emotional linguistic go/nogo functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) design to determine changes of brain activation patterns of panic disorder (PD) patients following short-term psychodynamic inpatient treatment. Nine PD patients underwent fMRI before and after treatment; 18 healthy controls were scanned twice at the same interval (4 weeks). In the go/nogo design, responses to panic-specific negative words were compared with linguistically matched positive and neutral words. According to hypotheses, patients rated affective words more strongly than controls and selectively recalled negative vs. positive/neutral words. Before treatment, high limbic (hippocampus and amygdala) activation was accompanied by low prefrontal activation to negative words. Inhibition-related activation patterns indicated difficulties of behavioural regulation in emotional context. At treatment termination, panic-related symptoms had improved significantly, and fronto-limbic activation patterns were normalized. Our results indicate that short-term psychodynamic treatment leads to changes in fronto-limbic circuitry not dissimilar to previous findings on cognitive-behavioural treatments. Metadata MeSH descriptors BrainBrain MappingEmotionsFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedInhibition (Psychology)InpatientsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleNeuropsychological TestsPanic DisorderPsychotherapy, BriefTreatment Outcome Stereotaxic space MNI Talairach Number of subjects Experiments Title:(Empty) Caption:(Empty) X Y Z -23 -17 -9 -23 -17 -9 -23 -17 -9 -23 -11 -9 -23 -11 -9 -23 -11 -9 -60 -54 2 -60 -54 2 -60 -54 2 46 14 17 46 14 17 46 14 17 -20 -11 -9 -20 -11 -9 -20 -11 -9 -20 -14 -11 -20 -14 -11 -20 -14 -11 26 -19 -6 26 -19 -6 26 -19 -6 -14 -15 23 -14 -15 23 -14 -15 23 -43 1 24 -43 1 24 -43 1 24 -43 0 26 -43 0 26 -43 0 26 -41 41 -6 -41 41 -6 -41 41 -6 +Cognitive Atlas Tasks +Cognitive Atlas Cognitive Domains +BrainMap Behavioural Domains Table is correct No Discussion roberto (12/31/2013 8:09:11 AM) Locations in the 1st experiment are each repeated 3 times Post your comment brainspell by Roberto Toro is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

      these rows are replicated