This excel file will do a statistical tests of whether two ROC curves are different from each other based on the Area Under the Curve. You'll need the coefficient from the presented table in the following article to enter the correct AUC value for the comparison: Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148:839-843.

The Delta Neighborhood Physical Activity Study was an observational study designed to assess characteristics of neighborhood built environments associated with physical activity. It was an ancillary study to the Delta Healthy Sprouts Project and therefore included towns and neighborhoods in which Delta Healthy Sprouts participants resided. The 12 towns were located in the Lower Mississippi Delta region of Mississippi. Data were collected via electronic surveys between August 2016 and September 2017 using the Rural Active Living Assessment (RALA) tools and the Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT). Scale scores for the RALA Programs and Policies Assessment and the Town-Wide Assessment were computed using the scoring algorithms provided for these tools via SAS software programming. The Street Segment Assessment and CPAT do not have associated scoring algorithms and therefore no scores are provided for them. Because the towns were not randomly selected and the sample size is small, the data may not be generalizable to all rural towns in the Lower Mississippi Delta region of Mississippi. Dataset one contains data collected with the RALA Programs and Policies Assessment (PPA) tool. Dataset two contains data collected with the RALA Town-Wide Assessment (TWA) tool. Dataset three contains data collected with the RALA Street Segment Assessment (SSA) tool. Dataset four contains data collected with the Community Park Audit Tool (CPAT). [Note : title changed 9/4/2020 to reflect study name] Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Dataset One RALA PPA Data Dictionary. File Name: RALA PPA Data Dictionary.csvResource Description: Data dictionary for dataset one collected using the RALA PPA tool.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Two RALA TWA Data Dictionary. File Name: RALA TWA Data Dictionary.csvResource Description: Data dictionary for dataset two collected using the RALA TWA tool.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Three RALA SSA Data Dictionary. File Name: RALA SSA Data Dictionary.csvResource Description: Data dictionary for dataset three collected using the RALA SSA tool.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Four CPAT Data Dictionary. File Name: CPAT Data Dictionary.csvResource Description: Data dictionary for dataset four collected using the CPAT.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset One RALA PPA. File Name: RALA PPA Data.csvResource Description: Data collected using the RALA PPA tool.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Two RALA TWA. File Name: RALA TWA Data.csvResource Description: Data collected using the RALA TWA tool.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Three RALA SSA. File Name: RALA SSA Data.csvResource Description: Data collected using the RALA SSA tool.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Four CPAT. File Name: CPAT Data.csvResource Description: Data collected using the CPAT.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Data Dictionary. File Name: DataDictionary_RALA_PPA_SSA_TWA_CPAT.csvResource Description: This is a combined data dictionary from each of the 4 dataset files in this set.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Excel township population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of Excel township across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2023, the population of Excel township was 300, a 0.99% decrease year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Excel township population was 303, a decline of 0.98% compared to a population of 306 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Excel township increased by 17. In this period, the peak population was 308 in the year 2020. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2023)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the Excel township is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Excel township population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Excel township Population by Year. You can refer the same here

The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the U.S. Geological Survey have developed projected future change factors for precipitation depth-duration-frequency (DDF) curves at 174 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14 stations in central and south Florida. The change factors were computed as the ratio of projected future to historical extreme precipitation depths fitted to extreme precipitation data from various downscaled climate datasets using a constrained maximum likelihood (CML) approach. The change factors correspond to the period 2050-2089 (centered in the year 2070) as compared to the 1966-2005 historical period. A Microsoft Excel workbook is provided that tabulates best models for each downscaled climate dataset and for all downscaled climate datasets considered together. Best models were identified based on how well the models capture the climatology and interannual variability of four climate extreme indices using the Model Climatology Index (MCI) and the Model Variability Index (MVI) of Srivastava and others (2020). The four indices consist of annual maxima consecutive precipitation for durations of 1, 3, 5, and 7 days compared against the same indices computed based on the PRISM and SFWMD gridded precipitation datasets for two climate regions: climate region 4 in South Central Florida, and climate region 5 in South Florida. The PRISM dataset is based on the Parameter-elevation Relationships on Independent Slopes Model interpolation method of Daly and others (2008). The South Florida Water Management District’s (SFWMD) precipitation super-grid is a gridded precipitation dataset developed by modelers at the agency for use in hydrologic modeling (SFWMD, 2005). This dataset is considered by the SFWMD as the best available gridded rainfall dataset for south Florida. Best models were selected based on MCI and MVI evaluated within each individual downscaled dataset. In addition, best models were selected by comparison across datasets and referred to as "ALL DATASETS" hereafter. Due to the small sample size, all models in the using the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (JupiterWRF) dataset were considered as best models.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Excel township population by gender and age. The dataset can be utilized to understand the gender distribution and demographics of Excel township.

Content

The dataset constitues the following two datasets across these two themes

• Excel Township, Minnesota Population Breakdown by Gender
• Excel Township, Minnesota Population Breakdown by Gender and Age

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

The Delta Food Outlets Study was an observational study designed to assess the nutritional environments of 5 towns located in the Lower Mississippi Delta region of Mississippi. It was an ancillary study to the Delta Healthy Sprouts Project and therefore included towns in which Delta Healthy Sprouts participants resided and that contained at least one convenience (corner) store, grocery store, or gas station. Data were collected via electronic surveys between March 2016 and September 2018 using the Nutrition Environment Measures Survey (NEMS) tools. Survey scores for the NEMS Corner Store, NEMS Grocery Store, and NEMS Restaurant were computed using modified scoring algorithms provided for these tools via SAS software programming. Because the towns were not randomly selected and the sample sizes are relatively small, the data may not be generalizable to all rural towns in the Lower Mississippi Delta region of Mississippi. Dataset one (NEMS-C) contains data collected with the NEMS Corner (convenience) Store tool. Dataset two (NEMS-G) contains data collected with the NEMS Grocery Store tool. Dataset three (NEMS-R) contains data collected with the NEMS Restaurant tool. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Delta Food Outlets Data Dictionary. File Name: DFO_DataDictionary_Public.csvResource Description: This file contains the data dictionary for all 3 datasets that are part of the Delta Food Outlets Study.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset One NEMS-C. File Name: NEMS-C Data.csvResource Description: This file contains data collected with the Nutrition Environment Measures Survey (NEMS) tool for convenience stores.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Two NEMS-G. File Name: NEMS-G Data.csvResource Description: This file contains data collected with the Nutrition Environment Measures Survey (NEMS) tool for grocery stores.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Resource Title: Dataset Three NEMS-R. File Name: NEMS-R Data.csvResource Description: This file contains data collected with the Nutrition Environment Measures Survey (NEMS) tool for restaurants.Resource Software Recommended: Microsoft Excel,url: https://products.office.com/en-us/excel

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Excel population by gender and age. The dataset can be utilized to understand the gender distribution and demographics of Excel.

Content

The dataset constitues the following two datasets across these two themes

• Excel, AL Population Breakdown by Gender
• Excel, AL Population Breakdown by Gender and Age

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Data For: Sustainable Connectivity in a Community Repository ## GENERAL INFORMATION This readme.txt file was generated on 30231110 by Ted Habermann ### Title of Dataset Data For: Sustainable Connectivity in a Community Repository ### Author Information Principal Investigator Contact Information Name: Ted Habermann (0000-0003-3585-6733) Institution: Metadata Game Changers () Email: ORCID: 0000-0003-3585-6733 ### Date published or finalized for release: November 10, 2023 ## Date of data collection (single date, range, approximate date) May and June 2023 ### Information about funding sources that supported the collection of the data: National Science Foundation (Crossref Funder ID: 100000001) Award 2134956. ### Overview of the data (abstract): These data are Dryad metadata retrieved from and translated into csv files. There are two datasets: 1. DryadJournalDataset was retrieved from Dryad using the ISSNs in the file DryadJournalDataset_ISSNs.txt, although some had no data. 2. DryadOrganizationDataset was retrieved from Dryad using the RORs in the file DryadOrganizationDataset_RORs.txt, although some had no data. Each dataset includes four types of metadata: identifiers, funders, keywords, and related works, each in a separate comma (.csv) or tab (.tsv) delimited files. There are also Microsoft Excel files (.xlsx) for the identifier metadata and connectivity summaries for each dataset (*.html). The connectivity summaries include summaries of each parameter in all four data files with definitions, counts, unique counts, most frequent values, and completeness. These data formed the basis for an analysis of the connectivity of the Dryad repository for organizations, funders, and people. | Size | FileName | | --------: | :--------------------------------------------------------- | | 90541505 | DryadJournalDataset_Identifiers_20230520_12.csv | | 9017051 | DryadJournalDataset_funders_20230520_12.tsv | | 29108477 | DryadJournalDataset_keywords_20230520_12.tsv | | 8833842 | DryadJournalDataset_relatedWorks_20230520_12.tsv | | | | | 18260935 | DryadOrganizationDataset_funders_20230601_12.tsv | | 240128730 | DryadOrganizationDataset_identifiers_20230601_12.tsv | | 39600659 | DryadOrganizationDataset_keywords_20230601_12.tsv | | 11520475 | DryadOrganizationDataset_relatedWorks_20230601_12.tsv | | | | | 40726143 | DryadJournalDataset_identifiers_20230520_12.xlsx | | 81894301 | DryadOrganizationDataset_identifiers_20230601_12.xlsx | | | | | 842827 | DryadJournalDataset_ConnectivitySummary.html | | 387551 | DryadOrganizationDataset_ConnectivitySummary.html | ### Field Definitions ## SHARING/ACCESS INFORMATION ### Licenses/restrictions placed on the data: Creative Commons Public Domain License (CC0) ### Links to publications that cite or use the data: TBD ### Was data derived from another source? No ## DATA & FILE OVERVIEW ### File List A. *Dataset_identifiers_YYYYMMDD_HH.*sv: Short description: Identifier metadata from Dryad for Dataset collected at YYYYMMDD_HH using the Dryad API. B. *Dataset_funders_YYYYMMDD_HH.*sv: Short description: Funder metadata from Dryad for Dataset collected at YYYYMMDD_HH using the Dryad API. C. *Dataset_keywords_YYYYMMDD_HH.*sv: Short description: Keyword metadata from Dryad for Dataset collected at YYYYMMDD_HH using the Dryad API. D. *Dataset_relatedWorks_YYYYMMDD_HH.*sv: Short description: Related work metadata from Dryad for Dataset collected at YYYYMMDD_HH using the Dryad API. E. *Dataset_identifiers_YYYYMMDD_HH.xlsx: Short description: Excel spreadsheet with identifier metadata from Dryad for Dataset collected at YYYYMMDD_HH using the Dryad API. F. *Dataset_ConnectivitySummary.html: Short description: Connectivity summary for Dataset. G. summarizeConnectivity.ipynb Short description: Python notebook with code for creating connectivity summaries and plots. ### Relationship between files: All files with the same dataset name make up a dataset. The .*sv are original metadata extracted from Dryad. ## METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION ### Description of methods used for collection/generation of data: Most of the analysis is simply extracting and comparing counts of various metadata elements. ## DATA-SPECIFIC INFORMATION See connectivity summaries (*ConnectivitySummary.html) for a list of parameters in each file and summaries of their values. ### Identifier Metadata The identifier metadata datasets include the following fields: | Field | Definition | | :------------------------------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | DOI | Digital object identifier for the dataset | | title | Title for the dataset | | datePublished | Date dataset published | | relatedPublicationISSN | International Standard Serial Number for journal with related publication | | primary_article | Digital object identifier for pr...

two datasets in one excel file to analyse a regression model for distance calculation

On an annual basis (individual hospital fiscal year), individual hospitals and hospital systems report detailed facility-level data on services capacity, inpatient/outpatient utilization, patients, revenues and expenses by type and payer, balance sheet and income statement.

Due to the large size of the complete dataset, a selected set of data representing a wide range of commonly used data items, has been created that can be easily managed and downloaded. The selected data file includes general hospital information, utilization data by payer, revenue data by payer, expense data by natural expense category, financial ratios, and labor information.

There are two groups of data contained in this dataset: 1) Selected Data - Calendar Year: To make it easier to compare hospitals by year, hospital reports with report periods ending within a given calendar year are grouped together. The Pivot Tables for a specific calendar year are also found here. 2) Selected Data - Fiscal Year: Hospital reports with report periods ending within a given fiscal year (July-June) are grouped together.

Abstract

The dataset was derived by the Bioregional Assessment Programme from HUN_GW_Model_v01l. The source datasets are identified in the Lineage field in this metadata statement. The processes undertaken to produce this derived dataset are described in the History field in this metadata statement.

The dataset includes text and excel version of two datafiles pertaining to the groundwater monitoring bores and the surface water gauging stations where the model predicts water levels and baseflow estimates respectively. Also included is an excel file which lists the extraction rates used in the modellling for production bores.

probe_points_plus_extras.xyz GW model output points

no_repeats_with_elevation.txt - points where the groundwater model provides baseflow estimates that are then fed into the river model.

Purpose

Used to generate shapefiles for the two datasets

Dataset History

The dataset was created by exporting text files from the groundwater model after calibration and simulation were complete. Text files were converted to excel spreadsheets.

Dataset Citation

Bioregional Assessment Programme (2016) HUN GW model output points v01. Bioregional Assessment Derived Dataset. Viewed 13 March 2019, http://data.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/dataset/63573849-6e91-45b4-a97c-ad59e48eeb9f.

Dataset Ancestors

• Derived From HUN GW Model Mines raw data v01

• Derived From HUN GW Model v01

• Derived From HUN GW Model code v01

This dataset was used by the NCI's Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN) PET-CT Subgroup for their project titled: Multi-center Comparison of Radiomic Features from Different Software Packages on Digital Reference Objects and Patient Datasets. The purpose of this project was to assess the agreement among radiomic features when computed by several groups by using different software packages under very tightly controlled conditions, which included common image data sets and standardized feature definitions. The image datasets (and Volumes of Interest – VOIs) provided here are the same ones used in that project and reported in the publication listed below (ISSN 2379-1381 https://doi.org/10.18383/j.tom.2019.00031). In addition, we have provided detailed information about the software packages used (Table 1 in that publication) as well as the individual feature value results for each image dataset and each software package that was used to create the summary tables (Tables 2, 3 and 4) in that publication. For that project, nine common quantitative imaging features were selected for comparison including features that describe morphology, intensity, shape, and texture and that are described in detail in the International Biomarker Standardisation Initiative (IBSI, https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.07003 and publication (Zwanenburg A. Vallières M, et al, The Image Biomarker Standardization Initiative: Standardized Quantitative Radiomics for High-Throughput Image-based Phenotyping. Radiology. 2020 May;295(2):328-338. doi: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020191145). There are three datasets provided – two image datasets and one dataset consisting of four excel spreadsheets containing feature values.

1. The first image dataset is a set of three Digital Reference Objects (DROs) used in the project, which are: (a) a sphere with uniform intensity, (b) a sphere with intensity variation (c) a nonspherical (but mathematically defined) object with uniform intensity. These DROs were created by the team at Stanford University and are described in (Jaggi A, Mattonen SA, McNitt-Gray M, Napel S. Stanford DRO Toolkit: digital reference objects for standardization of radiomic features. Tomography. 2019;6:–.) and are a subset of the DROs described in DRO Toolkit. Each DRO is represented in both DICOM and NIfTI format and the VOI was provided in each format as well (DICOM Segmentation Object (DSO) as well as NIfTI segmentation boundary).
2. The second image dataset is the set of 10 patient CT scans, originating from the LIDC-IDRI dataset, that were used in the QIN multi-site collection of Lung CT data with Nodule Segmentations project ( https://doi.org/10.7937/K9/TCIA.2015.1BUVFJR7 ). In that QIN study, a single lesion from each case was identified for analysis and then nine VOIs were generated using three repeat runs of three segmentation algorithms (one from each of three academic institutions) on each lesion. To eliminate one source of variability in our project, only one of the VOIs previously created for each lesion was identified and all sites used that same VOI definition. The specific VOI chosen for each lesion was the first run of the first algorithm (algorithm 1, run 1). DICOM images were provided for each dataset and the VOI was provided in both DICOM Segmentation Object (DSO) and NIfTI segmentation formats.
3. The third dataset is a collection of four excel spreadsheets, each of which contains detailed information corresponding to each of the four tables in the publication. For example, the raw feature values and the summary tables for Tables 2,3 and 4 reported in the publication cited (https://doi.org/10.18383/j.tom.2019.00031). These tables are:

Software Package details : This table contains detailed information about the software packages used in the study (and listed in Table 1 in the publication) including version number and any parameters specified in the calculation of the features reported. DRO results : This contains the original feature values obtained for each software package for each DRO as well as the table summarizing results across software packages (Table 2 in the publication) . Patient Dataset results: This contains the original feature values for each software package for each patient dataset (1 lesion per case) as well as the table summarizing results across software packages and patient datasets (Table 3 in the publication). Harmonized GLCM Entropy Results : This contains the values for the “Harmonized” GLCM Entropy feature for each patient dataset and each software package as well as the summary across software packages (Table 4 in the publication).

The Excel file contains the model input-out data sets that where used to evaluate the two-layer soil moisture and flux dynamics model. The model is original and was developed by Dr. Hantush by integrating the well-known Richards equation over the root layer and the lower vadose zone. The input-output data are used for: 1) the numerical scheme verification by comparison against HYDRUS model as a benchmark; 2) model validation by comparison against real site data; and 3) for the estimation of model predictive uncertainty and sources of modeling errors. This dataset is associated with the following publication: He, J., M.M. Hantush, L. Kalin, and S. Isik. Two-Layer numerical model of soil moisture dynamics: Model assessment and Bayesian uncertainty estimation. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, USA, 613 part A: 128327, (2022).

The author has calculated and plotted all epidemic curves in Excel for the paper "A Simple, SIR-like but Individual-Based Epidemic Model: Application in Comparison of COVID-19 in New York City and Wuhan". All these calculated curves are shown in Figures 2-11, which are separately placed in different sheets in the Excel file. The values of parameters l and c are separately placed in two cells marked in yellow. The two cells are located in top one or two row on the left. After the two parameters are changed, the Excel file will calculate the 4 variables An, In, Rn and Tn from n=1 to N. The calculated values are listed in 4 different columns of cells below the column labels An, In, Rn and Tn, respectively.

This dataset contains data collected during a study ("Towards High-Value Datasets determination for data-driven development: a systematic literature review") conducted by Anastasija Nikiforova (University of Tartu), Nina Rizun, Magdalena Ciesielska (Gdańsk University of Technology), Charalampos Alexopoulos (University of the Aegean) and Andrea Miletič (University of Zagreb) It being made public both to act as supplementary data for "Towards High-Value Datasets determination for data-driven development: a systematic literature review" paper (pre-print is available in Open Access here -> https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10234) and in order for other researchers to use these data in their own work.

The protocol is intended for the Systematic Literature review on the topic of High-value Datasets with the aim to gather information on how the topic of High-value datasets (HVD) and their determination has been reflected in the literature over the years and what has been found by these studies to date, incl. the indicators used in them, involved stakeholders, data-related aspects, and frameworks. The data in this dataset were collected in the result of the SLR over Scopus, Web of Science, and Digital Government Research library (DGRL) in 2023.

Methodology

To understand how HVD determination has been reflected in the literature over the years and what has been found by these studies to date, all relevant literature covering this topic has been studied. To this end, the SLR was carried out to by searching digital libraries covered by Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), Digital Government Research library (DGRL).

These databases were queried for keywords ("open data" OR "open government data") AND ("high-value data*" OR "high value data*"), which were applied to the article title, keywords, and abstract to limit the number of papers to those, where these objects were primary research objects rather than mentioned in the body, e.g., as a future work. After deduplication, 11 articles were found unique and were further checked for relevance. As a result, a total of 9 articles were further examined. Each study was independently examined by at least two authors.

To attain the objective of our study, we developed the protocol, where the information on each selected study was collected in four categories: (1) descriptive information, (2) approach- and research design- related information, (3) quality-related information, (4) HVD determination-related information.

Test procedure Each study was independently examined by at least two authors, where after the in-depth examination of the full-text of the article, the structured protocol has been filled for each study. The structure of the survey is available in the supplementary file available (see Protocol_HVD_SLR.odt, Protocol_HVD_SLR.docx) The data collected for each study by two researchers were then synthesized in one final version by the third researcher.

Description of the data in this data set

Protocol_HVD_SLR provides the structure of the protocol Spreadsheets #1 provides the filled protocol for relevant studies. Spreadsheet#2 provides the list of results after the search over three indexing databases, i.e. before filtering out irrelevant studies

The information on each selected study was collected in four categories: (1) descriptive information, (2) approach- and research design- related information, (3) quality-related information, (4) HVD determination-related information

Descriptive information
1) Article number - a study number, corresponding to the study number assigned in an Excel worksheet 2) Complete reference - the complete source information to refer to the study 3) Year of publication - the year in which the study was published 4) Journal article / conference paper / book chapter - the type of the paper -{journal article, conference paper, book chapter} 5) DOI / Website- a link to the website where the study can be found 6) Number of citations - the number of citations of the article in Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science 7) Availability in OA - availability of an article in the Open Access 8) Keywords - keywords of the paper as indicated by the authors 9) Relevance for this study - what is the relevance level of the article for this study? {high / medium / low}

Approach- and research design-related information 10) Objective / RQ - the research objective / aim, established research questions 11) Research method (including unit of analysis) - the methods used to collect data, including the unit of analy-sis (country, organisation, specific unit that has been ana-lysed, e.g., the number of use-cases, scope of the SLR etc.) 12) Contributions - the contributions of the study 13) Method - whether the study uses a qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods approach? 14) Availability of the underlying research data- whether there is a reference to the publicly available underly-ing research data e.g., transcriptions of interviews, collected data, or explanation why these data are not shared? 15) Period under investigation - period (or moment) in which the study was conducted 16) Use of theory / theoretical concepts / approaches - does the study mention any theory / theoretical concepts / approaches? If any theory is mentioned, how is theory used in the study?

Quality- and relevance- related information
17) Quality concerns - whether there are any quality concerns (e.g., limited infor-mation about the research methods used)? 18) Primary research object - is the HVD a primary research object in the study? (primary - the paper is focused around the HVD determination, sec-ondary - mentioned but not studied (e.g., as part of discus-sion, future work etc.))

HVD determination-related information
19) HVD definition and type of value - how is the HVD defined in the article and / or any other equivalent term? 20) HVD indicators - what are the indicators to identify HVD? How were they identified? (components & relationships, “input -> output") 21) A framework for HVD determination - is there a framework presented for HVD identification? What components does it consist of and what are the rela-tionships between these components? (detailed description) 22) Stakeholders and their roles - what stakeholders or actors does HVD determination in-volve? What are their roles? 23) Data - what data do HVD cover? 24) Level (if relevant) - what is the level of the HVD determination covered in the article? (e.g., city, regional, national, international)

Format of the file .xls, .csv (for the first spreadsheet only), .odt, .docx

Licenses or restrictions CC-BY

For more info, see README.txt

Spreadsheets targeted at the analysis of GHS safety fingerprints.AbstractOver a 20-year period, the UN developed the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) to address international variation in chemical safety information standards. By 2014, the GHS became widely accepted internationally and has become the cornerstone of OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard. Despite this progress, today we observe that there are inconsistent results when different sources apply the GHS to specific chemicals, in terms of the GHS pictograms, hazard statements, precautionary statements, and signal words assigned to those chemicals. In order to assess the magnitude of this problem, this research uses an extension of the “chemical fingerprints” used in 2D chemical structure similarity analysis to GHS classifications. By generating a chemical safety fingerprint, the consistency of the GHS information for specific chemicals can be assessed. The problem is the sources for GHS information can differ. For example, the SDS for sodium hydroxide pellets found on Fisher Scientific’s website displays two pictograms, while the GHS information for sodium hydroxide pellets on Sigma Aldrich’s website has only one pictogram. A chemical information tool, which identifies such discrepancies within a specific chemical inventory, can assist in maintaining the quality of the safety information needed to support safe work in the laboratory. The tools for this analysis will be scaled to the size of a moderate large research lab or small chemistry department as a whole (between 1000 and 3000 chemical entities) so that labelling expectations within these universes can be established as consistently as possible.Most chemists are familiar with programs such as excel and google sheets which are spreadsheet programs that are used by many chemists daily. Though a monadal programming approach with these tools, the analysis of GHS information can be made possible for non-programmers. This monadal approach employs single spreadsheet functions to analyze the data collected rather than long programs, which can be difficult to debug and maintain. Another advantage of this approach is that the single monadal functions can be mixed and matched to meet new goals as information needs about the chemical inventory evolve over time. These monadal functions will be used to converts GHS information into binary strings of data called “bitstrings”. This approach is also used when comparing chemical structures. The binary approach make data analysis more manageable, as GHS information comes in a variety of formats such as pictures or alphanumeric strings which are difficult to compare on their face. Bitstrings generated using the GHS information can be compared using an operator such as the tanimoto coefficent to yield values from 0 for strings that have no similarity to 1 for strings that are the same. Once a particular set of information is analyzed the hope is the same techniques could be extended to more information. For example, if GHS hazard statements are analyzed through a spreadsheet approach the same techniques with minor modifications could be used to tackle more GHS information such as pictograms.Intellectual Merit. This research indicates that the use of the cheminformatic technique of structural fingerprints can be used to create safety fingerprints. Structural fingerprints are binary bit strings that are obtained from the non-numeric entity of 2D structure. This structural fingerprint allows comparison of 2D structure through the use of the tanimoto coefficient. The use of this structural fingerprint can be extended to safety fingerprints, which can be created by converting a non-numeric entity such as GHS information into a binary bit string and comparing data through the use of the tanimoto coefficient.Broader Impact. Extension of this research can be applied to many aspects of GHS information. This research focused on comparing GHS hazard statements, but could be further applied to other bits of GHS information such as pictograms and GHS precautionary statements. Another facet of this research is allowing the chemist who uses the data to be able to compare large dataset using spreadsheet programs such as excel and not need a large programming background. Development of this technique will also benefit the Chemical Health and Safety community and Chemical Information communities by better defining the quality of GHS information available and providing a scalable and transferable tool to manipulate this information to meet a variety of other organizational needs.

The dataset includes a PDF file containing the results and an Excel file with the following tables:

Table S1 Results of comparing the performance of MetaFetcheR to MetaboAnalystR using Diamanti et al. Table S2 Results of comparing the performance of MetaFetcheR to MetaboAnalystR for Priolo et al. Table S3 Results of comparing the performance of MetaFetcheR to MetaboAnalyst 5.0 webtool using Diamanti et al. Table S4 Results of comparing the performance of MetaFetcheR to MetaboAnalyst 5.0 webtool for Priolo et al. Table S5 Data quality test results for running 100 iterations on HMDB database. Table S6 Data quality test results for running 100 iterations on KEGG database. Table S7 Data quality test results for running 100 iterations on ChEBI database. Table S8 Data quality test results for running 100 iterations on PubChem database. Table S9 Data quality test results for running 100 iterations on LIPID MAPS database. Table S10 The list of metabolites that were not mapped by MetaboAnalystR for Diamanti et al. Table S11 An example of an input matrix for MetaFetcheR. Table S12 Results of comparing the performance of MetaFetcheR to MS_targeted using Diamanti et al. Table S13 Data set from Diamanti et al. Table S14 Data set from Priolo et al. Table S15 Results of comparing the performance of MetaFetcheR to CTS using KEGG identifiers available in Diamanti et al. Table S16 Results of comparing the performance of MetaFetcheR to CTS using LIPID MAPS identifiers available in Diamanti et al. Table S17 Results of comparing the performance of MetaFetcheR to CTS using KEGG identifiers available in Priolo et al. Table S18 Results of comparing the performance of MetaFetcheR to CTS using KEGG identifiers available in Priolo et al. (See the "index" tab in the Excel file for more information)

Small-compound databases contain a large amount of information for metabolites and metabolic pathways. However, the plethora of such databases and the redundancy of their information lead to major issues with analysis and standardization. Lack of preventive establishment of means of data access at the infant stages of a project might lead to mislabelled compounds, reduced statistical power and large delays in delivery of results.

We developed MetaFetcheR, an open-source R package that links metabolite data from several small-compound databases, resolves inconsistencies and covers a variety of use-cases of data fetching. We showed that the performance of MetaFetcheR was superior to existing approaches and databases by benchmarking the performance of the algorithm in three independent case studies based on two published datasets.

The dataset was originally published in DiVA and moved to SND in 2024.

Age-depth models for Pb-210 datasets. The St Croix Watershed Research Station, of the Science Museum of Minnesota, kindly made available 210Pb datasets that have been measured in their lab over the past decades. The datasets come mostly from North American lakes. These datasets were used to produce both chronologies using the 'classical' CRS (Constant Rate of Supply) approach and also using a recently developed Bayesian alternative called 'Plum'. Both approaches were used in order to compare the two approaches. The 210Pb data will also be deposited in the neotomadb.org database. The dataset consists of 3 files; 1. Rcode_Pb210.R R code to process the data files, produce age-depth models and compare them. 2. StCroix_agemodel_output.zip Output of age-model runs of the St Croix datasets 3. StCroix_xlxs_files.zip Excel files of the St Croix Pb-210 datasets

This dataset is comprised of data submitted to HCAI by prescription drug manufacturers for wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) increases that exceed the statutorily-mandated WAC increase threshold of an increase of more than 16% above the WAC of the drug product on December 31 of the calendar year three years prior to the current calendar year. This threshold applies to prescription drug products with a WAC greater than $40 for a course of therapy. Required WAC increase reports are to be submitted to HCAI within a month after the end of the quarter in which the WAC increase went into effect. Please see the statute and regulations for additional information regarding reporting thresholds and report due dates. Key data elements in this dataset include the National Drug Code (NDC) maintained by the FDA, narrative descriptions of the reasons for the increase in WAC, and the five-year history of WAC increases for the NDC. A WAC Increase Report consists of 27 data elements that have been divided into two separate Excel data sets: Prescription Drug WAC Increase and Prescription Drug WAC Increase – 5 Year History. The datasets include manufacturer WAC Increase Reports received since January 1, 2019. The Prescription Drugs WAC Increase dataset consists of the information submitted by prescription drug manufacturers that pertains to the current WAC increase of a given report, including the amount of the current increase, the WAC after increase, and the effective date of the increase. The Prescription Drugs WAC Increase – 5 Year History dataset consists of the information submitted by prescription drug manufacturers for the data elements that comprise the 5-year history of WAC increases of a given report, including the amount of each increase and their effective dates. There are 2 types of WAC Increase datasets below: Monthly and Annual. The Monthly datasets include the data in completed reports submitted by manufacturers for calendar year 2025, as of July 8, 2025. The Annual datasets include data in completed reports submitted by manufacturers for the specified year. The datasets may include reports that do not meet the specified minimum thresholds for reporting. The Quick Guide explaining how to link the information in each data set to form complete reports is here: https://hcai.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/QuickGuide_LinkingTheDatasets.pdf The program regulations are available here: https://hcai.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/CTRx-Regulations-Text.pdf The data format and file specifications are available here: https://hcai.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Format-and-File-Specifications-version-2.0-ada.pdf DATA NOTES: Due to recent changes in Excel, it is not recommended that you save these files to .csv format. If you do, when importing back into Excel the leading zeros in the NDC number column will be dropped. If you need to save it into a different format other than .xlsx it must be .txt DATA UPDATES: Annual datasets of reports from the preceding year are reviewed in the second half of the current year to identify if any revisions or additions have been made since the original release of the datasets. If revisions or additions have been found, an update of the datasets will be released. Datasets will be clearly marked with 'Updated' in their titles for convenient identification. Not all datasets may require an updated release. The review of previously released datasets will only be conducted once to determine if an updated release is necessary. Datasets with revisions or additions that may have been made after the one-time review can be requested. These requests should be sent via email to ctrx@hcai.ca.gov. Due to regulatory changes that went into effect April 1, 2024, reports submitted prior to April 1, 2024, will include the data field "Unit Sales Volume in US" and reports submitted on or after April 1, 2024, will instead include "Total Volume of Gross Sales in US Dollars".

This is a benchmark dataset for comparing a number of methods of spatial prediction, found in: A comparison of spatial predictors when datasets could be very large by Jonathan R. Bradley, Noel Cressie, and Tao Shi, which can be found here. This dataset reports level-2 mid-tropospheric CO_2 values at a 17.6 km × 17.6 km spatial resolution, which is obtained from Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) data retrieved from 1–9 February 2010. AIRS is a remote sensing instrument on board the Aqua satellite administered by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Among other measurements, it collects CO_2 measurements in the form of spectra (level 1) that are then converted to mid-tropospheric CO_2 values (level 2) given in units of parts per million (ppm). This dataset is in the form given by Bradley et al. (2016) and is freely available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Australia License. The ZIP file contains three folders, "Small," "Large," and "VeryLarge," the data in these folders are used in a comparison study in Section 4 of Bradley et al. (2016). In each folder, there are two excel csv files, respectively for the training and the validation datasets. In each excel file, the first two columns are the latitude and longitude, respectively. The third column is mid-tropospheric CO_2 in ppm.