Mathematical Problems Dataset: Various Mathematical Problems and Solutions

Mathematical Problems Dataset: Questions and Answers

By math_dataset (From Huggingface) [source]

About this dataset

This dataset comprises a collection of mathematical problems and their solutions designed for training and testing purposes. Each problem is presented in the form of a question, followed by its corresponding answer. The dataset covers various mathematical topics such as arithmetic, polynomials, and prime numbers. For instance, the arithmetic_nearest_integer_root_test.csv file focuses on problems involving finding the nearest integer root of a given number. Similarly, the polynomials_simplify_power_test.csv file deals with problems related to simplifying polynomials with powers. Additionally, the dataset includes the numbers_is_prime_train.csv file containing math problems that require determining whether a specific number is prime or not. The questions and answers are provided in text format to facilitate analysis and experimentation with mathematical problem-solving algorithms or models

How to use the dataset

• Introduction: The Mathematical Problems Dataset contains a collection of various mathematical problems and their corresponding solutions or answers. This guide will provide you with all the necessary information on how to utilize this dataset effectively.

• Understanding the columns: The dataset consists of several columns, each representing a different aspect of the mathematical problem and its solution. The key columns are:

  • question: This column contains the text representation of the mathematical problem or equation.
  • answer: This column contains the text representation of the solution or answer to the corresponding problem.

• Exploring specific problem categories: To focus on specific types of mathematical problems, you can filter or search within the dataset using relevant keywords or terms related to your area of interest. For example, if you are interested in prime numbers, you can search for prime in the question column.

• Applying machine learning techniques: This dataset can be used for training machine learning models related to natural language understanding and mathematics. You can explore various techniques such as text classification, sentiment analysis, or even sequence-to-sequence models for solving mathematical problems based on their textual representations.

• Generating new questions and solutions: By analyzing patterns in this dataset, you can generate new questions and solutions programmatically using techniques like data augmentation or rule-based methods.

• Validation and evaluation: As with any other machine learning task, it is essential to validate your models on separate validation sets not included in this dataset properly. You can also evaluate model performance by comparing predictions against known answers provided in this dataset's answer column.

• Sharing insights and findings: After working with this datasets, it would be beneficial for researchers or educators to share their insights, approaches taken during analysis/modelling as Kaggle notebooks/ discussions/ blogs/ tutorials etc., so that others could get benefited from such shared resources too.

Note: Please note that the dataset does not include dates.

By following these guidelines, you can effectively explore and utilize the Mathematical Problems Dataset for various mathematical problem-solving tasks. Happy exploring!

Research Ideas

• Developing machine learning algorithms for solving mathematical problems: This dataset can be used to train and test models that can accurately predict the solution or answer to different mathematical problems.
• Creating educational resources: The dataset can be used to create a wide variety of educational materials such as problem sets, worksheets, and quizzes for students studying mathematics.
• Research in mathematical problem-solving strategies: Researchers and educators can analyze the dataset to identify common patterns or strategies employed in solving different types of mathematical problems. This analysis can help improve teaching methodologies and develop effective problem-solving techniques

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) - Public Domain Dedication No Copyright - You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purpos...

COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.Reasons for undertaking this work:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-30 days + 5% from past 31-56 days - total deaths.We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source used as basis:Stephen A. Lauer, MS, PhD *; Kyra H. Grantz, BA *; Qifang Bi, MHS; Forrest K. Jones, MPH; Qulu Zheng, MHS; Hannah R. Meredith, PhD; Andrew S. Azman, PhD; Nicholas G. Reich, PhD; Justin Lessler, PhD. 2020. The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of Internal Medicine DOI: 10.7326/M20-0504.New Cases per Day (NCD) = Measures the daily spread of COVID-19. This is the basis for all rates. 100 News Cases in a day as a spike threshold: Empirically, this is based on COVID-19’s rate of spread, or r0 of ~2.5, which indicates each case will infect between two and three other people. There is a point at which each administrative area’s capacity will not have the resources to trace and account for all contacts of each patient. Thus, this is an indicator of uncontrolled or epidemic trend. Spiking activity in combination with the rate of new cases is the basis for determining whether an area has a spreading or epidemic trend (see below). Source used as basis:World Health Organization (WHO). 16-24 Feb 2020. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Obtained online.Mean of Recent Tail of NCD = Empirical, and a COVID-19-specific basis for establishing a recent trend. The recent mean of NCD is taken from the most recent one third of case days. A minimum of 21 days of cases is required for analysis but cannot be considered reliable. Thus, a preference of 63 days of cases ensures much higher reliability. This analysis is not explanatory and thus, merely represents a likely trend. The tail is analyzed for the following:Most recent 2 days: In terms of likelihood, this does not mean much, but can indicate a reason for hope and a basis to share positive change that is not yet a trend. There are two worthwhile indicators:Last 2 days count of new cases is less than any in either the past five or 6-21 days. Past 2 days has only one or fewer new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 5 days or 6 to 21 days. Most recent 5 days: In terms of likelihood, this is more meaningful, as it does represent at short-term trend. There are five worthwhile indicators:Past five days is greater than past 2 days and past 6-21 days indicates the potential of the past 2 days being an aberration. Past five days is greater than past 6-21 days and less than past 2 days indicates slight positive trend, but likely still within peak trend timeframe.Past five days is less than the past 6-21 days. This means a downward trend. This would be an important trend for any administrative area in an epidemic trend that the rate of spread is slowing.If less than the past 2 days, but not the last 6-21 days, this is still positive, but is not indicating a passage out of the peak timeframe of the daily new cases curve.Past 5 days has only one or two new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 6 to 21 days. Most recent 6-21 days: Represents the full tail of the curve and provides context for the past 2- and 5-day trends.If this is greater than both the 2- and 5-day trends, then a short-term downward trend has begun. Mean of Recent Tail NCD in the context of the Mean of All NCD, and raw counts of cases:Mean of Recent NCD is less than 0.5 cases per 100,000 = high level of controlMean of Recent NCD is less than 1.0 and fewer than 30 cases indicate continued emergent trend.3. Mean of Recent NCD is less than 1.0 and greater than 30 cases indicate a change from emergent to spreading trend.Mean of All NCD less than 2.0 per 100,000, and areas that have been in epidemic trends have Mean of Recent NCD of less than 5.0 per 100,000 is a significant indicator of changing trends from epidemic to spreading, now going in the direction of controlled trend.Similarly, in the context of Mean of All NCD greater than 2.0

The ability to interpret the predictions made by quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs) offers a number of advantages. While QSARs built using nonlinear modeling approaches, such as the popular Random Forest algorithm, might sometimes be more predictive than those built using linear modeling approaches, their predictions have been perceived as difficult to interpret. However, a growing number of approaches have been proposed for interpreting nonlinear QSAR models in general and Random Forest in particular. In the current work, we compare the performance of Random Forest to those of two widely used linear modeling approaches: linear Support Vector Machines (SVMs) (or Support Vector Regression (SVR)) and partial least-squares (PLS). We compare their performance in terms of their predictivity as well as the chemical interpretability of the predictions using novel scoring schemes for assessing heat map images of substructural contributions. We critically assess different approaches for interpreting Random Forest models as well as for obtaining predictions from the forest. We assess the models on a large number of widely employed public-domain benchmark data sets corresponding to regression and binary classification problems of relevance to hit identification and toxicology. We conclude that Random Forest typically yields comparable or possibly better predictive performance than the linear modeling approaches and that its predictions may also be interpreted in a chemically and biologically meaningful way. In contrast to earlier work looking at interpretation of nonlinear QSAR models, we directly compare two methodologically distinct approaches for interpreting Random Forest models. The approaches for interpreting Random Forest assessed in our article were implemented using open-source programs that we have made available to the community. These programs are the rfFC package (https://r-forge.r-project.org/R/?group_id=1725) for the R statistical programming language and the Python program HeatMapWrapper [https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.495163] for heat map generation.

PISA Performance Scores by Country

PISA Performance Scores by Country and Year

By Dennis Kao [source]

About this dataset

The OECD PISA dataset provides performance scores for 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science across OECD countries. The dataset covers the years 2000 to 2018.

These performance scores are measured using the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which evaluates students' abilities to apply their knowledge and skills in reading, mathematics, and science to real-life challenges.

Reading performance is assessed based on the capacity to comprehend, use, and reflect on written texts for achieving goals, developing knowledge and potential, and participating in society.

Mathematical performance measures a student's mathematical literacy by evaluating their ability to formulate, employ, and interpret mathematics in various contexts. This includes describing, predicting, and explaining phenomena while recognizing the role that mathematics plays in the world.

Scientific performance examines a student's scientific literacy in terms of utilizing scientific knowledge to identify questions/problems/topics of interest relevant with respect to acquiring new findings/evidence/information/knowledge/content/formulation/input/output/extra-data/base/media/stats/questions/dimensions/distributions/effects/conclusions/issues/observations/trends/patterns/distribution/symptoms/hypotheses/preferences/facts/opinions/theories/beliefs/problems/causes/reasons/tests/methods/classifications/experiments/analysis/measurement/context/situations/experience/reactions/respondents/influences/emotions/perceptions/criteria/outcomes/effects/effects/significance/importance/applications/variables/models/procedures/mechanisms/concepts/spaces/types/designs/goals/models/schematics/specifications/tools/interventions/initiatives/factors/metrics/advice/sources/research/reference/background/theoretical/historical/cultural/scientific/ethical/methodological limits/rules/norms/steps/examples/practices/workflows/judgments/inferences/discoveries/disputed-effects/negative-effects/right/strength Theses skills enable them i.e., recognize claims or manipulate materials as evidence-based conclusions to address scientific phenomena and draw evidence-based conclusions about science-related issues.

The dataset includes information on the performance scores categorized by location (country alpha‑3 codes), indicator (reading, mathematical, or scientific performance), subject (boys/girls/total), and time of measurement (year). The mean score for each combination of these variables is provided in the Value column.

For more detailed information on how the dataset was collected and analyzed, please refer to the original source

How to use the dataset

Understanding the Columns

Before diving into the analysis, it is important to understand the meaning of each column in the dataset:

• LOCATION: This column represents country alpha-3 codes. OAVG indicates an average across all OECD countries.

• INDICATOR: The performance indicator being measured can be one of three options: Reading performance (PISAREAD), Mathematical performance (PISAMATH), or Scientific performance (PISASCIENCE).

• SUBJECT: This column categorizes subjects as BOY (boys), GIRL (girls), or TOT (total). It indicates which group's scores are being considered.

• TIME: The year in which the performance scores were measured can range from 2000 to 2018.

• Value: The mean score of the performance indicator for a specific subject and year is provided in this column as a floating-point number.

Getting Started with Analysis

Here are some ideas on how you can start exploring and analyzing this dataset:

• Comparing countries: You can use this dataset to compare educational performances between different countries over time for various subjects like reading, mathematics, and science.

• Subject-based analysis: You can focus on studying how gender affects students' performances by filtering data based on subject ('BOY', 'GIRL') along with years or individual countries.

• Time-based trends: Analyze trends over time by examining changes in mean scores for various indicators across years.

• ** OECD vs Non-OECD Countries**: Determine if there are significant differences in performance scores between OECD countries and non-OECD countries. You can filter the data by the LOCATION column to obtain separate datasets for each group and compare their mean scores.

Data Visualization

To enhance your understanding of the dataset, visuali...

1. Many studies in disease and immunological ecology rely on the use of assays that quantify the amount of specific antibodies (immunoglobulin) in samples. Enzyme-Linked Immuno Sorbent Assays (ELISAs) are increasingly used in ecology due to their availability for a broad array of antigens and the limited amount of sampling material they require. Two recurrent methodological issues are nevertheless faced by researchers: (i) the limited availability of immunological assays and reagents developed for non-model species, and (ii) the statistical determination of the cut-off threshold used to distinguish individual samples that are likely to have or not to have antibodies against a specific antigen.
2. Here, we outline two solutions to deal with these issues. First, we show that implementing two assays with differing detection methods can help validate the use of reagents, such as antibodies, in species different from their intended target. We illustrate this by comparing the quantification of specific vaccinal antibodies against Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV) using two ELISA approaches in four seabird species (Cory’s shearwater, European shag, European storm petrel, and Southern rockhopper penguin).
3. Second, we provide a simple way to determine from the distribution of ELISA values whether the assayed samples are likely to be made of a single group of individuals (likely negative) or of two groups of individuals (negative and positive). We illustrate the use of this approach with two independent datasets: NDV antibody levels following vaccination and anti-Borrelia antibody levels following natural exposure.
4. The practical implementation of these methodological approaches could provide a way to efficiently apply ELISAs and other immune-based assays to address questions in the growing fields of ecological immunology and disease ecology.

The Arctic Falcon Specialist Group (AFSG) is an informal network of biologists with a research focus on Arctic-breeding peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus) and gyrfalcons (Falco rusticolus). AFSG was established to enhance the coordination and collaboration on the monitoring of the two Arctic falcon species and the initial joint effort was to compile the first overview of Arctic falcon monitoring sites, present trends for long-term occupancy and productivity, and summarize information describing abundance, distribution, phenology and health of the two species – based on data for 24 falcon monitoring sites across the Arctic. The analyses were published in the journal Ambio (Franke et al. 2020) as a contribution to the terrestrial Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (CBMP) defined by Arctic Council’s Biodiversity Working Group (Christensen et al. 2018).

The data compiled from across the Arctic for the analyses by Franke et al. (2020) are here made available for wider usage and comparisons. However, for the analyses in the Ambio paper, some filtering procedures were applied (e.g. time series shorter than 10 sampling years, or fewer than 10 territories monitored), excluding some of the original data that are now made available in this dataset. In addition, some co-authors preferred either to conduct separate uploads of respective data, or declined the invitation to make the data publicly available (see attached map overview of monitoring sites); hence this dataset does not exactly match the data analysed by Franke et al. (2020).

This data set contains the annual estimates of peregrine and gyrfalcon ‘occupancy’ and ‘productivity’ in respective monitoring sites; for definitions as well a discussion of challenges in determining, interpreting and comparing those figures across sites with different sampling procedures please consult Franke et al. (2020 and 2017).

The file named Arctic falcons monitoring data - AFSG 2020.csv contains the annual estimates of occupancy and productivity for peregrine falcon and gyrfalcon along with information on monitoring sites and the principal investigators as specified in the file ReadMe_Arctic-falcons-monitoring-data.txt. Arctic falcons monitoring data - AFSG 2020.xlsx contains the same data in Microsoft Excel format.

The file named AFSG-MonitoringSites-with-data.png provides an overview of the 24 monitoring sites described in Franke et al. (2020) with indication of which datasets are included here.

Please note that:

The dataset contains information on sample size (number of nesting territories surveyed in each monitoring site and year) for some areas only; for areas without sample size more than 10 territories were usually surveyed. However, for interpreting the data, potential users may need to consult the principal investigators for the specific monitoring sites.

The dataset lists the principal investigators (and contact details) as respective “data owners”; in addition to the Creative Commons License 4.0 specifications covering this data upload, potential data users are strongly encouraged to contact the data owners prior to using or interpreting the data – for consent and possible co-authorship.

On March 10, 2023, the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center ceased its collecting and reporting of global COVID-19 data. For updated cases, deaths, and vaccine data please visit: World Health Organization (WHO)For more information, visit the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center.COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.DOI: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.125529863/7/2022 - Adjusted the rate of active cases calculation in the U.S. to reflect the rates of serious and severe cases due nearly completely dominant Omicron variant.6/24/2020 - Expanded Case Rates discussion to include fix on 6/23 for calculating active cases.6/22/2020 - Added Executive Summary and Subsequent Outbreaks sectionsRevisions on 6/10/2020 based on updated CDC reporting. This affects the estimate of active cases by revising the average duration of cases with hospital stays downward from 30 days to 25 days. The result shifted 76 U.S. counties out of Epidemic to Spreading trend and no change for national level trends.Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Correction on 6/1/2020Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Executive SummaryCOVID-19 Trends is a methodology for characterizing the current trend for places during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Each day we assign one of five trends: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, or End Stage to geographic areas to geographic areas based on the number of new cases, the number of active cases, the total population, and an algorithm (described below) that contextualize the most recent fourteen days with the overall COVID-19 case history. Currently we analyze the countries of the world and the U.S. Counties. The purpose is to give policymakers, citizens, and analysts a fact-based data driven sense for the direction each place is currently going. When a place has the initial cases, they are assigned Emergent, and if that place controls the rate of new cases, they can move directly to Controlled, and even to End Stage in a short time. However, if the reporting or measures to curtail spread are not adequate and significant numbers of new cases continue, they are assigned to Spreading, and in cases where the spread is clearly uncontrolled, Epidemic trend.We analyze the data reported by Johns Hopkins University to produce the trends, and we report the rates of cases, spikes of new cases, the number of days since the last reported case, and number of deaths. We also make adjustments to the assignments based on population so rural areas are not assigned trends based solely on case rates, which can be quite high relative to local populations.Two key factors are not consistently known or available and should be taken into consideration with the assigned trend. First is the amount of resources, e.g., hospital beds, physicians, etc.that are currently available in each area. Second is the number of recoveries, which are often not tested or reported. On the latter, we provide a probable number of active cases based on CDC guidance for the typical duration of mild to severe cases.Reasons for undertaking this work in March of 2020:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-25 days + 5% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. On 3/17/2022, the U.S. calculation was adjusted to: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 6% from past 15-25 days + 3% from past 26-49 days - total deaths. Sources: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e4.htm https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#variant-proportions If a new variant arrives and appears to cause higher rates of serious cases, we will roll back this adjustment. We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units and the group quarters population for states and counties..Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.ACS data generally reflect the geographic boundaries of legal and statistical areas as of January 1 of the estimate year. For more information, see Geography Boundaries by Year..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Users must consider potential differences in geographic boundaries, questionnaire content or coding, or other methodological issues when comparing ACS data from different years. Statistically significant differences shown in ACS Comparison Profiles, or in data users' own analysis, may be the result of these differences and thus might not necessarily reflect changes to the social, economic, housing, or demographic characteristics being compared. For more information, see Comparing ACS Data..For more information on understanding Hispanic origin and race data, please see the America Counts: Stories Behind the Numbers article entitled, 2020 Census Illuminates Racial and Ethnic Composition of the Country, issued August 2021..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..An * indicates that the estimate is significantly different (at a 90% confidence level) than the estimate from the most current year. A "c" indicates the estimates for that year and the current year are both controlled; a statistical test is not appropriate. A blank indicates that the estimate is not significantly different from the estimate of the most current year, or that a test could not be done because one or both of the estimates is displayed as "-", "N", or "(X)", or the estimate ends with a "+" or "-". (For more information on these symbols, see the Explanation of Symbols.).Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

Although the American Community Survey (ACS) produces population, demographic and housing unit estimates, the decennial census is the official source of population totals for April 1st of each decennial year. In between censuses, the Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program produces and disseminates the official estimates of the population for the nation, states, counties, cities, and towns and estimates of housing units and the group quarters population for states and counties..Information about the American Community Survey (ACS) can be found on the ACS website. Supporting documentation including code lists, subject definitions, data accuracy, and statistical testing, and a full list of ACS tables and table shells (without estimates) can be found on the Technical Documentation section of the ACS website.Sample size and data quality measures (including coverage rates, allocation rates, and response rates) can be found on the American Community Survey website in the Methodology section..Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.ACS data generally reflect the geographic boundaries of legal and statistical areas as of January 1 of the estimate year. For more information, see Geography Boundaries by Year..Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted roughly as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see ACS Technical Documentation). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables..Users must consider potential differences in geographic boundaries, questionnaire content or coding, or other methodological issues when comparing ACS data from different years. Statistically significant differences shown in ACS Comparison Profiles, or in data users' own analysis, may be the result of these differences and thus might not necessarily reflect changes to the social, economic, housing, or demographic characteristics being compared. For more information, see Comparing ACS Data..Telephone service data are not available for certain geographic areas due to problems with data collection of this question that occurred in 2019. Both ACS 1-year and ACS 5-year files were affected. It may take several years in the ACS 5-year files until the estimates are available for the geographic areas affected..Estimates of urban and rural populations, housing units, and characteristics reflect boundaries of urban areas defined based on 2020 Census data. As a result, data for urban and rural areas from the ACS do not necessarily reflect the results of ongoing urbanization..Explanation of Symbols:- The estimate could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations. For a ratio of medians estimate, one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution. For a 5-year median estimate, the margin of error associated with a median was larger than the median itself.N The estimate or margin of error cannot be displayed because there were an insufficient number of sample cases in the selected geographic area. (X) The estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.median- The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "2,500-")median+ The median falls in the highest interval of an open-ended distribution (for example "250,000+").** The margin of error could not be computed because there were an insufficient number of sample observations.*** The margin of error could not be computed because the median falls in the lowest interval or highest interval of an open-ended distribution.***** A margin of error is not appropriate because the corresponding estimate is controlled to an independent population or housing estimate. Effectively, the corresponding estimate has no sampling error and the margin of error may be treated as zero.

This study provides an evidence-based understanding on etiological issues related to school shootings and rampage shootings. It created a national, open-source database that includes all publicly known shootings that resulted in at least one injury that occurred on K-12 school grounds between 1990 and 2016. The investigators sought to better understand the nature of the problem and clarify the types of shooting incidents occurring in schools, provide information on the characteristics of school shooters, and compare fatal shooting incidents to events where only injuries resulted to identify intervention points that could be exploited to reduce the harm caused by shootings. To accomplish these objectives, the investigators used quantitative multivariate and qualitative case studies research methods to document where and when school violence occurs, and highlight key incident and perpetrator level characteristics to help law enforcement and school administrators differentiate between the kinds of school shootings that exist, to further policy responses that are appropriate for individuals and communities.

In recent years, several new diffusion MRI approaches have been proposed to explore microstructural properties of the white matter, such as Q-ball imaging and spherical deconvolution-based techniques to estimate the orientation distribution function. These methods can describe the estimated diffusion profile with a higher accuracy than the more conventional second-rank diffusion tensor imaging technique. Despite many important advances, there are still inconsistent findings between different models that investigate the “crossing fibers” issue. Due to the high information content and the complex nature of the data, it becomes virtually impossible to interpret and compare results in a consistent manner. In this work, we present novel fiber tractography visualization approaches that provide a more complete picture of the microstructural architecture of fiber pathways: multi-fiber hyperstreamlines and streamribbons. By visualizing, for instance, the estimated fiber orientation distribution along the reconstructed tract in a continuous way, information of the local fiber architecture is combined with the global anatomical information derived from tractography. Facilitating the interpretation of diffusion MRI data, this approach can be useful for comparing different diffusion reconstruction techniques and may improve our understanding of the intricate white matter network.

The association between working memory and word reading or mathematics skills have been extensively explored. However, the existing evidence has predominantly relied on WM span-based tasks that measure the quantity of items stored in WM, neglecting the quality of stored item representations, i.e., WM precision. This limitation is particularly important in understanding the shared and distinct cognitive mechanisms underlying reading difficulties (RD), mathematics difficulties (MD), and their comorbidity (RDMD). Therefore, using a continuous report paradigm to assess WM precision, this thesis addressed this gap by investigating the distinct roles of WM span and WM precision in word reading and mathematics skills among Chinese third graders, and examined WM precision profiles across learning difficulty subgroups.Study 1 examined the distinct and interactive contributions of WM span and WM precision to Chinese word reading, considering the phonetic regularity and character frequency. Results from a generalized linear mixed model indicated that WM precision was positively correlated with irregular characters reading across children with all WM span levels, whereas such positive association with regular characters reading only observed for those with low WM span. For two-character words, WM precision was positively correlated with word reading, while WM span was only positively correlated with irregular but not regular characters. These findings highlight the importance of WM precision for phonetic irregular characters, especially for those with limited WM span.Study 2 investigated the effects of WM span and WM precision on math facts fluency and word problems, through the interplay with number sense based on the Pathways to Mathematics Model and Hierarchical framework underpinning mathematics skills. After controlling for nonverbal intelligence and language skills, results from structure equation model analyses showed that WM span directly predicted mathematics skills, while WM precision operated indirectly through number line estimation for word problems or conditionally for math facts, interacting with non-symbolic comparison, with stronger positive association in children with high WM precision. This demonstrates that WM precision supports mathematics skills through foundational number sense.Study 3 characterized WM precision profiles across children with RD, MD, comorbid RDMD, and typically achieving peers using continuous report tasks under varying cognitive loads (the number of items to be remembered: set sizes 1-4). Children with RD exhibited comparable WM precision to TA peers. Those with MD showed deficits only under high cognitive load conditions. Critically, the RDMD group demonstrated severe, generalized impairments across all set sizes, with a steeper increase in WM precision errors as cognitive load increased, indicating a fundamental deficit in their WM representational quality.In conclusion, this thesis demonstrated WM precision as a distinct cognitive factor from WM span with unique contributions to academic skills. The findings reveal heterogeneous profiles across learning difficulties, highlighting that comorbidity is not merely additive but may represent a unique phenotype with severe WM precision deficits. These results provide a more nuanced cognitive account of learning difficulties, suggesting that WM precision may serve as a critical diagnostic and intervention target, especially for children with comorbid RDMD.

After the random assignment of eight intact classes to the treatment and comparison groups, a pretest was administered to both groups to examine students’ basic understanding of linear programming word problems. This was followed by an intervention involving a series of lessons on the application of active learning heuristic problem-solving strategies on students’ understanding of solving linear programming problems by graphical method. The entire intervention lasted for approximately three months from mid October 2020 to March 2021. At the end of the intervention, both groups of students (treatment and comparison) sat for a post-test to assess the effect of an intervention (ALHPS) for the treatment group and to compare and contrast students’ performance and attitude before and after, based on their demographic characteristics. All the test items (pretest and posttest) were scored by experts, converted into percentages, recorded in SPSS, and data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26, with Hayes (2022) PROCESS macro. This provided the analysis for exploring the direct and indirect relationship between ALHPS and, students’ performance and attitude towards learning linear programming.

This study aims to compare the retelling performance of two groups that engaged in reading activities with virtual reality and augmented reality texts. Furthermore, the results of the interventions using these technologies were compared with the results of the printed text reading activity. The study participants comprised 100 students aged 12 to 13 years studying in a secondary school. The researchers evaluated the students' story-retelling performance through a rubric in the study. In the pre-test stage, the students performed a paper-based reading activity on the texts in the coursebook and their retelling performance was evaluated. In the post-test stage, the reading activities of the two groups were carried out with the intervention of virtual reality and augmented reality. While the pre-test results showed no significant difference between the groups, the post-test results indicated that the augmented reality intervention better supported the students' retelling performance than virtual reality. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the sub-categories of setting and characters. Additionally, the virtual reality intervention did not create a significant difference in the sub-categories of characters, event/plot, problem, solution, and total score compared to the printed text reading activity. However, it produced better results in the setting sub-category than the printed text. A positive difference was observed in all sub-categories when the augmented reality intervention was compared to the printed text reading activity. AR showed greater benefits for retelling performance in this study, but further research is needed on long-term retention.

Divergence time estimation — the calibration of a phylogeny to geological time — is an integral first step in modelling the tempo of biological evolution (traits and lineages). However, despite increasingly sophisticated methods to infer divergence times from molecular genetic sequences, the estimated age of many nodes across the tree of life contrast significantly and consistently with timeframes conveyed by the fossil record. This is perhaps best exemplified by crown angiosperms, where molecular clock (Triassic) estimates predate the oldest (Early Cretaceous) undisputed angiosperm fossils by tens of millions of years or more. While the incompleteness of the fossil record is a common concern, issues of data limitation and model inadequacy are viable (if underexplored) alternative explanations. In this vein, Beaulieu et al. (2015) convincingly demonstrated how methods of divergence time inference can be misled by both (i) extreme state-dependent molecular substitution rate heterogeneity and (ii) biased sampling of representative major lineages. These results demonstrate the impact of (potentially common) model violations. Here, we suggest another potential challenge: that the configuration of the statistical inference problem (i.e., the parameters, their relationships, and associated priors) alone may preclude the reconstruction of the paleontological timeframe for the crown age of angiosperms. We demonstrate, through sampling from the joint prior (formed by combining the tree (diversification) prior with the calibration densities specified for fossil-calibrated nodes) that with no data present at all, that an Early Cretaceous crown angiosperms is rejected (i.e., has essentially zero probability). More worrisome, however, is that for the 24 nodes calibrated by fossils, almost all have indistinguishable marginal prior and posterior age distributions when employing routine lognormal fossil calibration priors. These results indicate that there is inadequate information in the data to overrule the joint prior. Given that these calibrated nodes are strategically placed in disparate regions of the tree, they act to anchor the tree scaffold, and so the posterior inference for the tree as a whole is largely determined by the pseudo-data present in the (often arbitrary) calibration densities. We recommend, as for any Bayesian analysis, that marginal prior and posterior distributions be carefully compared, especially for parameters of direct interest. This recommendation is not novel. However, given how rarely such checks are carried out in evolutionary biology, it bears repeating. Ideally such practices will become customarily integrated into both the peer review process, as well as part of the standard workflow for conscientious scientists. Finally, we note that the results presented here do not refute the biological modelling concerns identified by Beaulieu et al. (2015). Both sets of issues remain apposite to the goals of accurate divergence time estimation, and only by considering them in tandem can we move forward more confidently.

Studies utilizing Global Positioning System (GPS) telemetry rarely result in 100% fix success rates (FSR). Many assessments of wildlife resource use do not account for missing data, either assuming data loss is random or because a lack of practical treatment for systematic data loss. Several studies have explored how the environment, technological features, and animal behavior influence rates of missing data in GPS telemetry, but previous spatially explicit models developed to correct for sampling bias have been specified to small study areas, on a small range of data loss, or to be species-specific, limiting their general utility. Here we explore environmental effects on GPS fix acquisition rates across a wide range of environmental conditions and detection rates for bias correction of terrestrial GPS-derived, large mammal habitat use. We also evaluate patterns in missing data that relate to potential animal activities that change the orientation of the antennae and characterize home-range probability of GPS detection for 4 focal species; cougars (Puma concolor), desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus ssp. nelsoni) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Part 1, Positive Openness Raster (raster dataset): Openness is an angular measure of the relationship between surface relief and horizontal distance. For angles less than 90 degrees it is equivalent to the internal angle of a cone with its apex at a DEM location, and is constrained by neighboring elevations within a specified radial distance. 480 meter search radius was used for this calculation of positive openness. Openness incorporates the terrain line-of-sight or viewshed concept and is calculated from multiple zenith and nadir angles-here along eight azimuths. Positive openness measures openness above the surface, with high values for convex forms and low values for concave forms (Yokoyama et al. 2002). We calculated positive openness using a custom python script, following the methods of Yokoyama et. al (2002) using a USGS National Elevation Dataset as input. Part 2, Northern Arizona GPS Test Collar (csv): Bias correction in GPS telemetry data-sets requires a strong understanding of the mechanisms that result in missing data. We tested wildlife GPS collars in a variety of environmental conditions to derive a predictive model of fix acquisition. We found terrain exposure and tall over-story vegetation are the primary environmental features that affect GPS performance. Model evaluation showed a strong correlation (0.924) between observed and predicted fix success rates (FSR) and showed little bias in predictions. The model's predictive ability was evaluated using two independent data-sets from stationary test collars of different make/model, fix interval programming, and placed at different study sites. No statistically significant differences (95% CI) between predicted and observed FSRs, suggest changes in technological factors have minor influence on the models ability to predict FSR in new study areas in the southwestern US. The model training data are provided here for fix attempts by hour. This table can be linked with the site location shapefile using the site field. Part 3, Probability Raster (raster dataset): Bias correction in GPS telemetry datasets requires a strong understanding of the mechanisms that result in missing data. We tested wildlife GPS collars in a variety of environmental conditions to derive a predictive model of fix aquistion. We found terrain exposure and tall overstory vegetation are the primary environmental features that affect GPS performance. Model evaluation showed a strong correlation (0.924) between observed and predicted fix success rates (FSR) and showed little bias in predictions. The models predictive ability was evaluated using two independent datasets from stationary test collars of different make/model, fix interval programing, and placed at different study sites. No statistically significant differences (95% CI) between predicted and observed FSRs, suggest changes in technological factors have minor influence on the models ability to predict FSR in new study areas in the southwestern US. We evaluated GPS telemetry datasets by comparing the mean probability of a successful GPS fix across study animals home-ranges, to the actual observed FSR of GPS downloaded deployed collars on cougars (Puma concolor), desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni), Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus elaphus ssp. nelsoni) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Comparing the mean probability of acquisition within study animals home-ranges and observed FSRs of GPS downloaded collars resulted in a approximatly 1:1 linear relationship with an r-sq= 0.68. Part 4, GPS Test Collar Sites (shapefile): Bias correction in GPS telemetry data-sets requires a strong understanding of the mechanisms that result in missing data. We tested wildlife GPS collars in a variety of environmental conditions to derive a predictive model of fix acquisition. We found terrain exposure and tall over-story vegetation are the primary environmental features that affect GPS performance. Model evaluation showed a strong correlation (0.924) between observed and predicted fix success rates (FSR) and showed little bias in predictions. The model's predictive ability was evaluated using two independent data-sets from stationary test collars of different make/model, fix interval programming, and placed at different study sites. No statistically significant differences (95% CI) between predicted and observed FSRs, suggest changes in technological factors have minor influence on the models ability to predict FSR in new study areas in the southwestern US. Part 5, Cougar Home Ranges (shapefile): Cougar home-ranges were calculated to compare the mean probability of a GPS fix acquisition across the home-range to the actual fix success rate (FSR) of the collar as a means for evaluating if characteristics of an animal’s home-range have an effect on observed FSR. We estimated home-ranges using the Local Convex Hull (LoCoH) method using the 90th isopleth. Data obtained from GPS download of retrieved units were only used. Satellite delivered data was omitted from the analysis for animals where the collar was lost or damaged because satellite delivery tends to lose as additional 10% of data. Comparisons with home-range mean probability of fix were also used as a reference for assessing if the frequency animals use areas of low GPS acquisition rates may play a role in observed FSRs. Part 6, Cougar Fix Success Rate by Hour (csv): Cougar GPS collar fix success varied by hour-of-day suggesting circadian rhythms with bouts of rest during daylight hours may change the orientation of the GPS receiver affecting the ability to acquire fixes. Raw data of overall fix success rates (FSR) and FSR by hour were used to predict relative reductions in FSR. Data only includes direct GPS download datasets. Satellite delivered data was omitted from the analysis for animals where the collar was lost or damaged because satellite delivery tends to lose approximately an additional 10% of data. Part 7, Openness Python Script version 2.0: This python script was used to calculate positive openness using a 30 meter digital elevation model for a large geographic area in Arizona, California, Nevada and Utah. A scientific research project used the script to explore environmental effects on GPS fix acquisition rates across a wide range of environmental conditions and detection rates for bias correction of terrestrial GPS-derived, large mammal habitat use.

Comparative effectiveness research compares two or more treatments to see which one works better for certain patients. Researchers often use data from patients' electronic health records to compare different treatments. This study addresses some problems that can arise from this practice. In some long-term research studies, researchers use data collected when patients in the studies see their doctors. Regularly scheduled doctor visits, called well visits, include yearly checkups or periodic blood pressure checks. Other doctor visits, called sick visits, occur when a patient feels sick or needs special care. Well and sick visits can produce different types of health record data. In addition, test results at sick visits may be different from results at well visits. Using data from sick visits may inappropriately influence, or bias, a study's results. Also, patients may go to the doctor more often when they have symptoms or chronic health problems. Researchers may then collect more data from these patients than they collect from the healthier patients. Unequal amounts of data per patient make it harder to compare treatment results. For this study, the research team created three tests to find if data from sick visits lead to bias in a study's findings. The team also compared standard and newer statistical methods for analyzing data that include sick visits. Researchers designed the newer methods to reduce bias from data obtained at sick visits. With less biased results, doctors can be more certain about which treatment worked better for certain patients.

Mechanistic trade-offs between traits under selection can shape and constrain evolutionary adaptation to environmental stressors. However, our knowledge of the quantitative and qualitative overlap in the molecular machinery among stress tolerance traits is highly restricted by the challenges of comparing and interpreting data between separate studies and laboratories, as well as to extrapolating between different levels of biological organization. We investigated the expression of the constitutive proteome (833 proteins) of 35 Drosophila melanogaster replicate populations artificially selected for increased resistance to six different environmental stressors. The evolved proteomes were significantly differentiated from replicated control lines. A targeted analysis of the constitutive proteomes revealed a regime-specific selection response among heat shock proteins, which provides evidence that selection also adjusts the constitutive expression of these molecular chaperones. While the se...

The reticulate venation that is characteristic of a dicot leaf has excited interest from systematists for more than a century, and from physiological and developmental botanists for decades. The tools of digital image acquisition and computer image analysis, however, are only now approaching the sophistication needed to quantify aspects of the venation network found in real leaves quickly, easily, accurately, and reliably enough to produce biologically meaningful data. In this paper, we examine 120 leaves distributed across vascular plants (representing 118 genera and 80 families) using two approaches: a semiquantitative scoring system called “leaf ranking,” devised by the late Leo Hickey, and an automated image-analysis protocol. In the process of comparing these approaches, we review some methodological issues that arise in trying to quantify a vein network, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of automatic data collection and human pattern recognition. We conclude that subjective leaf rank provides a relatively consistent, semiquantitative measure of areole size among other variables; that modal areole size is generally consistent across large sections of a leaf lamina; and that both approaches—semiquantitative, subjective scoring; and fully quantitative, automated measurement—have appropriate places in the study of leaf venation.,Supplementary ArchiveThis archive consists of a single tarball holding a file hierarchy that contains our images, data, and processing scripts. See the associated readme file for more detail.Green_et_al.2014.APPS_data_archive.tgz,

Historical Dataset of Teaneck High School is provided by PublicSchoolReview and contain statistics on metrics:Total Students Trends Over Years (1990-2023),Total Classroom Teachers Trends Over Years (1990-2023),Distribution of Students By Grade Trends,Student-Teacher Ratio Comparison Over Years (1990-2023),Asian Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (1992-2023),Hispanic Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (1992-2023),Black Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (1992-2023),White Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (1992-2023),Two or More Races Student Percentage Comparison Over Years (2013-2023),Diversity Score Comparison Over Years (1992-2023),Free Lunch Eligibility Comparison Over Years (1990-2023),Reduced-Price Lunch Eligibility Comparison Over Years (2002-2023),Reading and Language Arts Proficiency Comparison Over Years (2011-2022),Math Proficiency Comparison Over Years (2012-2023),Science Proficiency Comparison Over Years (2021-2022),Overall School Rank Trends Over Years (2012-2023),Graduation Rate Comparison Over Years (2013-2023)