Quality Assessment and Content Analysis of Youtube Videos on Trabeculectomy

PurposeThe aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy, quality and reliability of the videos on trabeculectomy on YouTube which is an online video-sharing platform.Scope This paper aims to assess the quality and analyze the content of the videos on Trabeculectomy on YouTube. The material has been obtained by a video search carried out on the Youtube -online video platform- with the keyword “Trabeculectomy”. The material (videos) was examined and selected in accordance with the exclusion criteria (not being in English, duplicate videos, lack of title information of the video, being irrelevant to the subject, videos with only advertising content, videos with a pixel below 240, takes longer than 20 minutes). After the implementation of exclusion criteria, the first ten suitable videos were included in the evaluation.MethodologyRegarding the material, the parameters of the number of views, the number of likes, the number of dislikes, the number of comments, the video duration, the days since the video was uploaded were recorded. Thus, after carving out the secondary data, a number of statistical analyses were performed namely Shapiro-Wilks, Kruskall-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U and Backward Linear Regression. In this framework, statistical analyzes were made via using the Stata software. Statistical significance value (threshold) was accepted as %10 (p<0.1).ResultsAfter the videos were evaluated according to the upload source, it was found that 2 videos were downloaded by the individuals who is not a doctor, 6 videos from doctors and 2 videos from a commercial source. The number of subscribers of the YouTube channels on which these sources have been uploaded was significantly different from each other (p<0.1). When the videos were evaluated according to the information content they provided, it was found that 5 videos had low quality information content, 4 videos had medium quality information content, 1 video had good quality information content, and the video durations were also significantly different from each other (p<0.1). Moreover, it was statistically determined that the parameter affecting the number of views was the number of likes (p<0.1).ConclusionYouTube videos are essentially insufficient as an educational material and an English source of information for the Trabeculectomy. Health professionals need to pay more attention to online platforms so that patients can access accurate information.Categories:Medical Education, Medical Simulation, Surgery

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe): Open • Conference submission management system: [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 70 • Number of submissions sent for review: 60 • Number of submissions accepted: 53 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 75.71 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 5 groups with a total of 20 reviewers (each group consists of a lead reviewer and 3 reviewers, each reviewer reviews about 6 papers on average) • Any additional info on review process: Authors will submit their papers through the official email address of the conference, and the deadline for submission is September 23, 2021. The person in charge of the mailbox of the conference committee will sort out all the submissions, divide them into groups and distribute them equally to 5 review groups. The review groups will return comments one after another within 2 weeks, and the person in charge of the conference committee wills feedback the comments to the authors. Each paper was reviewed by two reviewers who gave their own comments: Papers with good quality and themes will be accepted directly, and the authors can register for the next stage of the conference; for papers with medium quality, revision suggestions will be given, and then the review groups will decide whether to accept them or not after the authors revise and return; For papers with very poor quality, the review groups will give rejection suggestions. All involved reviewers are recognized specialists in fields covered by the Conference. The final decision regarding acceptance/revision/rejection was based on reviews received from the reviewers. If the two reviewers cannot agree on a recommendation, the final at the sole discretion of the lead reviewer. The authors themselves do not have any decision on whether their papers are accepted or not. The final approved papers will be registered until October 15, 2021. The conference committee will send the invitation to the accepted authors and submit the information of the authors’ papers to the publishers. Contact person for queries: Name: Xiangtao Wang Affiliation:Shaanxi higher education alliance Email: [email protected]

InterPepScore: A Deep Learning Score for Improving the FlexPepDock Refinement Protocol

Motivation: Interactions between peptide fragments and protein receptors are vital to cell function yet difficult to experimentally determine the structural details of. As such, many computational methods have been developed to aid in peptide-protein docking or structure prediction. One such method is Rosetta FlexPepDock which consistently refines coarse peptide-protein models into sub-Ångström precision using Monte-Carlo simulations and statistical potentials. Deep learning has recently seen increased use in protein structure prediction, with graph neural network seeing use in protein model quality assessment. Results: Here, we introduce a graph neural network, InterPepScore, as an additional scoring term to complement and improve the Rosetta FlexPepDock refinement protocol. InterPepScore is trained on simulation trajectories from FlexPepDock refinement starting from thousands of peptide-protein complexes generated by a wide variety of docking schemes. The addition of InterPepScore into the refinement protocol consistently improves the quality of models created, and on an independent benchmark on 109 peptide-protein complexes its inclusion results in an increase in the number of complexes for which the top-scoring model had a DockQ-score of 0.49 (Medium quality) or better from 14.8% to 26.1%.

Major metabolic and metabolomic approaches of dietary therapy in the control of inflammatory obesity processes in COVID-19: a concise systematic review

Introduction: Obesity stands out as a multifactorial disease that can cause several public health problems. Currently, more than 30% of the world's population is overweight or obese. By 2020, it is estimated that over 60% of the world population will be overweight or obese. It has been postulated that a healthy nutritional status promotes immune function and can prevent the onset of a severe inflammatory process and severe infections, especially in times of pandemics such as COVID-19. The optimal immune response depends on proper diet and nutrition to keep the infection under control. Objective: This study analyzed the main interactions of dietary therapy in the control of obesity and its comorbidities, especially meta-inflammation. Methods: This study followed a systematic review model. The search strategy was performed in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus, and Google Scholar databases, using scientific articles from 2009 to 2021. The low quality of evidence was attributed to case reports, editorials, and brief communications, according to the GRADE instrument. The risk of bias was analyzed according to the Cochrane instrument. Results and Conclusion: 105 studies were analyzed and submitted to eligibility analysis, and then 42 high to medium quality studies were selected. Biases did not compromise the scientific basis of the studies. Research has shown that unbalanced dietary patterns, such as the Western diet, rich in simple sugars, refined carbohydrates, saturated and trans-fatty acids, lead to chronic inflammatory responses, increased fat deposition, and future comorbidities associated with overweight and obesity. In addition, some nutrients have important effects in decreasing the inflammatory response and in metabolic restoration, reducing oxidative stress. Therefore, adequate dietary interventions for the management of overweight and obesity are needed, especially starting early in children and adolescents for healthy growth, preventing comorbidities in adulthood.

Interventions Adopting Body-Mind-Spirit Model to Improve the Holistic Health of Older Adults: A Systematic Review

This systematic review aims to summarize 5 key information from non-pharmaceutical intervention studies which adopt Body-Mind-Spirit (BMS) model for older adults: (1) definition of BMS, (2) types and formats of the interventions, (3) background and BMS training of the interventionists, (4) activities included in the interventions, and (5) effect of these interventions on the holistic health of older adults. We conducted a systematic search of 9 databases (ProQuest, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane, Wanfang, AIRITI, CADAL, CNKI) for studies published in English or Chinese through May 31, 2021. Inclusion criteria were: (1) Must be empirical studies; (2) Participants must be aged 55 and above; and (3) Must adopt the BMS model or contain BMS in full-text. We found 15 studies (7 RCTs, 1 cluster randomized trial, 3 mixed-method studies, and 4 qualitative studies). Ten studies (66.67%) adopted Chan’s BMS model. Thirteen studies (86.67%) adopted in-person group interventions. Only five studies (33.33%) provided BMS training to the interventionists. Six articles (40%) categorized the activities as body-, mind- or spirituality-related. Ten studies (66.67%) reported effectiveness in all 3 dimensions of BMS. Of the 7 RCTs, 5 were rated as medium-quality, and 2 were rated as low-quality according to the Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool. Most interventions based on the BMS model claimed to be effective in improving the holistic health of older adults. In order to improve the internal validity, future RCT studies should be more prudent about the randomization process and adhere to the BMS model when designing the interventions.

Design and implementation of fish freshness detection algorithm using deep learning

Organoleptic assessment of fresh fish includes specifications for the quality of the eyes, gills, mucus, odor, texture and flesh (color and appearance). However, not everyone has knowledge about it. This research uses the tiny yolov2 to facilitate the determination of fish freshness levels (good quality, medium quality, poor quality) correctly and fast. There are a few stages in this research, included organoleptic test accompanied by taking fish eye image dataset every hour, processing organoleptic test data labeling, training, and validation. There are three types of fish used, consists of Rastrelliger, Euthynnus affinis, and Chanos chanos. Detection of fish freshness level for three species was successfully carried out with the result of average precision is 72.9%, average recall is 57.5%, and accuracy is 57.5%. The factors that affect the prediction results in this study is the collection of datasets before the training process is carried out consisting of fish samples obtained from traditional markets, which are considered inadequate so that it affects the organoleptic test process itself, the organoleptic test that was carried out as a reference for image sorting was considered inaccurate because it used less than 30 untrained panelists and dataset imbalance.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe): Open • Conference submission management system: [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 85 • Number of submissions sent for review: 70 • Number of submissions accepted: 63 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 74.1 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 5 groups with a total of 20 reviewers (each group consists of a lead reviewer and 3 reviewers, each reviewer reviews about 7 papers on average) • Any additional info on review process: Authors will submit their papers through the official email address of the conference, and the deadline for submission is September 21, 2021. The person in charge of the mailbox of the conference committee will sort out all the submissions, divide them into groups and distribute them equally to 5 review groups. The review groups will return comments one after another within 2 weeks, and the person in charge of the conference committee will feedback the comments to the authors. Each paper was reviewed by two reviewers who gave their own comments: Papers with good quality and themes will be accepted directly, and the authors can register for the next stage of the conference; for papers with medium quality, revision suggestions will be given, and then the review groups will decide whether to accept them or not after the authors revise and return; For papers with very poor quality, the review groups will give rejection suggestions. All involved reviewers are recognized specialists in fields covered by the Conference. The final decision regarding acceptance/revision/rejection was based on reviews received from the reviewers. If the two reviewers cannot agree on a recommendation, the final at the sole discretion of the lead reviewer. The authors themselves do not have any decision on whether their papers are accepted or not. The final approved papers will be registered until October 18, 2021. The conference committee will send the invitation to the accepted authors and submit the information of the authors’ papers to the publishers. Contact person for queries: Name: Xiangtao Wang Affiliation:Shaanxi higher education alliance Email: [email protected]

Litter Quality and Microbes Explain Aggregation Differences in a Tropical Sandy Soil

Soil aggregates store most soil organic carbon (SOC), but how does litter quality influence their formation? We hypothesized varying litter quality to facilitate differences in aggregate formation by altering the seasonal development of microbial biomass (MB) C and N, with MB driving aggregate development in a tropical sandy soil in Thailand. Aggregate development was studied in a long-term fallow experiment, receiving 10 Mg ha−1 annual applications of rice (Oryza sativa) straw (low N and polyphenols (PP)), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) stover (high N, low PP), tamarind (Tamarindus indica) litter (medium N and PP), or dipterocarp (Dipterocarpus tuberculatus) leaf litter (low N, high PP) compared to a control. N-rich litter from groundnut and tamarind led to significantly higher MB, bulk soil C and aggregate C than dipterocarp, rice straw, and the control. Bulk soil C and small macroaggregates C of N-rich litter treatments increased about 7% in 30 weeks. Increasing MB N explained increasing small macroaggregate C and both, MB C or N were important covariates explaining temporal variations of C stored in the microaggregates, in silt and clay. MB also explained temporal variations of aggregate fraction weights. With time, SMA C only increased in the N-rich groundnut and tamarind treatments, but decreased in other treatments. Connections of MB to aggregate C and weight substantiated the importance of microbial activity for aggregate formation and carbon sequestration. By promoting MB for longest time spans, medium-quality tamarind could best facilitate aggregate formation, and increase silt and clay C.

The better, the choosier: a meta-analysis on inter-individual variation of male mate choice

Male mate choice occurs in several animal species, but we know little about the factors that influence the expression of this behaviour. Males vary in their capacity to acquire mates (i.e. male quality), which could be crucial to male mate choice expression but it is often overlooked. Using a meta-analytical approach, we explore inter-individual variation in the expression of male mate choice by comparing the mating investment of males of different qualities and phenotypes to high- and low-quality females. We used two datasets that together contained information from 60 empirical studies, comprising 52 species. We found that males of all qualities and phenotypes prefer high-quality females, but differ in the strength of such preference. High- and medium-quality males are choosier than low-quality males. Similarly, males that are larger or in greater body condition are choosier than their counterparts. In contrast, male body mass and age are not associated with changes in male mate choice. We also show that experimental design may influence our understanding of male mating investment patterns, which may limit the generalization of our findings. Nonetheless, we argue that male quality may be an important feature in the expression of male mate choice.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe): Open • Conference submission management system: [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 200 • Number of submissions sent for review: 175 • Number of submissions accepted:153 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 76.5 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 5 groups with a total of 25 reviewers (each group consists of a lead reviewer and 4 reviewers, each reviewer reviews about 14 papers on average) • Any additional info on review process: Authors will submit their papers through the official email address of the conference, and the deadline for submission is March 15, 2021. The person in charge of the mailbox of the conference committee will sort out all the submissions, divide them into groups and distribute them equally to 5 review groups. The review groups will return comments one after another within 2 weeks, and the person in charge of the conference committee wills feedback the comments to the authors. Each paper was reviewed by two reviewers who gave their own comments: Papers with good quality and themes will be accepted directly, and the authors can register for the next stage of the conference; for papers with medium quality, revision suggestions will be given, and then the review groups will decide whether to accept them or not after the authors revise and return; For papers with very poor quality, the review groups will give rejection suggestions. All involved reviewers are recognized specialists in fields covered by the Conference. The final decision regarding acceptance/revision/rejection was based on reviews received from the reviewers. If the two reviewers cannot agree on a recommendation, the final at the sole discretion of the lead reviewer. The authors themselves do not have any decision on whether their papers are accepted or not. The final approved papers will be registered until April 5, 2021. The conference committee will send the invitation to the accepted authors and submit the information of the authors’ papers to the publishers. Contact person for queries: Name: Xiangtao Wang Affiliation:Shaanxi higher education alliance Email: [email protected]