analysis interval
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

18
(FIVE YEARS 3)

H-INDEX

4
(FIVE YEARS 0)

Globus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (6(63)) ◽  
pp. 16-22
Author(s):  
Evgeny Viktorovich Melnikov ◽  
Oleg Sergeevich Avsentyev

A boundary assessment of the probability of non-acceptance of the test segment when synchronizing the quasi-random sequence of a large period of digital high-speed radio systems in conditions of destructive influences, taking into account all the test segments at the analysis interval in order to increase the probability of phasing of the KSPBP sensors, has been developed.


2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 387-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niamh Daly ◽  
Iseult Flynn ◽  
Ciara Carroll ◽  
Maria Farren ◽  
Aoife McKeating ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, but risk is reduced with identification and early treatment. Glucose measurements are affected by preanalytical sample handling, such as temperature of storage, phlebotomy–analysis interval, and use of a glycolysis inhibitor. We evaluated glucose concentrations and the incidence of GDM after strict implementation of the American Diabetes Association (ADA) preanalytical guidelines, compared with usual hospital conditions. METHODS Women screened selectively for GDM at 24–32 weeks' gestation were recruited at their convenience before a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test. Paired samples were taken: the first sample followed ADA recommendations and was transferred to the laboratory on an iced slurry for immediate separation and analysis (research conditions), and the second sample was not placed on ice and was transferred according to hospital practice (usual conditions). RESULTS Of samples from 155 women, the mean fasting, 1-h, and 2-h results were 90.0 (12.6) mg/dL [5.0 (0.7) mmol/L], 142.2 (43.2) mg/dL [7.9 (2.4) mmol/L], and 102.6 (32.4) mg/dL [5.7 (1.8) mmol/L], respectively, under research conditions, and 81 (12.6) mg/dL [4.5 (0.7) mmol/L], 133.2 (41.4) mg/dL [7.4 (2.3) mmol/L], and 99 (32.4) mg/dL [5.5 (1.8) mmol/L] under usual conditions (all P < 0.0001). GDM was diagnosed in 38.1% (n = 59) under research conditions and 14.2% (n = 22) under usual conditions (P < 0.0001). The phlebotomy–analysis interval for the fasting, 1-h, and 2-h samples was 20 (9), 17 (10), and 17 (9) min under research conditions and 162 (19), 95 (23), and 32 (19) min under usual conditions (all P < 0.0001). All cases of GDM were diagnosed on fasting or 1-h samples; the 2-h test diagnosed no additional cases. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of ADA preanalytical glucose sample handling recommendations resulted in higher mean glucose concentrations and 2.7-fold increased detection of GDM compared with usual hospital practices.


2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 605-610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah T. Berger ◽  
Michael D. Netherland ◽  
Gregory E. MacDonald

Fluridone has been used to successfully manage Eurasian watermilfoil since the late 1980s. However, recent documentation of hybrid watermilfoils and the resulting potential for reduced herbicide sensitivity necessitate the need for an assay to determine individual population response to fluridone. A known fluridone-resistant hybrid watermilfoil population from Townline Lake in Michigan was compared to 11 Eurasian and hybrid watermilfoil populations in laboratory experiments to develop a method for determining response to fluridone. Apical shoot tips were exposed to increasing concentrations of fluridone (0 to 48μg L−1) for 3, 5, and 7 d. Chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm) was evaluated using a pulse-amplitude modulated fluorometer at each interval along with pigment analysis of chlorophyll and β-carotene at the 7-d interval. Fv/Fmand pigment analysis yielded the same results. A fluridone concentration of 12μg L−1and an analysis interval of 7 d were found to be optimal in determining invasive watermilfoil response to fluridone. Use of such small-scale assays can provide resource managers a rapid tool to cost-effectively evaluate invasive watermilfoil response to fluridone.


2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. e20
Author(s):  
Robert Perez ◽  
Michael Kwiatt ◽  
Joe Lachant ◽  
Sergio Zanotti ◽  
Steven Hollenberg

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger H. Hermanson ◽  
Linda M. Plunkett ◽  
Deborah H. Turner

<span>This study examines the importance of certain accounting firm characteristicsreputation, personnel, industry experience, and feeto the selection of audit firms by publicly-traded corporations. Client perceptions of these attributes were assessed to determine: (1) possible longitudinal changes in the relative importance of these attributes to clients selections, and (2) possible concurrent differences in the relative importance of these attributes to two different client strata-large versus small corporations. Using conjoint analysis, interval measures of the relative importance of each firm attribute were determined. The results of this study indicate that large and small corporations have very different relative preferences for characteristics of audit firms. In addition the importance attached to certain attributes of audit firms by large and small clients appears to be stable over time.</span>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document