Dueling neural networks. Artificial embryos. AI in the cloud. Welcome to our annual list of the 10 technology advances we think will shape the way we work and live now and for years to come.
In this blog, we will review 2000 LiFePO4 Portable Power Station, one of the most potent power plants available in the market right now. A large battery that can run this portable power station for more than 24 hours. However, that capacity comes at a price: increased weight and size.
Much of the knowledge and information needed for enabling high-quality clinical research is stored in free-text format. Natural language processing (NLP) has been used to extract information from these sources at scale for several decades. This paper aims to present a comprehensive review of clinical NLP for the past 15 years in the UK to identify the community, depict its evolution, analyse methodologies and applications, and identify the main barriers. We collect a dataset of clinical NLP projects (n = 94; £ = 41.97 m) funded by UK funders or the European Union’s funding programmes. Additionally, we extract details on 9 funders, 137 organisations, 139 persons and 431 research papers. Networks are created from timestamped data interlinking all entities, and network analysis is subsequently applied to generate insights. 431 publications are identified as part of a literature review, of which 107 are eligible for final analysis. Results show, not surprisingly, clinical NLP in the UK has increased substantially in the last 15 years: the total budget in the period of 2019–2022 was 80 times that of 2007–2010. However, the effort is required to deepen areas such as disease (sub-)phenotyping and broaden application domains. There is also a need to improve links between academia and industry and enable deployments in real-world settings for the realisation of clinical NLP’s great potential in care delivery. The major barriers include research and development access to hospital data, lack of capable computational resources in the right places, the scarcity of labelled data and barriers to sharing of pretrained models.
It is often said that peer review is one of the pillars of scientific research. It is also well known that peer review doesn't actually do its job very well, and, every few years, people like me start writing articles about alternatives to peer review. This isn't one of those rants. Instead, I'm going to focus on something that is probably less well known: peer review actually has two jobs. It's used to provide minimal scrutiny for new scientific results, and to act as a gatekeeper for funding agencies.
What I would like to do here is outline some of the differences between peer review in these two jobs and the strengths and weaknesses of peer review in each case. This is not a rant against peer review, nor should it be—I have been pretty successful in both publications and grant applications over the last couple of years. But I think it's worth exploring the idea that peer review functions much better in the case of deciding the value of scientific research than it does when acting as a gatekeeper for scientific funding.
'Last week, Friends of Ed. very nicely sent me a review copy of Ira Greenberg’s book Processing: Creative Coding and Computational Art (ISBN: 159059617X).'
If you want to make money by Affiliate products, Binary trading software, Health related products and social media product then stays with us and knows details
CTI reviews the direct-to-video movie featuring one of the most charismatic and controversial figureheads of the modern Pentecostal movement. From the review: "Rossi, who wrote and directed the 2001 Motion Picture Council Best Documentary winner Saving Si
This is my review of "Amazon Search Dominator" - a new program for writers by Tony Norton.
Find out more here: http://warriorplus.com/o/a/jz50sp/gnvsb
It is a very comprehensive manual for all authors with some really surprising and ingenious ideas for getting your book to the top of Amazon.
Please watch the video for my full report.