11–20 of 122 posts
For instance there's a trend for medical students to believe less in evolution than other biology students
EDIT: reference to it in this story: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/feb/21/religion.highe...
Although it’s true that if Dr. Tai had shown his paper to any physicist (or high school calculus student), with “Tai’s Model” as a label for integration, they would laugh and point out the issue.
Google Scholar currently gives many more citations than 75 (424) source: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=it&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=A+Ma...
Link to the paper in question: https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.17.2.152
It seems to me that it's diagnostically useful to have a standardised method for estimating the area under the curve, rather than everyone inventing their own method.
[0](since you don't know the whole function, you only know point estimates at particular moments in time)
[1] (trapezoidal rule is normally defined by having equal intervals - here, measurements are often taken at irregular intervals)
Link to the paper in question: https://doi.org/10.2337/diacare.17.2.152
The full paper on available on sci-hub for those who can use it. Am wondering if it's legal to post sci-hub links on HN?
Google Scholar currently gives many more citations than 75 (424) source: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=it&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=A+Ma...
I wonder how many of those are from papers discussing failure of peer review or interdisciplinary communication rather than the value of the formula itself.
Google Scholar currently gives many more citations than 75 (424) source: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=it&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=A+Ma...
I wonder how many of those are from papers discussing failure of peer review or interdisciplinary communication rather than the value of the formula itself.
It states: "Mean BGwas determined using area-under-the curve analysis (10)." where (10) is the paper we are discussing about.
Hence in this paper they acknowledge the result...
Don't know about the other citers. Also It would be nice to know that, but I cannot immagine how to do it automatically
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how many of those are from papers discussing failure of peer review or interdisciplinary communication rather than the value of the formula itself.
Funnily enough it doesn't matter for your career. Bureaucracies stop at counting citations, sometimes weighted by impact factor.
Google Scholar currently gives many more citations than 75 (424) source: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=it&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=A+Ma...
I wonder how many of those are from papers discussing failure of peer review or interdisciplinary communication rather than the value of the formula itself.
But they almost always call it “the trapezoidal rule” - the original paper is quite famous specifically because of the embarrassment it brought to medical researchers, and implication that medicine is full of doofuses who don’t know calculus is pure clickbait.