| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Abbafati, Cristiana, et al.
(author)
-
- 2020
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 4. |
- Arndt, D. S., et al.
(author)
-
STATE OF THE CLIMATE IN 2017
- 2018
-
In: Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society - (BAMS). - : American Meteorological Society. - 0003-0007 .- 1520-0477. ; 99:8, s. S1-S310
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 5. |
- Kehoe, Laura, et al.
(author)
-
Make EU trade with Brazil sustainable
- 2019
-
In: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 364:6438, s. 341-
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 6. |
- Knudsen, Gitte M, et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the content and format of PET brain data in publications and archives : A consensus paper
- 2020
-
In: Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism. - : SAGE Publications. - 0271-678X .- 1559-7016. ; 40:8, s. 1576-1585
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- It is a growing concern that outcomes of neuroimaging studies often cannot be replicated. To counteract this, the magnetic resonance (MR) neuroimaging community has promoted acquisition standards and created data sharing platforms, based on a consensus on how to organize and share MR neuroimaging data. Here, we take a similar approach to positron emission tomography (PET) data. To facilitate comparison of findings across studies, we first recommend publication standards for tracer characteristics, image acquisition, image preprocessing, and outcome estimation for PET neuroimaging data. The co-authors of this paper, representing more than 25 PET centers worldwide, voted to classify information as mandatory, recommended, or optional. Second, we describe a framework to facilitate data archiving and data sharing within and across centers. Because of the high cost of PET neuroimaging studies, sample sizes tend to be small and relatively few sites worldwide have the required multidisciplinary expertise to properly conduct and analyze PET studies. Data sharing will make it easier to combine datasets from different centers to achieve larger sample sizes and stronger statistical power to test hypotheses. The combining of datasets from different centers may be enhanced by adoption of a common set of best practices in data acquisition and analysis.
|
|
| 7. |
- ODonnell, Michael, et al.
(author)
-
Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998)
- 2018
-
In: Perspectives on Psychological Science. - : SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD. - 1745-6916 .- 1745-6924. ; 13:2, s. 268-294
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (professor) subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence (soccer hooligans). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the professor category and those primed with the hooligan category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.
|
|
