Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Anesth Analg ; 135(2): 241-245, 2022 08 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35839495

RESUMO

In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss whether or not code sharing should be mandatory for scientific publications. Scientific programming is an increasingly prevalent tool in research. However, there are not unified guidelines for code availability requirements. Some journals require code sharing. Others require code descriptions. Yet others have no policies around code sharing. The Pro side presented here argues that code sharing should be mandatory for all scientific publications involving code. This Pro argument comes in 2 parts. First, any defensible reason for not sharing code is an equally valid a reason for the manuscript itself not being published. Second, lack of code sharing requirements creates 2 tiers of science: one where reproducibility is required and one where it is not. Additionally, the Pro authors suggest that a debate over code sharing is itself a decade out-of-date due to the emerging availability of containerization and virtual environment sharing software. The Pro argument concludes with an appeal that authors release code to make their work more understandable by other researchers. The Con side presented here argues that computer source codes of medical technology equipment should not be subject to mandatory public disclosure. The source code is a crucial part of what makes a particular device unique and allows that device to outperform its competition. The Con authors believe that public disclosure of this proprietary information would destroy all incentives for businesses to develop new and improved technologies. Competition in the free marketplace is what drives companies to constantly improve their products, to develop new and better medical devices. The open disclosure of these "trade secret" details would effectively end that competitive drive. Why invest time, money, and energy developing a "better mousetrap" if your competitors can copy it and produce it the next day?


Assuntos
Comércio , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes
2.
J Anesth ; 35(5): 671-709, 2021 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34338865

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Dr. Takuo Aoyagi invented pulse oximetry in 1974. Pulse oximeters are widely used worldwide, most recently making headlines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Aoyagi passed away on April 18, 2020, aware of the significance of his invention, but still actively searching for the theory that would take his invention to new heights. METHOD: Many people who knew Dr. Aoyagi, or knew of him and his invention, agreed to participate in this tribute to his work. The authors, from Japan and around the world, represent all aspects of the development of medical devices, including scientists and engineers, clinicians, academics, business people, and clinical practitioners. RESULTS: While the idea of pulse oximetry originated in Japan, device development lagged in Japan due to a lack of business, clinical, and academic interest. Awareness of the importance of anesthesia safety in the US, due to academic foresight and media attention, in combination with excellence in technological innovation, led to widespread use of pulse oximetry around the world. CONCLUSION: Dr. Aoyagi's final wish was to find a theory of pulse oximetry. We hope this tribute to him and his invention will inspire a new generation of scientists, clinicians, and related organizations to secure the foundation of the theory.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Inventores , História do Século XX , História do Século XXI , Humanos , Japão , Oximetria , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA