Prisma Pro Software Free 58: Features, Benefits, Installation, and Usage
Leanpub Reader Memberships are a great deal. They give you you free access to about 2000 books on Leanpub that are only free with membership. This includes hundreds of books about computer programming, data science, software architecture and more!
Prisma Pro Software Free 58
Leanpub revenue supports OpenIntro (US-based nonprofit) so we can provide free desk copies to teachers interested in using OpenIntro Statistics in the classroom and expand the project to support free textbooks in other subjects.
If you buy a Leanpub book, you get free updates for as long as the author updates the book! Many authors use Leanpub to publish their books in-progress, while they are writing them. All readers get free updates, regardless of when they bought the book or how much they paid (including free).Most Leanpub books are available in PDF (for computers) and EPUB (for phones, tablets and Kindle). The formats that a book includes are shown at the top right corner of this page.Finally, Leanpub books don't have any DRM copy-protection nonsense, so you can easily read them on any supported device.
Filters are a predefined combination of search terms developed to identify references with a specific content, such as a particular type of study design (e.g., randomized controlled trials) [106], populations (e.g., the elderly), or a topic (e.g., heart failure) [107]. They often consist of a combination of subject headings, free-text terms, and publication types [107]. For systematic reviews, filters are generally recommended for use instead of limits built into databases, as discussed in Item 9, because they provide the much higher sensitivity (Table 2) required for a comprehensive search [108].
Databases contain significant overlap in content. When searching in multiple databases and additional information sources, as is necessary for a systematic review, authors often employ a variety of techniques to reduce the number of duplicates within their results prior to screening [135,136,137,138]. Techniques vary in their efficacy, sensitivity, and specificity (Table 2) [136, 138]. Knowing which method is used enables readers to evaluate the process and understand to what extent these techniques may have removed false positive duplicates [138]. Authors should describe and cite any software or technique used, when applicable. If duplicates were removed manually, authors should include a description.
The screening process was conducted independently by two reviewers (SCR and OLA). Citations were downloaded into Endnote software (version X7.3.1) and duplicates deleted. Records were screened by title and abstract. Potentially relevant articles were identified for further full-text screening (SCR and OLA). Discrepancies were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer (MC/DK/AS) if required.
Dirven et al. (2014) conducted a systematic review of PRO clinical trials in patient with brain tumours and demonstrated that HRQL can be used alongside overall and progression-free survival to inform clinical decision-making. One of the clinical trials included determined that the combination of concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide and radiotherapy has become standard care for newly diagnosed patients with glioblastoma [53]. This combination treatment led to significantly prolonged overall and progression-free survival, without negatively impacting HRQL in the long-term as measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and Brain Cancer Module (BN-20) [53].
Sztankay et al. (2017) assessed HRQL during first-line chemotherapy with pametrexed and maintenance therapy (MT) among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer [73]. First-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer was shown to improve overall progression-free survival. However, as measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13, MT compared to first-line chemotherapy was associated with lower HRQL and improvements in nausea, vomiting, appetite loss, constipation and pain. This information presented alongside survival data, allowed patients and clinicians to make real-world informed joint decisions regarding treatment options.
Twenty-six studies were selected. The majority appeared in 2016 or after and were focused on methodological aspects; the applications mainly dealt with the documentation of skeletal findings and the identification or comparison of anatomical features and trauma. Most authors used commercial software packages, and an offline approach. Research is still quite heterogeneous concerning methods, terminology and quality of results, and proper validation is still lacking.
A number of different techniques and procedures have been developed to achieve accurate and reliable 3D models of anthropological specimens, such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, laser scanning, structured light scanning, and digital photogrammetry, in association with various software [2,4]. However, CT and laser scanning require expensive equipment, intricate workflows, and trained operators, and therefore are resource-intensive [3,5,6]. Structured light scanning could be implemented through low-cost hardware and software, but its accuracy is not sufficient for skeletal anthropology applications [7,8].
Because photogrammetry uses light as the information carrier, it is included within non-contact, optical measurement methods, in the class of triangulation techniques, which provide information only related to the external surface of an object [10]. Unlike terrestrial laser scanning or structured light scanning, photogrammetry is a passive technique that relies on the ambient light reflected by the specimen rather than actively obtaining range data [9]. When applied to produce computer representations, photogrammetry falls into the field of digital image-based modeling (IBM) techniques, allowing the creation of 3D models using data from two-dimensional images [9]. Ultra close-range digital photogrammetry (UCR-DP) represents a variant of CR-DP, indicated to reconstruct objects within a working distance of 10 m. CR-DP and UCR-DP can be further categorised depending on where the software for their implementation resides. Offline photogrammetry relies on locally installed software and on the hardware provided by the user, while cloud-based software environments host the processing logic and data storage capabilities into remote servers operated by a third-party cloud services provider.
UCR-DP meshes require to be carefully scaled in order to embed absolute dimensions to them. This step will affect the accuracy of all subsequent measures. One or more linear distances should be measured on the actual specimen, and then the measured value should be referred to the same distance on the 3D model. Alternatively, scaling could also be achieved through calibration markers or millimetric scale bars being recorded in the shots, as some offline commercial software packages allow scaling of the model through reference distances located on the input photographs.
Implementations and procedures changed dramatically after the introduction of Digital photogrammetry, involving fast, digital image processing. In 1993 an early example of UCR-DP application to skeletal anthropology involved the capture of the 3D surface of bone metaphyses and joints from image pairs acquired with 256x256 pixel resolution through an 8-bit digitiser. Dedicated software was developed to process the data and display the three-dimensional surfaces [51]. Just a few years later the availability of significantly more powerful graphic workstations led to a major increase in the complexity of processable data. In 1998 and 1999 UCR-DP was used to reconstruct parts of the glacier mummy known as "Ötzi" the Iceman [52].
Scaling details were reported by a minority of the reviewed studies. The procedure was based on reference scales included in the frame [55,58,63,68,70], or on linear measurements [11,12,56,57] taken on the actual specimen and then applied to the 3D model. The measures were taken a single time [56,57], or were repeated [11,12]; in all cases along one axis only. The software packages more frequently used for mesh scaling were MeshLab [37,56,70], PhotoScan [11,14], and Geomagic Studio (3D Systems Inc., United States) [11].
Post-processing issues were discussed by some authors from a general perspective, highlighting the problems that may arise, and the best practices to prevent them [6,11,56,58,70]. A wide variety of software was applied (Table 3). Open-source software packages such as MeshLab [8,56,58,59,61,66,70] and CloudCompare [12,56,58,69] were the most used in many contexts. Some studies used commercial software for specific tasks: PhotoScan [67]; Geomagic Studio [11], and Geomagic Wrap (3D Systems Inc., United States) [55,70].
Depending on the aim, 3D model analysis was carried out using several software packages (Table 3). Open-source solutions such as CloudCompare [12,56,58,69] were widely applied for mesh orientation and comparison [12,37,56,58,69], and for data analysis [37,44,61]. MeshLab was used similarily for visualisation and manipulation [62,64,66], and, along with CloudCompare, for data analysis [44,61]. For landmarking and measurement Avizo Software (Thermo Scientific, United States) [63], ArcScene (Esri, United states), and NewFaceComp (which was developed ad hoc for the study) [64] were used. TIVMI (PACEA laboratory, Université Bordeaux 1, France), specifically developed for skeletal anthropology applications, was frequently applied for the same tasks.
For comparative analyses, free software Morphologika [12] was used to calculate geometric morphometric distances while open-source software packages Meshlab [37], FIDENTIS Analyst [58] and CloudCompare [12,37,44,56], along with commercial Geomagic Studio [11], were all used for mesh-to-mesh and mesh-to-point cloud comparisons.