The National Library of Medicine (NLM) classification system is a library indexing system covering the fields of medicine and preclinical basic sciences. Operated and maintained by the U.S. National Library of Medicine, the NLM classification is patterned after the Library of Congress (LC) Classification system: alphabetical letters denote broad subject categories which are subdivided by numbers. For example, QW 279 would indicate a book on an aspect of microbiology or immunology. The one- or two-letter alphabetical codes in the NLM classification use a limited range of letters: only QS–QZ and W–WZ. This allows the NLM system to co-exist with the larger LC coding scheme as neither of these ranges are used in the LC system. There are, however, three pre-existing codes in the LC system which overlap with the NLM: Human Anatomy (QM), Microbiology (QR), and Medicine (R). To avoid further confusion, these three codes are not used in the NLM. The headings for the individual schedules (letters or letter pairs) are given in brief form (e.g., QW - Microbiology and Immunology; WG - Cardiovascular System) and together they provide an outline of the subjects covered by the NLM classification. Headings are interpreted broadly and include the physiological system, the specialties connected with them, the regions of the body chiefly concerned and subordinate related fields. The NLM system is hierarchical, and within each schedule, division by organ usually has priority. Each main schedule, as well as some sub-sections, begins with a group of form numbers ranging generally from 1–49 which classify materials by publication type, e.g., dictionaries, atlases, laboratory manuals, etc. The main schedules QS-QZ, W-WY, and WZ (excluding the range WZ 220–270) classify works published after 1913; the 19th century schedule is used for works published 1801–1913; and WZ 220-270 is used to provide century groupings for works published before 1801. == Classification categories == === Preclinical Sciences === QS Human Anatomy QT Physiology QU Biochemistry QV Pharmacology QW Microbiology & Immunology QX Parasitology QY Clinical Pathology QZ Pathology === Medicine and Related Subjects === W Health Professions WA Public Health WB Practice of Medicine WC Communicable Diseases WD Disorders of Systemic, Metabolic, or Environmental Origin, etc. WE Musculoskeletal System WF Respiratory System WG Cardiovascular System WH Hemic and Lymphatic Systems WI Digestive System WJ Urogenital System WK Endocrine System WL Nervous System WM Psychiatry WN Radiology. Diagnostic Imaging WO Surgery WP Gynecology WQ Obstetrics WR Dermatology WS Pediatrics WT Geriatrics. Chronic Disease WU Dentistry. Oral Surgery WV Otolaryngology WW Ophthalmology WX Hospitals & Other Health Facilities WY Nursing WZ History of Medicine 19th Century Schedule
Glow (app)
Glow is a fertility awareness and period-tracking app. It is part of a suite of mobile apps focused on women's reproductive health and childcare, which includes Eve by Glow (a dedicated period tracker), Glow Nurture (a pregnancy tracker), and Glow Baby (a baby development tracker). The Glow company also operates an online shop that sells several fertility-related products, including ovulation test strips, pregnancy tests, and wearable breast pumps. In 2024, Glow was reported to have approximately 25 million users across its various apps and community message boards. == History == Glow debuted in August 2013 as an iOS app. It was founded by Michael Huang and Max Levchin and launched with $6 million in Series A funding from venture capital firms Founders Fund and Andreesen Horowitz. In 2014, Glow raised an additional $17 million in Series B funding, with Formation 8 joining existing investors. In 2015, Glow launched Ruby, an app dedicated to sexual health. That year, Wired reported that the company had added features to their apps allowing men to monitor their fertility. Glow subsequently released an additional set of apps focused on pregnancy tracking and infant development. In 2016, Glow reported that it had a total of approximately 3 million users; by 2018, this had grown to 15 million. Vox described it as one of the “big two” period and fertility tracking apps and the one that had started the “boom” in the femtech space. == Application and features == Glow was initially described as a fertility application that applied data-driven methods to menstrual and ovulation tracking. Core features include cycle logging, ovulation prediction, and symptom tracking. The app also provides educational content related to reproductive health and childcare, as well as a set of online message boards that allow individuals to share experiences and seek peer support. == Privacy and legal issues == Glow has received significant media attention for its privacy and security practices. In 2016, Consumer Reports identified potential exploits in the Glow app that they claimed could have exposed private user data to hackers. Glow subsequently reported that it had fixed the vulnerabilities and told The Washington Post they had no evidence that user data had been compromised. In September 2020, the California Attorney General announced a settlement with Glow related to Consumer Reports’ findings, which included a $250,000 civil penalty. Following the US Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson ruling, which legalized state-level bans on abortion, Glow (and other fertility trackers, such as Clue and Flo) came under additional scrutiny over concerns that user data on abortions could be reported to law enforcement. After this surge of media interest, a research team affiliated with the University of New South Wales conducted an investigation into the privacy practices of several popular fertility apps, including Glow. Their review of Glow was mixed, noting that they provided several privacy settings and de-identified sensitive data, but that user information could still be disclosed in the future if the app was sold. Glow rejected that claim, telling the Australian Associated Press that it "did not share" personal data. The company also cited several internal security measures it had implemented and its apps' offline data protection setting, which allows users to permanently delete their health-related data. == Reception == In 2014, Fast Company reported that 20,000 women had used Glow to conceive. Later that year, The Guardian included Glow Nurture on its list of the best iPhone apps of 2014. Media coverage often praised Glow's array of menstrual tracking options, although some reviews also noted that fertility apps are not birth control tools and cautioned against relying on them for that purpose. In 2019, Cosmopolitan singled Glow's community of users as one of its standout features.
Visual Peer Review
== Development and history == Visual Peer Review was first described in a 2017 classroom study by Friedman and Rosen, which examined how students evaluate peer-produced data visualizations using structured rubrics. Developed within the broader fields of data visualization, information visualization, and educational technology, the system emphasized clear labeling, visual integrity, and reduction of chartjunk. Students assigned rubric scores and provided written explanations, aligning the activity with established principles of peer review. Follow-up research expanded both the methodological and analytic dimensions of the framework. Friedman and colleagues applied natural language processing (NLP) to peer-review text to analyze part-of-speech patterns, sentence complexity, and comment length. These analyses offered insight into how students expressed critique and engaged with core design principles. Later studies incorporated advanced statistical modeling to evaluate system-level behavior, including peer review networks and reviewer typologies. Between 2021 and 2024, the framework underwent iterative refinement through a series of studies that explored interface design, behavioral nudges, reviewer engagement, and social network dynamics. The system was influenced by earlier work in computer-supported peer review—particularly My Reviewers, a rubric-based writing assessment platform developed by Joe Moxley at the University of South Florida. While Moxley's platform focused on text-based feedback, Visual Peer Review adapted its core structure to support critique of DataVis and visual analytics. To guide structured analysis and feedback, Friedman and Rosen also drew on the “what, why, and how” framework introduced by Liu and Stasko (2010), which emphasizes understanding a visualization's purpose, task alignment, and encoding strategy. == Framework and components == Visual Peer Review is designed to support critique, reflection, and learning in courses focusing on data visualization, visual analytics, and related fields in educational technology. The system consists of interconnected component. Core components include: Visual Artifacts: Students generate original visualizations using software such as R (e.g., ggplot2), Tableau, Python, or Adobe Illustrator. These artifacts may include statistical graphics, dashboards, or design-oriented infographics. Rubric-Based Assessment: Peer reviewers evaluate submitted visualizations using structured rubrics grounded in visualization theory and design heuristics. Rubric dimensions typically include: Use of labeling and axis scales Minimalization of chartjunk and clutter (following Tufte's principles) Optimization of the data–ink ratio Preservation of visual integrity through accurate representation (lie factor) Written Peer Comments: In addition to scoring, reviewers provide narrative feedback explaining their reasoning. These comments aim to improve design literacy, strengthen visual reasoning, and support the learning process common to peer review across educational contexts. Instructor Analytics Dashboard: Instructors access an analytics dashboard that displays peer-review activity across the course. Metrics include comment length, rubric coverage, participation patterns, and potential indicators of disengagement. These features position the framework within the domain of learning analytics, where visualized data helps instructors monitor student progress and identify support needs. == Ongoing development == Current work focuses on enhancing rubric structure, integrating principles from human–computer interaction, DataVis and expanding learning-analytics capabilities. Ongoing studies investigate how interface design, reviewer behavior, and classroom context influence the quality of feedback and overall engagement. Continuing development positions Visual Peer Review at the intersection of data visualization education, peer assessment, and educational technology.
Flajolet–Martin algorithm
The Flajolet–Martin algorithm is an algorithm for approximating the number of distinct elements in a stream with a single pass and space-consumption logarithmic in the maximal number of possible distinct elements in the stream (the count-distinct problem). The algorithm was introduced by Philippe Flajolet and G. Nigel Martin in their 1984 article "Probabilistic Counting Algorithms for Data Base Applications". Later it has been refined in "LogLog counting of large cardinalities" by Marianne Durand and Philippe Flajolet, and "HyperLogLog: The analysis of a near-optimal cardinality estimation algorithm" by Philippe Flajolet et al. In their 2010 article "An optimal algorithm for the distinct elements problem", Daniel M. Kane, Jelani Nelson and David P. Woodruff give an improved algorithm, which uses nearly optimal space and has optimal O(1) update and reporting times. == The algorithm == Assume that we are given a hash function h a s h ( x ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {hash} (x)} that maps input x {\displaystyle x} to integers in the range [ 0 ; 2 L − 1 ] {\displaystyle [0;2^{L}-1]} , and where the outputs are sufficiently uniformly distributed. Note that the set of integers from 0 to 2 L − 1 {\displaystyle 2^{L}-1} corresponds to the set of binary strings of length L {\displaystyle L} . For any non-negative integer y {\displaystyle y} , define b i t ( y , k ) {\displaystyle \mathrm {bit} (y,k)} to be the k {\displaystyle k} -th bit in the binary representation of y {\displaystyle y} , such that: y = ∑ k ≥ 0 b i t ( y , k ) 2 k . {\displaystyle y=\sum _{k\geq 0}\mathrm {bit} (y,k)2^{k}.} We then define a function ρ ( y ) {\displaystyle \rho (y)} that outputs the position of the least-significant set bit in the binary representation of y {\displaystyle y} , and L {\displaystyle L} if no such set bit can be found as all bits are zero: ρ ( y ) = { min { k ≥ 0 ∣ b i t ( y , k ) ≠ 0 } y > 0 L y = 0 {\displaystyle \rho (y)={\begin{cases}\min\{k\geq 0\mid \mathrm {bit} (y,k)\neq 0\}&y>0\\L&y=0\end{cases}}} Note that with the above definition we are using 0-indexing for the positions, starting from the least significant bit. For example, ρ ( 13 ) = ρ ( 1101 2 ) = 0 {\displaystyle \rho (13)=\rho (1101_{2})=0} , since the least significant bit is a 1 (0th position), and ρ ( 8 ) = ρ ( 1000 2 ) = 3 {\displaystyle \rho (8)=\rho (1000_{2})=3} , since the least significant set bit is at the 3rd position. At this point, note that under the assumption that the output of our hash function is uniformly distributed, then the probability of observing a hash output ending with 2 k {\displaystyle 2^{k}} (a one, followed by k {\displaystyle k} zeroes) is 2 − ( k + 1 ) {\displaystyle 2^{-(k+1)}} , since this corresponds to flipping k {\displaystyle k} heads and then a tail with a fair coin. Now the Flajolet–Martin algorithm for estimating the cardinality of a multiset M {\displaystyle M} is as follows: Initialize a bit-vector BITMAP to be of length L {\displaystyle L} and contain all 0s. For each element x {\displaystyle x} in M {\displaystyle M} : Calculate the index i = ρ ( h a s h ( x ) ) {\displaystyle i=\rho (\mathrm {hash} (x))} . Set B I T M A P [ i ] = 1 {\displaystyle \mathrm {BITMAP} [i]=1} . Let R {\displaystyle R} denote the smallest index i {\displaystyle i} such that B I T M A P [ i ] = 0 {\displaystyle \mathrm {BITMAP} [i]=0} . Estimate the cardinality of M {\displaystyle M} as 2 R / ϕ {\displaystyle 2^{R}/\phi } , where ϕ ≈ 0.77351 {\displaystyle \phi \approx 0.77351} . The idea is that if n {\displaystyle n} is the number of distinct elements in the multiset M {\displaystyle M} , then B I T M A P [ 0 ] {\displaystyle \mathrm {BITMAP} [0]} is accessed approximately n / 2 {\displaystyle n/2} times, B I T M A P [ 1 ] {\displaystyle \mathrm {BITMAP} [1]} is accessed approximately n / 4 {\displaystyle n/4} times and so on. Consequently, if i ≫ log 2 n {\displaystyle i\gg \log _{2}n} , then B I T M A P [ i ] {\displaystyle \mathrm {BITMAP} [i]} is almost certainly 0, and if i ≪ log 2 n {\displaystyle i\ll \log _{2}n} , then B I T M A P [ i ] {\displaystyle \mathrm {BITMAP} [i]} is almost certainly 1. If i ≈ log 2 n {\displaystyle i\approx \log _{2}n} , then B I T M A P [ i ] {\displaystyle \mathrm {BITMAP} [i]} can be expected to be either 1 or 0. The correction factor ϕ ≈ 0.77351 {\displaystyle \phi \approx 0.77351} (OEIS: A244256) is found by calculations, which can be found in the original article. == Improving accuracy == A problem with the Flajolet–Martin algorithm in the above form is that the results vary significantly. A common solution has been to run the algorithm multiple times with k {\displaystyle k} different hash functions and combine the results from the different runs. One idea is to take the mean of the k {\displaystyle k} results together from each hash function, obtaining a single estimate of the cardinality. The problem with this is that averaging is very susceptible to outliers (which are likely here). A different idea is to use the median, which is less prone to be influences by outliers. The problem with this is that the results can only take form 2 R / ϕ {\displaystyle 2^{R}/\phi } , where R {\displaystyle R} is integer. A common solution is to combine both the mean and the median: Create k ⋅ l {\displaystyle k\cdot l} hash functions and split them into k {\displaystyle k} distinct groups (each of size l {\displaystyle l} ). Within each group use the mean for aggregating together the l {\displaystyle l} results, and finally take the median of the k {\displaystyle k} group estimates as the final estimate. The 2007 HyperLogLog algorithm splits the multiset into subsets and estimates their cardinalities, then it uses the harmonic mean to combine them into an estimate for the original cardinality.
Webometrics
The science of webometrics (also referred to as cybermetrics) aims to quantify the World Wide Web to get knowledge about the number and types of hyperlinks, the structure of the World Wide Web, and using patterns. According to Björneborn and Ingwersen, the definition of webometrics is "the study of the quantitative aspects of the construction and use of information resources, structures and technologies on the Web drawing on bibliometric and informetric approaches." The term webometrics was coined by Almind and Ingwersen (1997). A second definition of webometrics has also been introduced, "the study of web-based content with primarily quantitative methods for social science research goals using techniques that are not specific to one field of study", which emphasizes the development of applied methods for use in the wider social sciences. The purpose of this alternative definition was to help publicize appropriate methods outside the information-science discipline rather than to replace the original definition within information science. Similar scientific fields are: bibliometrics, informetrics, scientometrics, virtual ethnography, and web mining. One relatively straightforward measure is the "web impact factor" (WIF) introduced by Ingwersen (1998). The WIF measure may be defined as the number of web pages in a web site receiving links from other web sites, divided by the number of web pages published in the site that are accessible to the crawler. However, the use of WIF has been disregarded due to the mathematical artifacts derived from power law distributions of these variables. Other similar indicators using size of the institution instead of number of webpages have been proved more useful.
ChromaDB
Chroma or ChromaDB is open-source data infrastructure tailored to applications with large language models. Its headquarters are in San Francisco. In April 2023, it raised 18 million US dollars as seed funding. ChromaDB has been used in academic studies on artificial intelligence, particularly as part of the tech stack for retrieval-augmented generation.
Authoritative Legal Entity Identifier
An Authoritative Legal Entity Identifier (ALEI) is the identifier assigned by a government jurisdiction authorized by statute or decree to create a legal entity and to maintain the authoritative registries of legal entities. ALEIs are used within supply chain data, ERP applications and master data management systems to support accurate and consistent identification of entities in digital records, supply chains, and government databases. ALEIs are described in the international standard ISO 8000-116, which outlines a structured format that makes the locally unique identifier into a globally unique one and ensures global interoperability and data quality. == Structure == An ALEI is composed of three main components: a prefix that identifies the jurisdiction and register, a subdomain element (optional), and the local registration number of the entity. For example, the identifier "US-DE.BER:3031657" refers to an entity registered in the Delaware Business Entity Register in the United States. The standardization of this structure is governed by ISO 8000-116, which is designed to ensure each ALEI is globally unique and resolvable. == Comparison with other identifiers == ALEIs differ from proxy identifiers such as the DUNS number, NCAGE code, or the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) managed by GLEIF. While proxy identifiers can be issued by institutions that do not create legal entities, ALEIs are created and maintained by public bodies with the authority to form and register legal entities. This authoritative origin makes ALEIs particularly suitable for applications involving legal traceability, government regulation, and international transparency efforts. == Usage == ALEIs are increasingly utilized to identify legal entities in public and private datasets. The identifiers support supply chain accuracy, regulatory compliance, and the unification of master data. The first practical implementation of an ALEI was the International Business Registration Number (IBRN), developed to provide globally unique identifiers for registered business entities. IBRNs are issued by authorized government jurisdictions and are used to verify entities across borders, particularly in the context of trade facilitation and data exchange systems. For instance, business directories and registration systems in U.S. states like Connecticut provide structured registration documents that can be used to verify the ALEIs they issue. The use of ALEIs has been recommended by international organizations such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and Open ownership to improve beneficial ownership registries. == Policy and regulation == ALEIs have been referenced in policy consultations such as those related to the U.S. Financial Data Transparency Act. Federal institutions including the Federal Reserve and FDIC have examined the potential for ALEIs to unify entity identification across regulatory databases.