Explore the vast range of titles available.

Common names of species are important for communicating with the general public. In principle, these names should provide an accessible way to engage with and identify species. The common names of species have historically been labile without standard guidelines, even within a language. Currently, there is no systematic assessment of how often common names communicate identifiable and biologically relevant characteristics about species. This is a salient issue in ornithology, where common names are used more often than scientific names for species of birds in written and spoken English, even by professional researchers. To gain a better understanding of the types of terminology used in the English-language common names of bird species, a group of 85 professional ornithologists and non-professional contributors classified unique descriptors in the common names of all recognized species of birds. In the AvianLexiconAtlas database produced by this work, each species’ common name is assigned to one of ten categories associated with aspects of avian biology, ecology, or human culture. Across 10,906 species of birds, 89% have names describing the biology of the species, while the remaining 11% of species have names derived from human cultural references, human names, or local non-English languages. Species with common names based on features of avian biology are more likely to be related to each other or be from the same geographic region. The crowdsourced data collection also revealed that many common names contain specialized or historic terminology unknown to many of the data collectors, and we include these terms in a glossary and gazetteer alongside the dataset. The AvianLexiconAtlas can be used as a quantitative resource to assess the state of terminology in English-language common names of birds. Future research using the database can shed light on historical approaches to nomenclature and how people engage with species through their names.

Common names of species are important for communicating with the general public. In principle, these names should provide an accessible way to engage with and identify species. The common names of species have historically been labile without standard guidelines, even within a language. Currently, there is no systematic assessment of how often common names communicate identifiable and biologically relevant characteristics about species. This is a particular issue in ornithology, where common names are used more often than scientific names for species of birds in written and spoken English, even by professional researchers. To gain a better understanding of the types of terminology used in the common names of bird species and their frequency of use, we used a crowdsourcing approach and recruited 85 professional ornithologists and non-professional participants to classify unique descriptors in the English-language common names of all recognized bird species from around the world. Each species' common name was assigned to one of ten categories associated with aspects of avian biology, ecology, or human culture. Across 10,906 species of birds, 89% have names describing the biology of the species, while the remaining 11% of species have names derived from human cultural references or local non-English languages. Species with common names based on features of avian biology are more likely to be related to each other or be from the same geographic region. The crowdsourced data collection also revealed that many common names contained specialized or historic terminology unknown to many of the data collectors, and this was documented in a glossary and gazetteer alongside the dataset. As the first comprehensive assessment of the state of terminology in English-language common names of birds, the AvianLexiconAtlas database sheds light on historical approaches to nomenclature and provides insight into how the general public currently engages with species through their names.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Footnotes* The title, abstract, introduction, and conclusion have been updated to present the new dataset, glossary, and gazetteer produced during this research as a research database, now called the AvianLexiconAtlas. Researchers from across academic fields can use the resources in this database to study the history of English-language bird names from a quantitative perspective. In the text we clarify the utility of this database as a resource, but have not changed any of the methods, analyses, figures, or supplemental files.* https://github.com/ajshultz/AvianLexiconAtlas

The effectiveness of pancreatic islet isolation must be maximized to make islet cell transplantation (ICT) a standard therapy. We have performed 100 human islet isolations at Baylor Research Institute including islet isolations for research, for clinical allogeneic transplantation, and for autologous islet transplantation. In this study, we analyzed the results of these isolations. First, we assessed 79 islet isolations using brain-dead donors to determine variables associated with successful islet isolation. Univariate logistic regression analysis revealed that seven variables influenced the success of islet isolation for allogeneic ICT: cause of death, mechanism of death, techniques for pancreas procurement and preservation, heavy fatty infiltration, collagenase type, dilution time, and islet purification method. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that only the current isolation protocol, the Baylor Islet Isolation Method (BIIM)-with its four required elements of pancreas procurement by the team, pancreatic ductal injection, the two-layer method with perfluorocarbon, and density-adjusted density gradient purification-had a significant positive impact on successful islet isolation (P = 0.02). Second, we compared allogeneic and autologous ICT using the BIIM. There were no significant differences in islet yields between allogeneic and autologous ICT using the BIIM; total islet yield after purification was 628 ± 84 × 10 3 IE in allogeneic ICT vs. 576 ± 49 × 10 3 IE in autologous ICT (P = 0.59). This retrospective study revealed that the BIIM provided favorable outcomes for both autologous and allogeneic ICT.

The goal of total pancreatectomy followed by autologous islet cell transplantation is to manage pain and prevent surgical diabetes for patients with severe chronic pancreatitis. We performed this procedure in 17 patients from November 2006 to October 2009 at Baylor University Medical Center. All patients were included in this retrospective study and were divided into two groups based on islet yield in the final product based on patient body weight: a low-yield group (<5000 IE/kg) and a high-yield group (≥5000 IE/kg). There were significant differences between the two groups in the rate of pancreatic findings on computed tomography (low vs high group, 88% vs 22%: P = 0.02), Cambridge classification score for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (3.8 ± 0.2 vs 2.1 ± 0.6: P = 0.03), number of positive endoscopic ultrasonography criteria (6.0 ± 0.8 vs 3.5 ± 0.4: P = 0.04), and distension score (1.9 ± 0.4 vs 3.7 ± 0.2: P = 0.006). A significant reduction in narcotics use after the operation was observed in both groups (P = 0.03 and P = 0.009 in the low and high groups, respectively, using a paired t test). Excellent graft function and glycemic control after the transplantation were also demonstrated in both groups. Patients in the high-yield group were in the early stage of chronic pancreatitis, which led to excellent pancreatic distention for islet isolation; however, the excellent clinical outcomes were observed in both low- and high-yield groups.