Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Leacy, Reade De

  • Google
  • 1
  • 10
  • 27

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2022Portable stroke detection devices: a systematic scoping review of prehospital applications27citations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Kalagara, Roshini
1 / 2 shared
Chennareddy, Susmita
1 / 1 shared
Kellner, Christopher P.
1 / 1 shared
Fifi, Johanna T.
1 / 1 shared
Mokin, Maxim
1 / 1 shared
Shapiro, Steven
1 / 1 shared
Mocco, J.
1 / 2 shared
Liang, John
1 / 1 shared
Bhimani, Abhiraj
1 / 1 shared
Matsoukas, Stavros
1 / 1 shared
Chart of publication period
2022

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Kalagara, Roshini
  • Chennareddy, Susmita
  • Kellner, Christopher P.
  • Fifi, Johanna T.
  • Mokin, Maxim
  • Shapiro, Steven
  • Mocco, J.
  • Liang, John
  • Bhimani, Abhiraj
  • Matsoukas, Stavros
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Portable stroke detection devices: a systematic scoping review of prehospital applications

  • Kalagara, Roshini
  • Chennareddy, Susmita
  • Kellner, Christopher P.
  • Fifi, Johanna T.
  • Mokin, Maxim
  • Leacy, Reade De
  • Shapiro, Steven
  • Mocco, J.
  • Liang, John
  • Bhimani, Abhiraj
  • Matsoukas, Stavros
Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>The worldwide burden of stroke remains high, with increasing time-to-treatment correlated with worse outcomes. Yet stroke subtype determination, most importantly between stroke/non-stroke and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke, is not confirmed until hospital CT diagnosis, resulting in suboptimal prehospital triage and delayed treatment. In this study, we survey portable, non-invasive diagnostic technologies that could streamline triage by making this initial determination of stroke type, thereby reducing time-to-treatment.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a scoping review of portable stroke diagnostic devices. The search was executed in PubMed and Scopus, and all studies testing technology for the detection of stroke or intracranial hemorrhage were eligible for inclusion. Extracted data included type of technology, location, feasibility, time to results, and diagnostic accuracy.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>After a screening of 296 studies, 16 papers were selected for inclusion. Studied devices utilized various types of diagnostic technology, including near-infrared spectroscopy (6), ultrasound (4), electroencephalography (4), microwave technology (1), and volumetric impedance spectroscopy (1). Three devices were tested prior to hospital arrival, 6 were tested in the emergency department, and 7 were tested in unspecified hospital settings. Median measurement time was 3 minutes (IQR: 3 minutes to 5.6 minutes). Several technologies showed high diagnostic accuracy in severe stroke and intracranial hematoma detection.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Numerous emerging portable technologies have been reported to detect and stratify stroke to potentially improve prehospital triage. However, the majority of these current technologies are still in development and utilize a variety of accuracy metrics, making inter-technology comparisons difficult. Standardizing evaluation of diagnostic accuracy may be helpful in further optimizing portable stroke detection technology for clinical use.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • inclusion
  • size-exclusion chromatography
  • infrared spectroscopy
  • Near-infrared spectroscopy