No abstract

PurposeThe similarities between the developments of the United States (U.S.) and China into global powers (countries with global economic, military, and political influence) can be analyzed through big data analysis from both countries. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether or not China is on the same path to becoming a world power like what the U.S. did one hundred years ago.Design/methodology/approachThe data of this study is drawn from political rhetoric and linguistic analysis by using “big data” technology to identify the most common words and political trends over time from speeches made by the U.S. and Chinese leaders from three periods, including 1905-1945 in U.S., 1977-2017 in U.S. and 1977-2017 in China.FindingsRhetoric relating to national identity was most common amongst Chinese and the U.S. leaders over time. The differences between the early-modern U.S. and the current U.S. showed the behavioral changes of countries as they become powerful. It is concluded that China is not a world power at this stage. Yet, it is currently on the path towards becoming one, and is already reflecting characteristics of present-day U.S., a current world power.Originality/valueThis paper presents a novel approach to analyze historical documents through big data text mining, a methodology scarcely used in historical studies. It highlights how China as of now is most likely in a transitionary stage of becoming a world power.

Introduction: FRONTIER (NCT02315443) and ESCAPE-NA1 (NCT02930018) are two pivotal trials investigating the safety and efficacy of the neuroprotectant NA-1 in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). NA-1 administration is weight-based (2.6mg/Kg), requiring the rapid estimation of body weight by paramedics in the field (FRONTIER) and by hospital staff upon ED arrival (ESCAPE-NA1). Alteplase, which is administered after hospital arrival, also requires weight-based dosing. Here we evaluated the accuracy of the body weight estimated by paramedics and by hospital staff prior to administering study drug (NA-1 or placebo) as compared to the actual subject weight collected using in-hospital scales during the subsequent in-hospital stay. Methodology: In both these studies, FRONTIER and ESCAPE-NA1, paramedics in the field and Hospital staff will be determining weight by first asking the subject, second asking a family member or third by estimation. Subsequently, in each trial, in-hospital scales are used during the subject’s admission to measure body weight accurately. The subject’s actual weight will be measured in hospital using standard hospital scales (i.e., stand up or in-bed scales if the subject is not ambulatory), as soon as possible, but within five days. Data were obtained from the trial database. Results: As of August 1 st 2018, 264 subjects were enrolled in FRONTIER of which 206 had all body weight data available, and 444 subjects were enrolled in ESCAPE-NA1 of which 218 had all body weight data available. As compared with in-hospital scales, paramedics over estimated patient weight by an average of 2.57 kg (SD = 6.94 P< 0.001). In-hospital staff under estimated patient weight by an average of 1.82kg (SD = 8.93 P=0.003). The difference is statistically significant but not clinically meaningful. Overall, the weight estimated by paramedics and by hospital staff was 93% accurate, when compared to the actual weight collected. Conclusion: Both paramedics and hospital staff were mostly accurate when estimating patient weight in the acute care settings of FRONTIER and ESCAPE-NA1. This suggests that when time is of the essence, weight may be estimated effectively for the purpose of administering stroke drugs.