Latin Abbreviations Research Articles

Medicine Box: Doctor’s Prescription Recognition Using Deep Machine Learning

A Doctor’s prescription is a handwritten document written by doctors in the form of instructions that describes list of drugs for patients in time sickness, injuries and other disability problems. While we receiving a new prescription from doctor, it is unable to understand what drug name is prescribed on it. In most cases, however, we wouldn't be able to read it anyway because doctors use Latin abbreviations and medical terminologies on prescriptions that are not understandable by the general persons which make reading it very difficult. According to the National Academy of Sciences estimates that at least 1.5 million peoples are sickened, injured or killed each year by errors while reading prescription. This paper resolves the problems in doctor’s prescriptions through Medicine Box, and Smart phone application that uses Conventional Neural Network (CNN) to recognize handwritten medicine names and return readable digital text. This mobile application uses TensorFlow as the machine learning library, and Custom Repository to match the partial string with the drug name. With Medicine Box, cases of misinterpretation of medicine names can be decreased. This makes the ordinary persons to understand what doctor is prescribed in the prescription and also help for pharmacists.

Community pharmacists’ interventions with electronic prescriptions in England: an exploratory study

Background Prescribing errors in primary care are problematic. The electronic prescription service (EPS) is an English electronic system linking prescribing, dispensing and reimbursement, designed to rectify some of the problems associated with paper-based prescribing. Objective To document the numbers and types of interventions made by community pharmacists and their staff using EPS release 2 (EPSR2), compare these with those made for other prescription types, and comment on potential effects of EPSR2 on pharmacy practice. Methods We invited staff in 15 community pharmacies to record problems encountered arising from failures in prescribing, dispensing or supply systems for prescribed medication, for a 2 week period. Results Eight pharmacies participated, of which five used EPSR2. These pharmacies reported 69 problems with 68 prescriptions (median 7.5 problems per pharmacy, range 2–22). A total of 33 problems were clinical in nature and 6 were organisational or logistical in origin. Thirty unsigned prescriptions were reported, all non-EPSR2. Of the 69 problems, eight were primarily related to EPSR2 functionality. Conclusion EPSR2 should reduce the number of unsigned prescriptions in circulation. However, prescribers should avoid the use of Latin abbreviations that cannot be interpreted directly by patients, and consider the compatibility of regularly prescribed items with the NHS dictionary of medicines and devices.

Patients’ understanding of prescription instructions in a semi-urban setting in Cameroon

ObjectiveThis cross-sectional study investigates the factors associated with patient comprehension of frequently used prescription patterns and explores patients’ preferences for the various methods. MethodsWe interviewed two hundred and four consenting patients selected consecutively from the waiting rooms of the St. Elizabeth Catholic Hospital-Shisong in the North West Region of Cameroon. We recorded socio-demographic data and their understanding and preference for four prescription modalities: pictograms, written out, symbols and Latin abbreviations. We studied the relationship between these variables in a logistic multivariate analysis. ResultsUnderstanding was best with symbols (89.7%) and worst when Latin abbreviations (26.9%) were used. Higher levels of education were associated with better understanding of Latin abbreviations (OR 18.87; 95% CI 2.44–142.86), written out prescriptions (OR 58.82; 95% CI 23.25–333.33), symbols (OR 1.47; 95% CI 4.25–50.00) and pictograms (OR 52.63; 92% CI 1.85–142.86) after controlling for confounding. Participants mostly preferred pictograms (40.7%) and written-out prescriptions (30.9%). ConclusionLatin abbreviations were the most difficult to understand and should no longer be used. Symbols are more easily understood. Practice implicationsLatin abbreviations should be discouraged. Symbols are better, especially for patients with low levels of education. Prescribing using pictograms and plain text may facilitate understanding in this setting.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This volume has been many years in the making. I first discovered examples of wives and husbands suing each other in Requests in 1989 while pursuing doctoral research. Pat Stretton and Jane Martindale independently suggested that the cases were worthy of publication, and Jane helped to bring this idea to the attention of the literary editors of the Royal Historical Society. I thank them both. Since then the editors of the Camden Series, Andrew Pettegree and Ian Archer, have provided support and shown unstinting patience for a project that has seasonally burst the banks of its projected deadlines. I am grateful to them, to the anonymous reviewer of the original proposal for pointing out the need to determine the frequency with which cases of this type came into Requests, and to the National Archives for permitting the cases to be reproduced. For financial support I wish to acknowledge the generosity of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, grant-giving bodies within Waikato University, Dalhousie University, and Saint Mary's University, and Lyndan Warner. A number of scholars, archivists, and friends have provided advice as well as technical help in identifying legal counsel, deciphering handwriting, and translating Latin abbreviations. I would like to thank Christopher Brooks, Sara Butler, Sabina Flannagan, Elizabeth Foyster, Lamar Hill, Martin Holt, Wilfrid Prest, and the helpful staff at the National Archives, especially Amanda Bevan, Sean Cunningham, Alistair Hanson, and Malcolm Mercer. All of them are absolved of responsibility for any of the errors that remain. For the generosity of their hospitality during the compiling and editing of this volume, I would like to offer my gratitude to Gareth Edwards, Frances Wedgwood, Nick Manglaras, Francesca Amirato, and the Tewsons. Final thanks go to Lyndan Warner, for her support, her comments on the introduction, and her willingness to look after our children while I made annual visits to London and Kew.

It's Time to Throw Out Old-Fashioned Latin Abbreviations

It's Time to Throw Out Old-Fashioned Latin Abbreviations

Richard Rufus of Cornwall In Physicam Aristotelis (review)

531 Franciscan Studies 63 (2005) BOOK REVIEWS Rega Wood, ed. Richard Rufus of Cornwall In Physicam Aristotelis (Auctores Britannici Medii Aevi XVI.) Published for The British Academy by Oxford University Press, 2003. Pages: xix + 300. Prof. Rega Wood of Stanford University here edits a series of lectures on Aristotle’s Physics. She describes the sole known manuscript containing the text, attributes and dates the commentary, and explains her editorial method. The result is an exemplary edition. The text so edited will play a role in a further publication that Wood has been preparing. She refers to it as forthcoming on page 3: Richard Rufus of Cornwall and the Origins of Scholasticism. The edited text is early enough as to figure prominently in an account of “the origins of scholasticism.” As Rega Wood points out in her introduction (2), those who lectured on Aristotle’s writings brought about the change in the curriculum of the medieval university, from the classical trivium and quadrivium to what we call scholasticism. Understandably, then, while examining the lectures in question, word by word as editorial work demands, she uses her thorough familiarity with the text to fit it firmly in the known corpus of the one to whom she attributes the lectures, the Franciscan Richard Rufus of Cornwall. Seeing as she has but one manuscript for the edition, Erfurt Quarto 312, Dr. Wood looks at it very closely. It is a composite manuscript , bound together under the care of Amplonius de Bercka in the early fifteenth century. Wood explains how it was put together and then describes its contents. She is interested primarily in the first fourteen folios (1ra-14ra). They contain In Physicam Aristotelis, the lectures or commentary on Aristotle’s Physics. This and other parts of the manuscript were written at Oxford somewhat before 1250. Wood tells us as well about the other pieces in the manuscript. Five of them can be ascribed to Richard Rufus. As for the edition itself, though drawn from but one source, Dr. Wood points out that she did have a good manuscript to work with. 532 BOOK REVIEWS She also drew parallel texts into her study of the one manuscript, providing her with some context for her readings. Then a group of scholars went through the text to check on Wood’s results. The manuscript contains abbreviations that can be read in different ways. Wood lists thirty-eight of them. She reads them as the intelligibility of the text suggests. (Wood also contributes eighteen novel abbreviations to Abbreviationes , the electronic dictionary of medieval Latin abbreviations developed by Dr. Olaf Pluta, Bochum University.) Dr. Wood explains how she presents the text, with her paragraphs and punctuation. Consequently she has good reason for the edition’s details. Scholars will question some of them, dependent as the details are on the editor’s judgment, but no critic can demand more from the edition. Questions about a reading are put into the variant apparatus. A second and substantial apparatus contains references to Rufus’ auctoritates, to unusual terms explained by comparison with those of other authors, and to other contemporary material helpful for placing Rufus. Dr. Wood has contributed an edition of rare quality to the study of Aristotle’s writings in the early thirteenth century. There is a further question, adumbrated above. It has to do with “the origins of scholasticism” and Richard Rufus’s role in the process. Dr. Wood shows the importance of the commentary by reviewing its proposals on projectile motion, heaven’s place, and the beginning of the world. The commentary unpacked the challenge of Aristotle’s natural philosophy to Christian understanding. She ascribes the commentary to Richard Rufus because of references to it in Rufus’s own writings and in lectures by others. Here a commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics with five references to the commentary on Aristotle’s Physics plays a central role in the argument. The Metaphysics commentary allows the conclusion that the same author wrote both commentaries and the author was Rufus. Wood also offers evidence that the views in the Physics commentary are characteristic of Richard Rufus as seen in other writings of his. Furthermore, she points out that, in 1320, Francis...

Translationes Patristicae Graecae et Latinae: Bibliographie der Ubersetzungen altchristlicher Quellen

Translationes Patristicae Graecae et Latinae: Bibliographie der Ubersetzungen altchristlicher Quellen, Erster Teil, A-H, by Adalbert Keller. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1997. Pp. xxxii + 454. EUR225.00. Noting the increase in interest in patristics and the simultaneous decline in the linguistic preparation needed for engaging the primary sources (p. xiii), Adalbert Keller has begun a most welcome project-creating a multilingual bibliography for early Christian sources available in translation. It is designed to facilitate study by specialists and students in history, theology and philosophy, as well as clergy. But the technical reference of this work means that it will be a valuable resource primarily for researchers and professionals with an interest in patristics: only very mature students Will have much use for it. Keller records translations into German, English, French, Italian, and Spanish (when necessary distinguishing Catalonian translations). The introductory notes likewise appear in the full complement of those languages. The scope of the bibliography is impressive. The first volume includes entries for some 220 authors, from Abramius, a sixth-century archbishop of Ephesus, to the fourth- to fifth-century desert father Hyperechius. It will be noted that the names of authors, as well as the names of the works and the book's scholarly apparatus, appear in Latin. While this might seem a touch retrograde, it is actually a commendable decision. The notes in the vernacular thoroughly explain the Latin abbreviations used throughout the book. And, if only for the titles of patristic works, Latin remains the standard international language. Certainly it takes very little cleverness to figure out that Benedictus, Benedict, Benoit, Benedetto, and Benito all refer to the same person. But proliferation and variations in modern translations often make it a very complicated ordeal to track down a particular title or to distinguish between authors with similar names. In addition, the great standard reference works, most notably E. Dekkers's Clavis Patrum Latinorum (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995) and M. Geerard's Clavis Patrum Graecorum I-V (Turnhout: Brepols, 1974-87), persist in using Latin. Keller's book is fully integrated with those books, and this compatibility makes the book extremely useful. Keller also made an excellent decision when he opted to include references to untranslated works. As a consequence of this, the records for each author are much more complete than they would otherwise be. For instance, Keller's entry for Anastasius of Sinai has twelve entries, of which only one has yet been translated. This is a bleak situation for would-be readers who have little or no Greek, but anyone looking for translations of Anastasius of Sinai will have at least the dubious comfort of knowing precisely what is currently available. And when researching the fathers, certainty in knowing what has not been translated can be as important as certainty in knowing what has been translated. There is a consequence of Keller's decision to consider only Latin and Greek authors that might not be immediately obvious to a general audience. The emphasis is placed on authors rather than texts, which is accounted for by the possibility that texts originally written in Greek may survive only in ancient Latin translations (ancient Greek translations of Latin works are scarce). But in fact the world of late antique Christians was characterized by substantial diversity of languages and cultures. Greek and Latin were the linguae francae of that time, but we should not lose sight of the vibrant Christian cultures of Asia Minor, Egypt, and the Middle East. This is relevant for the subject at hand because in numerous cases the only surviving witness (or the most complete witnesses) of patristic writings are preserved in Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, Syriac, and even early Arabic. …

Latin Abbreviations: Safe for Patients or Antique Baggage?

Latin Abbreviations: Safe for Patients or Antique Baggage?

Glossary of Latin Abbreviations used in the Prescriptions

Glossary of Latin Abbreviations used in the Prescriptions

Some Reminders About Prescription Writing

A prescription is a written order by a physician to a pharmacist to dispense a therapeutic agent to a patient. This therapeutic transaction is the sum of the physician's evaluation of the problem (the history, physical examination, diagnostic tests, decision on treatment, and prognosis). On this single sheet of paper are the final results of the physician's education, experience, and diagnostic acumen. The prescribing physician should use a drug only if necessary and should choose the safest and most effective agent with which he has knowledge and experience. The physician should know the ingredients that make up the contents of the drug, not only the active ingredients, but inactive ingredients as well, such as the sugar content, the alcohol content, preservatives, emulsifiers, fillers, and stabilizers. HOW TO WRITE A GOOD PRESCRIPTION 1. Write or print the prescription legibly. If the physician has poor writing, preprinted or typed prescriptions may help. 2. Spell the name(s) of the drug(s) correctly, especially in view of the number of "look-alikes" and "sound-alikes." Get in the habit of writing both the trade and generic names. 3. Write the prescription in proper English grammar. Latin abbreviations such as q.i.d. may be interpreted as q.d. and are no longer recommended. Avoid phrases such as "as directed" or "as needed." Specify exact times to be taken: daytime hours, around the clock, and relationship to meals.

Some Reminders About Prescription Writing

A prescription is a written order by a physician to a pharmacist to dispense a therapeutic agent to a patient. This therapeutic transaction is the sum of the physician9s evaluation of the problem (the history, physical examination, diagnostic tests, decision on treatment, and prognosis). On this single sheet of paper are the final results of the physician9s education, experience, and diagnostic acumen. The prescribing physician should use a drug only if necessary and should choose the safest and most effective agent with which he has knowledge and experience. The physician should know the ingredients that make up the contents of the drug, not only the active ingredients, but inactive ingredients well, such the sugar content, the alcohol content, preservatives, emulsifiers, fillers, and stabilizers. HOW TO WRITE A GOOD PRESCRIPTION 1. Write or print the prescription legibly. If the physician has poor writing, preprinted or typed prescriptions may help. 2. Spell the name(s) of the drug(s) correctly, especially in view of the number of look-alikes and sound-alikes. Get in the habit of writing both the trade and generic names. 3. Write the prescription in proper English grammar. Latin abbreviations such q.i.d. may be interpreted q.d. and are no longer recommended. Avoid phrases such as directed or as needed. Specify exact times to be taken: daytime hours, around the clock, and relationship to meals.

Putting zip in prescription writing a proposal.

For centuries tedious, often confusing Latin abbreviations have been used in writing prescriptions. A simple four-digit (zip) code is proposed as a new method of writing directions for most drug regimens.

Ateco of Old Carlisle

An inscription found in 1803 at Old Carlisle ( Olerica or Olenacum ) has recently been the subject of some comment. R. G. Collingwood and R. P. Wright transcribe the text as: T(errae) Bata/u(o)r(um) Ate(ius) / Coc(ceianus) Au/g(usti seruus) uot(o) / s(olutus) l(ibens) a(nimo) fe(cit) . They translate this: ‘To the Land of the Batavians Ateius Cocceianus, an imperial slave, made this willingly when released from his vow.’ It was this intepretation and expansion which caused Professor A. E. Gordon, the leading authority on Latin abbreviations, to comment: ‘Sometimes the expansion of the unusually large number of abbreviations arouses both admiration and skepticism.’

Grafías latinas y grafías romances: a propósito de los materiales «ortográficos» en el último tomo de la edición crítica de la vulgata

The study of orthographic variants as exemplified by the Benedictines of St. Jerome in vol. XIII of their critical edition of the Vulgate is of particular interest to Hispanists for the phonetic traits suggested by MSS written hispane and hispanissime , and of general interest because it challenges the connotation of certain graphs considered by editors of early Romance texts as learned and opens up the problem of the interpretation of Latin abbreviations in vernacular context.

О ПИТАЊИМА ЛАТИНСКИХ КРАТИЦА НА ДИПЛОМАТИЧКИМ ПОВЕЉАМА

Кратице, интерпункције, сигле, те друге врсте кратица и бројевним знацима биле суставни део и старовековних а посебно средњовековних повеља. Како је израда материјала за писање била веома скупоцена, посебно коже (пергамене), прибегавало се скраћивању речи у тексту како би се на мањем простору могло написати што више текста. Сложеност проблематике јест да је свака канцеларија и регија те врста латинског писма (од каролине, беневентане, куријале до готице и хуманистике) имала свој систем скраћивања слова. Начин дешифровања појединих скраћеница у повељама јест на граници науке и уметности, а у којем су неки ауторитети имали своје својствене ставове и решења. Дешифровање и ишчитавање латинских рукописа је дипломатици и палеографији дала врло важно место у помоћним историјским наукама, а на чему се заснива једно од темељних делова развоја историјске науке уопште.