Pat on the back

When you write a scientific paper, you know that some interested people will have a look at it…

When you write a blog post, you hope that some interested people will have a look at it…

So, when another researcher from your research field sends you a message to tell you that he finds the blog interesting and that he will suggest his students to follow it, this is a real pat on the back !

I would be lying if I told you that there is not some days when I wonder if I continue to blog or not. Sure, you need to do this for yourself, but it is far more cooler if you are able to reach a couple of readers at the same time.

I understand that this blog is increasingly devoted to cerebrovascular physiology. Thus, I won’t attract readers not interested in that topic. Still, I would really like this blog to become a place where undergrad and grad students as well as researchers interested in cerebrovascular physiology can exchange.

Now that I know that, on top of a couple of regular readers, at least one researcher in my research field follows this blog, it gives me a good reason to continue to share stories related to cerebrovascular physiology!

Thank you !


4 thoughts on “Pat on the back

  1. I really appreciate it too! As a novice in this field I have found your descriptions and links very useful. I find that the methods sections of many CBF papers are not very good – as a young scientist this can be hard if you are trying to use other papers to make sure that you are doing things in the accepted ways of the field. I would appreciate a methods discussion sometime too! I will try to come up with some specific questions and send them along if you like.

    1. Thank you ! You are one of the regular readers I was referring to ! I agree that it could be very interesting to have methods discussion here. Methods sections are not always easy to follow in some papers. I will try to come up with such posts in upcoming weeks. In the meantime, you can indeed send me questions and I will try to answer it (I am still a young scientist with just a couple years of experience in the field :-))

  2. Here are two things that are quite unclear to me:

    Why do some researchers describe mean CBFV as the arithmetic mean, while others use the integral under the envelope of the CBFV tracing? Surely the latter is more important, as it is the waveform that seems to be sensitive to perturbations rather than the raw SBF and DBF.

    Is there a way to determine how to curve fit the relationship between PETCO2 and cerebral blood flow. Many seem to continue to define this as a linear relationship, yet other recent research groups have shown that this should be a sigmoidal relationship (even when these two groups seem to be working in the same PETCO2 ranges). Furthermore, if you are looking at CO2 reactivity at resting conditions and after perturbation X, what if one of the effects of the perturbation x is in fact altering the shape of the relationship between PETCO2 and CBF.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s