LV Yang Xu & Citation Scores

[Guest guest]

Hi Par, Clayton & All,

 

Clayton wrote:

> The only oddity, really, is in the way we express the concept in words.

> After looking at your search protocols, I noticed that you didn't use

> " Deficient Liver Qi " to examine the deficiency of Liver Yang, nor did

> you use " Deficient Lung Qi " to examine the concept of Deficient Lung

> Yang.

 

Here are the results for those searches:

 

KIDNEY Qi Xu in Hanzi: " " : 133,000 hits: http://tinyurl.com/2bomol

" Deficient Kidney Qi " 93 http://tinyurl.com/24tze5

 

SPLEEN Qi Xu in Hanzi: " " : 125,000 hits: http://tinyurl.com/232cg5

" Deficient Spleen Qi " 299 http://tinyurl.com/2b6ev8

 

LUNG Qi Xu in Hanzi: " " : 87,300 hits http://tinyurl.com/yoqbph

" Deficient Lung Qi " 160 http://tinyurl.com/23xza7

 

HEART Qi Xu in Hanzi: " " : 57,600 hits: http://tinyurl.com/2hlrx5

" Deficient Heart Qi " 81 http://tinyurl.com/2zg5n8

 

LIVER Qi Xu in Hanzi: " " : 12,000 hits: http://tinyurl.com/2zhwt6

" Deficient Liver Qi " 15 http://tinyurl.com/yo2lea

 

Relative to its ranking in the Yang Xu search (yesterday's post), LU scores

better in the Qi Xu search, whether in English or Hanzi. However, as before,

LV ends up with relatively low citation scores.

 

> I never thought of looking at the number of Google Hits to determine if

> something " exists. " It's one operational definition, I suppose.

 

Clayton, the issue is NOT the existence or otherwise of LV Yang Xu / LU

Yang Xu! There are infinite realities but most of us meet (or recognise as

having met) few of them in our lives. Indeed the Classics say that

everything has yin and yang aspects, even yin and yang themselves.

 

The question that I posed is about the clinical relevance of LV Yang Xu / LU

Yang Xu, based on citation scores, relative to citation scores of the similar

concept for KI Yang Xu / SP Yang Xu & HT Yang Xu.

 

Citation Frequency Scoring is a standard tool used in assessing the impact

of concepts or publications in many fields - scientific, medical, artistic,

social, etc. See: http://tinyurl.com/23mpos

 

Because of the heavy amount of commercial and wishful-thinking material

on it, Google is not a recognised scientific tool at this stage. However, the

RELATIVE rankings of Google hits for concepts worded in a similar way is

(IMO) a pretty good indicator of the public impact (or otherwise) of those

concepts.

 

Perhaps Medline or " Google Scholar " (much more discerning and focusing

on more technical and peer-reviewed material) would be better indicators

as regards frequency citation of the concepts in peer-reviewed articles.

 

Would you care to do those searches?

 

Best regards,