\end{frame}
-% \begin{frame}
+\begin{frame}
-% \frametitle{Wikipedia Viewership and Flu Prediction: Methods}
+\frametitle{Quality of drug articles: PLoS One}
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \larger \larger \larger
+ \item Selected 100 drugs from German undergrad curriculum in pharmacology
+ \item Extracted information from two standard textbooks
+ \item "Accuracy of drug information in [German] Wikipedia was 99.7\%±0.2\% when compared to the textbook data." Similar results for English Wikipedia
+ \end{itemize}
+
+\end{frame}
+
+
+\begin{frame}
+
+\frametitle{Quality of drug articles: PLoS One}
+
+ \begin{itemize}
+ \larger \larger \larger
+ \item Completeness (as compared to the textbooks):
+ \begin{itemize} \larger \larger
+ \item 83.8\% (of 224 statements) for German WP
+ \item 87.2\% for English WP
+ \end{itemize}
+ \item Completeness of contraindications information was 100\% in the En WP sample.
+ \item English WP cited academic publications more often than German WP.
+ \item Quality "significantly improved" in drug articles assessed
+ in a 2010 study.
+ \end{itemize}
+
+ \note{Tilman
+
+ The majority of the missing information (62.5\%) on German WP
+ was judged non-relevant for undergrad students.
+
+ The result on completeness of contraindications information is
+ somewhat in contrast with the NEJM study. Then again, the
+ textbooks were probably not perfectly up-to-date either.}
+\end{frame}
-% \begin{itemize}
-% \larger \larger \larger
-% \item Measure traffic to flu related articles on Wikipedia
-% \item Compare to the ``gold standard'' data from the Center for
-% Disease Control (CDC)
-% \end{itemize}
-% \end{frame}
% \begin{frame}
% \frametitle{Wikipedia Viewership and Flu Prediction: Results}