No abstract

Framework materials, including metal–organic framework materials (MOFs), Prussian blue/Prussian blue analogs (PB/PBAs), and covalent framework materials (COFs), are promising candidates for fabricating electrodes for use in electrochemical devices, especially supercapacitors. Supercapacitors have been widely investigated over the past decade. Active materials as electrode materials are vital to the development of the next generation of supercapacitors. Therefore, designing and fabricating novel electrode materials endowed with superior specific capacitance, perfect cycling stabilities, and distinguished power/energy density are crucial. In this review, we focus on framework materials – MOFs, PB/PBAs, and COFs – and report electrode materials based on their pristine forms, derivatives, and composites for supercapacitors. Recent advances and potential applications of framework materials in supercapacitors are also discussed. Furthermore, we discuss the opportunities and challenges for the future direction of supercapacitors based on framework materials.

Background and purposeThe ideal stroke classification system needs to have validity, high reliability and applicability among different stroke research settings. The Chinese Ischemic Stroke Subclassification (CISS) and the Subtypes of Ischemic Stroke Classification System (SPARKLE) have emerged recently but have not been tested using agreement analysis. As a result, the objective of this study is to investigate the level of agreement among stroke subtype classifications using CISS, SPARKLE and Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST). We also analyse the inter-rater reliability of CISS.MethodsThe data include 623 inpatients who have had an ischaemic stroke, accrued from Beijing Tiantan Hospital between 1 October 2015 and 19 April 2016. According to the diagnostic standards of the three subtype classification systems, 299 inpatients who satisfied the requirements of our study were independently classified with etiological subtypes, and we compared the three subclassifications.ResultsThere was substantial overall agreement among the three classification systems: CISS versus SPARKLE (kappa value=0.684, p<0.001), CISS versus TOAST (kappa value=0.615, p<0.001) and SPARKLE versus TOAST (kappa value=0.675, p<0.001). The inter-rater reliability of CISS was excellent (kappa value=0.857, p<0.001). Furthermore, among the three subtype classification systems, the variance analysis results of the etiological subtypes were not uniform.ConclusionThere were generally substantial agreements among three ischaemic stroke etiological classification systems. CISS is a valid and reliable classification system, with which different stroke research centres can apply and compare data.

No abstract