Institution
Danube University Krems
Education•Krems, Niederösterreich, Austria•
About: Danube University Krems is a education organization based out in Krems, Niederösterreich, Austria. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Stroke & Population. The organization has 498 authors who have published 1572 publications receiving 68797 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the implications of the situated cognition approach for describing the cognitive aspects of translation, using a translation management case study to discuss conceptual and methodological issues, are discussed. And the authors examine these approaches, their shared methodological tenets (i.e., ethnographic field studies) and their shared common methodological assumptions.
Abstract: Consideration of current developments in cognitive science is indispensable when defining research agendas addressing cognitive aspects of translation. One such development is the recognition of the extended nature of human cognition: Cognition is not just an information manipulation process in the brain, it is contextualised action embedded in a body and increasingly mediated by technologies and situated in its socio-cultural environment. Parallel developments are found in neighbouring disciplines, such as sociology with its actor-network and activity theories. This paper examines these approaches, their shared methodological tenets (i.e., ethnographic field studies) and the implications of the situated cognition approach for describing the cognitive aspects of translation, using a translation management case study to discuss conceptual and methodological issues.
58 citations
••
TL;DR: Although there was no significant association between visible dust exposure and increase of complaints after moving in, room climate conditions that could increase the deposition of dust in the airways were associated with the complaints, it cannot be ruled out that fine dust containing TBEP together with unfavorable indoor factors were responsible for the development of the complaints.
57 citations
••
University of Western Ontario1, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health2, University of Illinois at Chicago3, Heidelberg University4, University of California, Irvine5, University of Helsinki6, University of Massachusetts Medical School7, Danube University Krems8, University of Oxford9, Harvard University10, Novo Nordisk11, Royal Perth Hospital12, Karolinska Institutet13, Washington University in St. Louis14, University of Miami15, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill16, University of Cape Town17, Newcastle University18, Cornell University19, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul20, University of California, Los Angeles21, University Health Network22, Pfizer23, Duke University24, GlaxoSmithKline25, University of Texas at Austin26, King's College London27, University of Florida28, National Institutes of Health29, University of Freiburg30, Valley Hospital Medical Center31, Max Planck Society32, The Chinese University of Hong Kong33, University of Ottawa34, Lund University35, American Heart Association36, Tel Aviv University37, University of Melbourne38, university of lille39
TL;DR: The Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke by using a ‘Brain Health’ concept that enables promotion of preventive measures.
Abstract: Background and Purpose: The aim of the Synergium was to devise and prioritize new ways of accelerating progress in reducing the risks, effects, and consequences of stroke. Methods: Preliminary work was performed by 7 working groups of stroke leaders followed by a synergium (a forum for working synergistically together) with approximately 100 additional participants. The resulting draft document had further input from contributors outside the synergium. Results: Recommendations of the Synergium are: Basic Science, Drug Development and Technology: There is a need to develop: (1) New systems of working together to break down the prevalent 'silo' mentality; (2) New models of vertically integrated basic, clinical, and epidemiological disciplines; and (3) Efficient methods of identifying other relevant areas of science. Stroke Prevention: (1) Establish a global chronic disease prevention initiative with stroke as a major focus. (2) Recognize not only abrupt clinical stroke, but subtle subclinical stroke, the commonest type of cerebrovascular disease, leading to impairments of executive function. (3) Develop, implement and evaluate a population approach for stroke prevention. (4) Develop public health communication strategies using traditional and novel (e. g., social media/marketing) techniques. Acute Stroke Management: Continue the establishment of stroke centers, stroke units, regional systems of emergency stroke care and telestroke networks. Brain Recovery and Rehabilitation: (1) Translate best neuroscience, including animal and human studies, into poststroke recovery research and clinical care. (2) Standardize poststroke rehabilitation based on best evidence. (3) Develop consensus on, then implementation of, standardized clinical and surrogate assessments. (4) Carry out rigorous clinical research to advance stroke recovery. Into the 21st Century: Web, Technology and Communications: (1) Work toward global unrestricted access to stroke-related information. (2) Build centralized electronic archives and registries. Foster Cooperation Among Stakeholders (large stroke organizations, nongovernmental organizations, governments, patient organizations and industry) to enhance stroke care. Educate and energize professionals, patients, the public and policy makers by using a 'Brain Health' concept that enables promotion of preventive measures. Conclusions: To accelerate progress in stroke, we must reach beyond the current status scientifically, conceptually, and pragmatically. Advances can be made not only by doing, but ceasing to do. Significant savings in time, money, and effort could result from discontinuing practices driven by unsubstantiated opinion, unproven approaches, and financial gain. Systematic integration of knowledge into programs coupled with careful evaluation can speed the pace of progress. Copyright (C) 2010 American Heart Association. Inc., S. Karger AG, Basel, and John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Less)
57 citations
••
TL;DR: The introduction and use of the STROND checklist should lead to more consistent, transparent, and contextualized reporting of descriptive neuroepidemiologic studies resulting in more applicable and comparable findings and ultimately support better health care decisions.
Abstract: Background: Incidence and prevalence studies of neurologic disorders play an important role in assessing the burden of disease and planning services. However, the assessment of disease estimates is hindered by problems in reporting for such studies. Despite a growth in published reports, existing guidelines relate to analytical rather than descriptive epidemiologic studies. There are also no user-friendly tools (e.g., checklists) available for authors, editors, and peer reviewers to facilitate best practice in reporting of descriptive epidemiologic studies for most neurologic disorders. Objective: The Standards of Reporting of Neurological Disorders (STROND) is a guideline that consists of recommendations and a checklist to facilitate better reporting of published incidence and prevalence studies of neurologic disorders. Methods: A review of previously developed guidance was used to produce a list of items required for incidence and prevalence studies in neurology. A 3-round Delphi technique was used to identify the “basic minimum items” important for reporting, as well as some additional “ideal reporting items.” An e-consultation process was then used in order to gauge opinion by external neuroepidemiologic experts on the appropriateness of the items included in the checklist. Findings: Of 38 candidate items, 15 items and accompanying recommendations were developed along with a user-friendly checklist. Conclusions: The introduction and use of the STROND checklist should lead to more consistent, transparent, and contextualized reporting of descriptive neuroepidemiologic studies resulting in more applicable and comparable findings and ultimately support better health care decisions.
57 citations
••
TL;DR: It is found that the conditions used during immobilization of the antibody profoundly influenced the biocompatibility of the resulting adsorbents, especially with respect to activation of the complement system.
57 citations
Authors
Showing all 514 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Jaakko Tuomilehto | 115 | 1285 | 210682 |
Massimo Zeviani | 104 | 478 | 39743 |
J. Tuomilehto | 69 | 197 | 19801 |
Manfred Reichert | 67 | 695 | 19569 |
Roland W. Scholz | 64 | 289 | 15387 |
Michael Brainin | 55 | 215 | 44194 |
Gerald Gartlehner | 54 | 295 | 15320 |
Thomas Schrefl | 50 | 403 | 10867 |
Charity G. Moore | 50 | 179 | 11040 |
Josef Finsterer | 48 | 1479 | 13836 |
Silvia Miksch | 44 | 264 | 7790 |
J. Tuomilehto | 44 | 107 | 11425 |
Heinrich Schima | 43 | 249 | 5973 |
Reinhard Bauer | 40 | 228 | 5435 |
Thomas Groth | 38 | 186 | 5191 |