scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Drexel University

EducationPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
About: Drexel University is a education organization based out in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 26770 authors who have published 51438 publications receiving 1949443 citations. The organization is also known as: Drexel & Drexel Institute.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A short cervical length and a raised cervical-vaginal fetal fibronectin concentration are the strongest predictors of spontaneous preterm birth.

6,275 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The article presents a running example which analyzes the same dataset via three very different statistical techniques and compares two classes of SEM: covariance-based SEM and partial-least-squaresbased SEM, and discusses linear regression models and guidelines as to when SEM techniques and when regression techniques should be used.
Abstract: The growing interest in Structured Equation Modeling (SEM) techniques and recognition of their importance in IS research suggests the need to compare and contrast different types of SEM techniques so that research designs can be selected appropriately. After assessing the extent to which these techniques are currently being used in IS research, the article presents a running example which analyzes the same dataset via three very different statistical techniques. It then compares two classes of SEM: covariance-based SEM and partial-least-squaresbased SEM. Finally, the article discusses linear regression models and offers guidelines as to when SEM techniques and when regression techniques should be used. The article concludes with heuristics and rule of thumb thresholds to guide practice, and a discussion of the extent to which practice is in accord with these guidelines.

5,688 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A series of improvements to the spectroscopic reductions are described, including better flat fielding and improved wavelength calibration at the blue end, better processing of objects with extremely strong narrow emission lines, and an improved determination of stellar metallicities.
Abstract: This paper describes the Seventh Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), marking the completion of the original goals of the SDSS and the end of the phase known as SDSS-II. It includes 11,663 deg^2 of imaging data, with most of the ~2000 deg^2 increment over the previous data release lying in regions of low Galactic latitude. The catalog contains five-band photometry for 357 million distinct objects. The survey also includes repeat photometry on a 120° long, 2°.5 wide stripe along the celestial equator in the Southern Galactic Cap, with some regions covered by as many as 90 individual imaging runs. We include a co-addition of the best of these data, going roughly 2 mag fainter than the main survey over 250 deg^2. The survey has completed spectroscopy over 9380 deg^2; the spectroscopy is now complete over a large contiguous area of the Northern Galactic Cap, closing the gap that was present in previous data releases. There are over 1.6 million spectra in total, including 930,000 galaxies, 120,000 quasars, and 460,000 stars. The data release includes improved stellar photometry at low Galactic latitude. The astrometry has all been recalibrated with the second version of the USNO CCD Astrograph Catalog, reducing the rms statistical errors at the bright end to 45 milliarcseconds per coordinate. We further quantify a systematic error in bright galaxy photometry due to poor sky determination; this problem is less severe than previously reported for the majority of galaxies. Finally, we describe a series of improvements to the spectroscopic reductions, including better flat fielding and improved wavelength calibration at the blue end, better processing of objects with extremely strong narrow emission lines, and an improved determination of stellar metallicities.

5,665 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Gregory A. Roth1, Gregory A. Roth2, Degu Abate3, Kalkidan Hassen Abate4  +1025 moreInstitutions (333)
TL;DR: Non-communicable diseases comprised the greatest fraction of deaths, contributing to 73·4% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 72·5–74·1) of total deaths in 2017, while communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional causes accounted for 18·6% (17·9–19·6), and injuries 8·0% (7·7–8·2).

5,211 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

5,187 citations


Authors

Showing all 26976 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
John Q. Trojanowski2261467213948
Peter Libby211932182724
Virginia M.-Y. Lee194993148820
Yury Gogotsi171956144520
Dennis R. Burton16468390959
M.-Marsel Mesulam15055890772
Edward G. Lakatta14685888637
Gordon T. Richards144613110666
David Price138168793535
Joseph Sodroski13854277070
Hannu Kurki-Suonio13843399607
Jun Lu135152699767
Stephen F. Badylak13353057083
Michael E. Thase13192375995
Edna B. Foa12958873034
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Pennsylvania
257.6K papers, 14.1M citations

96% related

Columbia University
224K papers, 12.8M citations

96% related

University of Washington
305.5K papers, 17.7M citations

96% related

University of California, San Diego
204.5K papers, 12.3M citations

96% related

University of Michigan
342.3K papers, 17.6M citations

95% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202371
2022382
20212,354
20202,344
20192,235
20182,165