scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Emory University

EducationAtlanta, Georgia, United States
About: Emory University is a education organization based out in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 51959 authors who have published 122469 publications receiving 6010698 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Theo Vos1, Ryan M Barber1, Brad Bell1, Amelia Bertozzi-Villa1  +686 moreInstitutions (287)
TL;DR: In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013) as mentioned in this paper, the authors estimated the quantities for acute and chronic diseases and injuries for 188 countries between 1990 and 2013.

4,510 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Cardiac resynchronization results in significant clinical improvement in patients who have moderate-to-severe heart failure and an intraventricular conduction delay.
Abstract: Background Previous studies have suggested that cardiac resynchronization achieved through atrial-synchronized biventricular pacing produces clinical benefits in patients with heart failure who have an intraventricular conduction delay. We conducted a double-blind trial to evaluate this therapeutic approach. Methods Four hundred fifty-three patients with moderate-to-severe symptoms of heart failure associated with an ejection fraction of 35 percent or less and a QRS interval of 130 msec or more were randomly assigned to a cardiac-resynchronization group (228 patients) or to a control group (225 patients) for six months, while conventional therapy for heart failure was maintained. The primary end points were the New York Heart Association functional class, quality of life, and the distance walked in six minutes. Results As compared with the control group, patients assigned to cardiac resynchronization experienced an improvement in the distance walked in six minutes (+39 vs. +10 m, P=0.005), functional clas...

4,329 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These guidelines are presented 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.
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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased 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. 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. 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 autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

4,316 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Frank Pajares1
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examined the contribution made by the self-efficacy component of Bandura's (1986) social cognitive theory to the study of self-regulation and motivation in academic settings.
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to examine the contribution made by the self-efficacy component of Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory to the study of self-regulation and motivation in academic settings. The difference between self-efficacy beliefs and other expectancy constructs is first explained, followed by a brief overview of problems in self-efficacy research. Findings on the relationship between self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and academic performances are then summarized. These findings demonstrate that particularized measures of self-efficacy that correspond to the criterial tasks with which they are compared surpass global measures in the explanation and prediction of related outcomes. The conceptual difference between the definition and use of expectancy beliefs in social cognitive theory and in expectancy value and self-concept theory is then clarified. Last, strategies to guide future research are offered.

4,166 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The cloning of cDNAs encoding glutamate receptor subunits, which occurred mainly between 1989 and 1992, stimulated the development of ionotropic glutamate receptors in the brain.
Abstract: The ionotropic glutamate receptors are ligand-gated ion channels that mediate the vast majority of excitatory neurotransmission in the brain. The cloning of cDNAs encoding glutamate receptor subunits, which occurred mainly between 1989 and 1992 ([Hollmann and Heinemann, 1994][1]), stimulated this

4,112 citations


Authors

Showing all 52622 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Younan Xia216943175757
Eric J. Topol1931373151025
Bernard Rosner1901162147661
Paul G. Richardson1831533155912
Peter W.F. Wilson181680139852
Dennis S. Charney179802122408
Joseph Biederman1791012117440
Kenneth C. Anderson1781138126072
David A. Weitz1781038114182
Lei Jiang1702244135205
William J. Sandborn1621317108564
Stephen J. Elledge162406112878
Ali H. Mokdad156634160599
Michael Tomasello15579793361
Don W. Cleveland15244484737
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of California, San Francisco
186.2K papers, 12M citations

98% related

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
185.3K papers, 9.9M citations

97% related

Duke University
200.3K papers, 10.7M citations

97% related

University of Pennsylvania
257.6K papers, 14.1M citations

97% related

Yale University
220.6K papers, 12.8M citations

97% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023195
20221,123
20218,692
20208,001
20197,033
20186,326