Institution
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Education•Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands•
About: Erasmus University Rotterdam is a education organization based out in Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Transplantation. The organization has 35466 authors who have published 91288 publications receiving 4510972 citations. The organization is also known as: EUR.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors give a state-of-the-art overview of the job demands resources (JD•R) model and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the demand control model and the effort reward imbalance model regarding their predictive value for employee well being.
Abstract: Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to give a state‐of‐the art overview of the Job Demands‐Resources (JD‐R) modelDesign/methodology/approach – The strengths and weaknesses of the demand‐control model and the effort‐reward imbalance model regarding their predictive value for employee well being are discussed. The paper then introduces the more flexible JD‐R model and discusses its basic premises.Findings – The paper provides an overview of the studies that have been conducted with the JD‐R model. It discusses evidence for each of the model's main propositions. The JD‐R model can be used as a tool for human resource management. A two‐stage approach can highlight the strengths and weaknesses of individuals, work groups, departments, and organizations at large.Originality/value – This paper challenges existing stress models, and focuses on both negative and positive indicators of employee well being. In addition, it outlines how the JD‐R model can be applied to a wide range of occupations, and be used to i...
7,681 citations
••
Technical University of Madrid1, Stanford University2, Elsevier3, VU University Amsterdam4, National Institutes of Health5, University of Leicester6, Harvard University7, Beijing Genomics Institute8, Maastricht University9, Wageningen University and Research Centre10, University of Oxford11, Heriot-Watt University12, University of Manchester13, University of California, San Diego14, Leiden University Medical Center15, Leiden University16, Federal University of São Paulo17, Science for Life Laboratory18, Bayer19, Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics20, Cray21, University Medical Center Groningen22, Erasmus University Rotterdam23
TL;DR: The FAIR Data Principles as mentioned in this paper are a set of data reuse principles that focus on enhancing the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, in addition to supporting its reuse by individuals.
Abstract: There is an urgent need to improve the infrastructure supporting the reuse of scholarly data. A diverse set of stakeholders—representing academia, industry, funding agencies, and scholarly publishers—have come together to design and jointly endorse a concise and measureable set of principles that we refer to as the FAIR Data Principles. The intent is that these may act as a guideline for those wishing to enhance the reusability of their data holdings. Distinct from peer initiatives that focus on the human scholar, the FAIR Principles put specific emphasis on enhancing the ability of machines to automatically find and use the data, in addition to supporting its reuse by individuals. This Comment is the first formal publication of the FAIR Principles, and includes the rationale behind them, and some exemplar implementations in the community.
7,602 citations
••
Medical University of Vienna1, Boston University2, Arthritis Research UK3, Johns Hopkins University4, University of California, San Francisco5, Humboldt University of Berlin6, University of Toronto7, National Jewish Health8, Brigham and Women's Hospital9, Paris Descartes University10, University of Leeds11, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart12, Erasmus University Rotterdam13, University of Colorado Denver14, Leiden University15, University of California, San Diego16, University of Massachusetts Medical School17, University of Michigan18, University of Washington19, McGill University Health Centre20, University of Pittsburgh21, Ministry of Health (New Zealand)22, New York University23, University of Manchester24, University of Amsterdam25, University of Kansas26, Women's College Hospital27
TL;DR: This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late-stage features.
Abstract: Objective The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly the American Rheumatism Association) classifi cation criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticised for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classifi cation criteria for RA. Methods A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in three phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated infl ammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/ or erosive disease—this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct ‘RA’. Results In the new criteria set, classifi cation as ‘defi nite RA’ is based on the confi rmed presence of synovitis in at least one joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis better explaining the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in four domains: number and site of involved joints (range 0–5), serological abnormality (range 0–3), elevated acute-phase response (range 0–1) and symptom duration (two levels; range 0–1). Conclusion This new classifi cation system redefi nes the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defi ning the disease by its late-stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease-suppressing therapy to prevent or minimise the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct ‘RA’.
7,120 citations
••
TL;DR: Prevalence and severity of health loss were weakly correlated and age-specific prevalence of YLDs increased with age in all regions and has decreased slightly from 1990 to 2010, but population growth and ageing have increased YLD numbers and crude rates over the past two decades.
7,021 citations
••
Johns Hopkins University1, City of Hope National Medical Center2, Netherlands Cancer Institute3, University of Duisburg-Essen4, Russian Academy5, University of South Florida6, University of Chicago7, Duke University8, Harvard University9, Charles University in Prague10, Bristol-Myers Squibb11, Sarah Cannon Research Institute12, Erasmus University Rotterdam13, Autonomous University of Madrid14
TL;DR: Among patients with advanced, previously treated squamous-cell NSCLC, overall survival, response rate, and progression-free survival were significantly better with nivolumab than with docetaxel, regardless of PD-L1 expression level.
Abstract: BackgroundPatients with advanced squamous-cell non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have disease progression during or after first-line chemotherapy have limited treatment options. This randomized, open-label, international, phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 programmed death 1 (PD-1) immune-checkpoint–inhibitor antibody, as compared with docetaxel in this patient population. MethodsWe randomly assigned 272 patients to receive nivolumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks, or docetaxel, at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. ResultsThe median overall survival was 9.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.3 to 13.3) with nivolumab versus 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.3) with docetaxel. The risk of death was 41% lower with nivolumab than with docetaxel (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.79; P<0.001). At 1 year, the overall survival rate was 42% (95% CI, 3...
6,869 citations
Authors
Showing all 35695 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Walter C. Willett | 334 | 2399 | 413322 |
Meir J. Stampfer | 277 | 1414 | 283776 |
Albert Hofman | 267 | 2530 | 321405 |
Graham A. Colditz | 261 | 1542 | 256034 |
Paul M. Ridker | 233 | 1242 | 245097 |
Ralph B. D'Agostino | 226 | 1287 | 229636 |
John Q. Trojanowski | 226 | 1467 | 213948 |
David J. Hunter | 213 | 1836 | 207050 |
André G. Uitterlinden | 199 | 1229 | 156747 |
Robert M. Califf | 196 | 1561 | 167961 |
Eric J. Topol | 193 | 1373 | 151025 |
Frank E. Speizer | 193 | 636 | 135891 |
Bernard Rosner | 190 | 1162 | 147661 |
William B. Kannel | 188 | 533 | 175659 |
Patrick W. Serruys | 186 | 2427 | 173210 |