Institution
Georgetown University
Education•Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States•
About: Georgetown University is a education organization based out in Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Cancer. The organization has 23377 authors who have published 43718 publications receiving 1748598 citations. The organization is also known as: GU & Georgetown.
Topics: Population, Cancer, Breast cancer, Health care, Politics
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: The author conceptualizes the terrorist act as the final step on a narrowing staircase, where the vast majority of people remain on the ground floor, but some individuals climb up and are eventually recruited into terrorist organizations.
Abstract: To foster a more in-depth understanding of the psychological processes leading to terrorism, the author conceptualizes the terrorist act as the final step on a narrowing staircase. Although the vast majority of people, even when feeling deprived and unfairly treated, remain on the ground floor, some individuals climb up and are eventually recruited into terrorist organizations. These individuals believe they have no effective voice in society, are encouraged by leaders to displace aggression onto out-groups, and become socialized to see terrorist organizations as legitimate and out-group members as evil. The current policy of focusing on individuals already at the top of the staircase brings only short-term gains. The best long-term policy against terrorism is prevention, which is made possible by nourishing contextualized democracy on the ground floor.
746 citations
••
TL;DR: It is argued that the data support the predictions of the PDH, and particularly implicate Broca's area within frontal cortex, and the caudate nucleus within the basal ganglia, which form the basis of a novel and potentially productive perspective on SLI.
738 citations
••
TL;DR: Evidence is presented that the lexicon is part of a temporal-parietalhnedial-temporal declarative memory system and that granlmatical rules are processed by a frontamasal-ganglia procedural system.
Abstract: Language comprises a lexicon for storing words and a grammar for generating rule-governed forms. Evidence is presented that the lexicon is part of a temporal-parietalhnedial-temporal “declarative memory” system and that granlmatical rules are processed by a frontamasal-ganglia “procedural” system. Patients produced past tenses of regular and novel verbs (looked and plagged), which require an -ed-suffixation rule, and irregular verbs (dug), which are retrieved from memory. Word-finding difficulties in posterior aphasia, and the general declarative memory impairment in Alzheimer's disease, led to more errors with irregular than regular and novel verbs. Grammatical difficulties in anterior aphasia, and the general impairment of procedures in Parkinson's disease, led to the opposite pattern. In contrast to the Parkinson's patients, who showed sup pressed motor activity and rule use, Huntington's disease patients showed excess motor activity and rule use, underscoring a role for the basal ganglia in grammatical processing.
736 citations
••
Georgetown University1, Harvard University2, Virginia Commonwealth University3, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center4, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center5, NorthShore University HealthSystem6, Temple University7, Texas Oncology8, University of Texas at San Antonio9, National Institutes of Health10
TL;DR: The Tumor Marker Utility Grading System (TMUGS) as discussed by the authors was proposed to evaluate the clinical utility of tumor markers and to establish an investigational agenda for evaluation of new tumor markers.
Abstract: Introduction of tumor markers into routine clinical practice has been poorly controlled, with few criteria or guidelines as to how such markers should be used. We propose a Tumor Marker Utility Grading System (TMUGS) to evaluate the clinical utility of tumor markers and to establish an investigational agenda for evaluation of new tumor markers. A Tumor Marker Utility Grading Worksheet has been designed. The initial portion of this worksheet is used to clarify the precise characteristics of the marker in question. These characteristics include the marker designation, the molecule and/or substance and the relevant alteration from normalcy, the assay format and reagents, the specimen type, and the neoplastic disease for which the marker is being evaluated. To determine the clinical utility of each marker, one of several potential uses must be designated, including risk assessment, screening, differential diagnosis, prognosis, and monitoring clinical course. For each of these uses, associations between marker assay results and expected biologic process and end points must be determined. However, knowledge of tumor marker data should contribute to a decision in practice that results in a more favorable clinical outcome for the patient, including increased overall survival, increased disease-free survival, improvement in quality of life, or reduction in cost of care. Semiquantitative utility scales have been developed for each end point. The only markers recommended for use in routine clinical practice are those that are assigned utility scores of "++" or " " on a 6-point scale (ranging from 0 to ) in the categories relative to more favorable clinical outcomes. Each utility score assignment should be supported by documentation of the level of evidence used to evaluate the marker. TMUGS will establish a standardized analytic technique to evaluate clinical utility of known and future tumor markers. It should result in improved patient outcomes and more cost-efficient investigation and application of tumor markers.
735 citations
••
Agency for Science, Technology and Research1, Indian Institute of Chemical Technology2, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur3, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali4, Indian Institute of Science5, University of South Florida6, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi7, University of Hyderabad8, Novartis9, Massachusetts Institute of Technology10, University of Michigan11, University of Alabama12, Georgetown University13, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research14, Merck & Co.15, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories16
TL;DR: A discussion of the FDA guidance on regulatory classification of pharmaceutical cocrystals of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) was held in Manesar near Delhi, India, from February 2-4, 2012 as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The December 2011 release of a draft United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance concerning regulatory classification of pharmaceutical cocrystals of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) addressed two matters of topical interest to the crystal engineering and pharmaceutical science communities: (1) a proposed definition of cocrystals; (2) a proposed classification of pharmaceutical cocrystals as dissociable “API-excipient” molecular complexes. The Indo–U.S. Bilateral Meeting sponsored by the Indo–U.S. Science and Technology Forum titled The Evolving Role of Solid State Chemistry in Pharmaceutical Science was held in Manesar near Delhi, India, from February 2–4, 2012. A session of the meeting was devoted to discussion of the FDA guidance draft. The debate generated strong consensus on the need to define cocrystals more broadly and to classify them like salts. It was also concluded that the diversity of API crystal forms makes it difficult to classify solid forms into three categories that...
734 citations
Authors
Showing all 23641 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Cyrus Cooper | 204 | 1869 | 206782 |
David Cella | 156 | 1258 | 106402 |
Carl H. June | 156 | 835 | 98904 |
Ichiro Kawachi | 149 | 1216 | 90282 |
Judy Garber | 147 | 756 | 79157 |
Bernard J. Gersh | 146 | 973 | 95875 |
Edward G. Lakatta | 146 | 858 | 88637 |
Eugene C. Butcher | 146 | 446 | 72849 |
Mark A. Rubin | 145 | 699 | 95640 |
Richard B. Devereux | 144 | 962 | 116403 |
Robert H. Purcell | 139 | 666 | 70366 |
Eric P. Winer | 139 | 751 | 71587 |
Richard L. Huganir | 137 | 425 | 61023 |
Rasmus Nielsen | 135 | 556 | 84898 |
Henry T. Lynch | 133 | 925 | 86270 |