Institution
Humboldt University of Berlin
Education•Berlin, Germany•
About: Humboldt University of Berlin is a education organization based out in Berlin, Germany. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 33671 authors who have published 61781 publications receiving 1908102 citations. The organization is also known as: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin & Universitas Humboldtiana Berolinensis.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis1, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency2, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research3, Joint Global Change Research Institute4, National Center for Atmospheric Research5, National Institute for Environmental Studies6, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development7, Shanghai University8, Eni9, University of Washington10, Bocconi University11, KAIST12, Humboldt University of Berlin13, Wageningen University and Research Centre14, Polytechnic University of Milan15
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present the overview of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and their energy, land use, and emissions implications, and find that associated costs strongly depend on three factors: (1) the policy assumptions, (2) the socioeconomic narrative, and (3) the stringency of the target.
Abstract: This paper presents the overview of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and their energy, land use, and emissions implications. The SSPs are part of a new scenario framework, established by the climate change research community in order to facilitate the integrated analysis of future climate impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation. The pathways were developed over the last years as a joint community effort and describe plausible major global developments that together would lead in the future to different challenges for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The SSPs are based on five narratives describing alternative socio-economic developments, including sustainable development, regional rivalry, inequality, fossil-fueled development, and middle-of-the-road development. The long-term demographic and economic projections of the SSPs depict a wide uncertainty range consistent with the scenario literature. A multi-model approach was used for the elaboration of the energy, land-use and the emissions trajectories of SSP-based scenarios. The baseline scenarios lead to global energy consumption of 400–1200 EJ in 2100, and feature vastly different land-use dynamics, ranging from a possible reduction in cropland area up to a massive expansion by more than 700 million hectares by 2100. The associated annual CO 2 emissions of the baseline scenarios range from about 25 GtCO 2 to more than 120 GtCO 2 per year by 2100. With respect to mitigation, we find that associated costs strongly depend on three factors: (1) the policy assumptions, (2) the socio-economic narrative, and (3) the stringency of the target. The carbon price for reaching the target of 2.6 W/m 2 that is consistent with a temperature change limit of 2 °C, differs in our analysis thus by about a factor of three across the SSP marker scenarios. Moreover, many models could not reach this target from the SSPs with high mitigation challenges. While the SSPs were designed to represent different mitigation and adaptation challenges, the resulting narratives and quantifications span a wide range of different futures broadly representative of the current literature. This allows their subsequent use and development in new assessments and research projects. Critical next steps for the community scenario process will, among others, involve regional and sectoral extensions, further elaboration of the adaptation and impacts dimension, as well as employing the SSP scenarios with the new generation of earth system models as part of the 6th climate model intercomparison project (CMIP6).
2,644 citations
••
Technische Universität München1, Central Institution for Meteorology and Geodynamics2, University of Tartu3, Swedish Museum of Natural History4, University of Latvia5, Humboldt University of Berlin6, University of Ljubljana7, MeteoSwiss8, Trinity College, Dublin9, Autonomous University of Barcelona10, Norwegian University of Life Sciences11, Norwegian Meteorological Institute12, Finnish Meteorological Institute13, Czech Hydrometeorological Institute14, Environment Agency15, Wageningen University and Research Centre16, University of Oslo17
TL;DR: In this article, the authors used an enormous systematic phenological network data set of more than 125 000 observational series of 542 plant and 19 animal species in 21 European countries (1971-2000) and concluded that previously published results of phenological changes were not biased by reporting or publication predisposition.
Abstract: Global climate change impacts can already be tracked in many physical and biological systems; in particular, terrestrial ecosystems provide a consistent picture of observed changes. One of the preferred indicators is phenology, the science of natural recurring events, as their recorded dates provide a high-temporal resolution of ongoing changes. Thus, numerous analyses have demonstrated an earlier onset of spring events for mid and higher latitudes and a lengthening of the growing season. However, published single-site or single-species studies are particularly open to suspicion of being biased towards predominantly reporting climate change-induced impacts. No comprehensive study or meta-analysis has so far examined the possible lack of evidence for changes or shifts at sites where no temperature change is observed. We used an enormous systematic phenological network data set of more than 125 000 observational series of 542 plant and 19 animal species in 21 European countries (1971–2000). Our results showed that 78% of all leafing, flowering and fruiting records advanced (30% significantly) and only 3% were significantly delayed, whereas the signal of leaf colouring/fall is ambiguous. We conclude that previously published results of phenological changes were not biased by reporting or publication predisposition: the average advance of spring/summer was 2.5 days decade � 1 in Europe. Our analysis of 254 mean national time series undoubtedly demonstrates that species’ phenology is responsive to temperature of the preceding
2,457 citations
••
TL;DR: The genesis of these tasks is reviewed and how and why they came to be so influential, the reliability and validity of the tasks are addressed, and more technical aspects are considered, such as optimal administration and scoring procedures.
Abstract: Working memory (WM) span tasks—and in particular, counting span, operation span, and reading span tasks—are widely used measures of WM capacity. Despite their popularity, however, there has never been a comprehensive analysis of the merits of WM span tasks as measurement tools. Here, we review the genesis of these tasks and discuss how and why they came to be so influential. In so doing, we address the reliability and validity of the tasks, and we consider more technical aspects of the tasks, such as optimal administration and scoring procedures. Finally, we discuss statistical and methodological techniques that have commonly been used in conjunction with WM span tasks, such as latent variable analysis and extreme-groups designs.
2,411 citations
••
TL;DR: Continuous daily administration of sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and the objective response rate as compared with placebo among patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.
Abstract: The multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib has shown activity against pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in preclinical models and phase 1 and 2 trials.
2,192 citations
••
Public Health Research Institute1, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven2, Leiden University3, University of Oxford4, John Radcliffe Hospital5, Keele University6, Medical University of Vienna7, University Medical Center Utrecht8, University College Cork9, University of Pennsylvania10, University of Cologne11, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre12, University of Aberdeen13, RMIT University14, University of Manchester15, University of Amsterdam16, University of Ioannina17, Imperial College London18, Maastricht University Medical Centre19, Humboldt University of Berlin20
TL;DR: Proposed models for covid-19 are poorly reported, at high risk of bias, and their reported performance is probably optimistic, according to a review of published and preprint reports.
Abstract: Objective To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. Design Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. Data sources PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. Study selection Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. Data extraction At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). Results 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. Conclusion Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. Systematic review registration Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.
2,183 citations
Authors
Showing all 34115 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Karl J. Friston | 217 | 1267 | 217169 |
Peer Bork | 206 | 697 | 245427 |
Raymond J. Dolan | 196 | 919 | 138540 |
Stefan Schreiber | 178 | 1233 | 138528 |
Andreas Pfeiffer | 149 | 1756 | 131080 |
Thomas Hebbeker | 148 | 1984 | 114004 |
Thomas Lohse | 148 | 1237 | 101631 |
Jean Bousquet | 145 | 1288 | 96769 |
Hermann Kolanoski | 145 | 1279 | 96152 |
Josh Moss | 139 | 1019 | 89255 |
R. D. Kass | 138 | 1920 | 107907 |
W. Kozanecki | 138 | 1498 | 99758 |
U. Mallik | 137 | 1625 | 97439 |
C. Haber | 135 | 1507 | 98014 |
Christophe Royon | 134 | 1453 | 90249 |