scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

EducationNew York, New York, United States
About: Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai is a education organization based out in New York, New York, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Cancer. The organization has 37488 authors who have published 76057 publications receiving 3704104 citations. The organization is also known as: Mount Sinai School of Medicine.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Myelinating oligodendrocytes in the adult PFC respond to social interaction with chromatin changes, suggesting that myelination acts as a form of adult plasticity.
Abstract: Protracted social isolation of adult mice induced behavioral, transcriptional and ultrastructural changes in oligodendrocytes of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and impaired adult myelination. Social re-integration was sufficient to normalize behavioral and transcriptional changes. Short periods of isolation affected chromatin and myelin, but did not induce behavioral changes. Thus, myelinating oligodendrocytes in the adult PFC respond to social interaction with chromatin changes, suggesting that myelination acts as a form of adult plasticity.

560 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: New developments in the molecular understanding of PCP establishment in Drosophila and vertebrates are discussed; these developments are integrated with new evidence that links PCP signaling to human disease.
Abstract: Most, if not all, cell types and tissues display several aspects of polarization. In addition to the ubiquitous epithelial cell polarity along the apical-basolateral axis, many epithelial tissues and organs are also polarized within the plane of the epithelium. This is generally referred to as planar cell polarity (PCP; or historically, tissue polarity). Genetic screens in Drosophila pioneered the discovery of core PCP factors, and subsequent work in vertebrates has established that the respective pathways are evolutionarily conserved. PCP is not restricted only to epithelial tissues but is also found in mesenchymal cells, where it can regulate cell migration and cell intercalation. Moreover, particularly in vertebrates, the conserved core PCP signaling factors have recently been found to be associated with the orientation or formation of cilia. This review discusses new developments in the molecular understanding of PCP establishment in Drosophila and vertebrates; these developments are integrated with new evidence that links PCP signaling to human disease.

560 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Clinical trials are now under way for the treatment of patients with peanut anaphylaxis using recombinant humanized anti-immunoglobulin E antibody therapy, and novel immunomodulatory therapies are being tested in animal models of peanut-induced anAPHylaxis.
Abstract: Food anaphylaxis is now the leading known cause of anaphylactic reactions treated in emergency departments in the United States. It is estimated that there are 30 000 anaphylactic reactions to foods treated in emergency departments and 150 to 200 deaths each year. Peanuts, tree nuts, fish, and shellfish account for most severe food anaphylactic reactions. Although clearly a form of immunoglobulin E-mediated hypersensitivity, the mechanistic details responsible for symptoms of food-induced anaphylaxis are not completely understood, and in some cases, symptoms are not seen unless the patient exercises within a few hours of the ingestion. At the present time, the mainstays of therapy include educating patients and their caregivers to strictly avoid food allergens, to recognize early symptoms of anaphylaxis, and to self-administer injectable epinephrine. However, clinical trials are now under way for the treatment of patients with peanut anaphylaxis using recombinant humanized anti-immunoglobulin E antibody therapy, and novel immunomodulatory therapies are being tested in animal models of peanut-induced anaphylaxis.

560 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In January of 2002, a call for papers featuring community-based participatory research (CBPR) was issued, the intent was to highlight the outstanding work being done in this area and the role CBPR can play in improving the care and outcomes of populations at-risk.
Abstract: In January of 2002, a call for papers featuring community-based participatory research (CBPR) was issued. The intent was to highlight the outstanding work being done in this area and the role CBPR can play in improving the care and outcomes of populations at-risk.1 What emerged from this call was more than what any of the editors expected, and has been illustrative of both the superb scholarship and community engagement occurring in CBPR and how much more can be done in refining and broadening the application of CBPR in what we do. The body of research submitted for consideration also highlights several important realities: 1) CBPR is appropriate and applicable across disciplines and within many diverse community settings; 2) the potential for CBPR to make meaningful contributions to improving the health and well-being of traditionally disenfranchised population groups and communities is very real and, in many instances, being realized; and 3) we need to do a better job of articulating CBPR to our peers and colleagues as “research-plus” that is both methodologically rigorous and that makes unique contributions not possible using other means. The 11 original research papers presented in this Special Issue came from an impressive pool of 81 submissions. And while CBPR may seem somewhat straightforward in theory, as these articles demonstrate, the degree to which CBPR is applied and how it is represented are far more diverse and varied. The peer review process and several editor meetings for this Special Issue brought out many of the challenges inherent in CBPR. How do we define community? What is a meaningful impact? How do we distinguish between community-placed and community-based research? How do we balance the importance of the research process with the importance of the research product or findings? Is there a methodologic threshold with which to determine whether a project is or is not CBPR? What is evident from the submissions is how broadly CBPR is being applied, geographically, within specific population groups and clinical scenarios, and methodologically. For example, Angell et al.2 and Stratford et al.3 both describe CBPR projects in rural settings, while van Olphen et al.,4 Horowitz et al.,5 and Masi et al.6 all describe urban-based research. Initiatives targeting specific vulnerable or at-risk populations are featured in work by Lauderdale et al.7 with older Chinese immigrants, by Lam et al.8 with Vietnamese-American women, and by van Olphen et al. with African-American women. Similarly, CBPR was clearly applicable in several different clinical scenarios, including chronic disease management of diabetes,5 asthma,9 and cancer treatment and prevention.10 The partners engaged in the community-based research also varied across projects and included faith-based organizations,4,10 neighborhood and community leaders,6,8 and social service and support agencies.2,3,7 Finally, the research topics and interventions themselves also reflected a wide spectrum of CBPR applications. Sloane et al. examined the degree of nutritional resources available within a community, whereas Masi et al. evaluated the application of internet-based technologies.5,11 The articles presented also reflect the broad scope of research in which CBPR can be applied methodologically. Angell et al. and Corbie-Smith et al. report on findings where CBPR was applied to randomized controlled trials,2,10 while van Olphen et al., Masi et al., and Lam et al., all report data from intervention studies with pre–post comparisons.4,6,8 Horowitz et al. and Lauderdale et al. represent good examples of CBPR applied to survey research,5,7 and Parker et al. demonstrate CBPR applied to a qualitative study.9 Finally, the article by Nyden provides an overview of CBPR and highlights many of the issues and struggles to institutionalizing and legitimizing CBPR within the broader research community from an academic perspective.12 As the science and field of CBPR advance to the next level, it is clear that several things need to occur. We need more formal training in CBPR that is more broadly available to both academically-based researchers and community members. Post-doctoral training programs such as the Kellogg Community Scholars Program13 need to be expanded beyond the current 3 schools of public health, and need to be integrated into other health professional schools and within other established fellowship and post-doctoral training programs. Additionally, career development awards sponsored by federal agencies and private philanthropies need to be amenable to proposals that engage the candidate in CBPR projects and ideally should promote this in their solicitation and review process. We also need to encourage scholarship, not only in the application of CBPR, but also in better understanding the nuances of the model, so that it can truly live up to its potential. This includes developing a common language for describing CBPR-related research in the health services literature, so that it can stand on its own merits and be appreciated for the contributions it brings to the field. One possible framework for this common language is introduced in Table 1 and is meant to serve as a resource for authors considering submission of CBPR projects to peer-reviewed journals. Finally, we need to gain a greater appreciation for CBPR as “research-plus” that is reflected in funding priorities, review criteria, community empowerment, and academic advancement. Table 1 Proposed Process for Describing Community-based Participatory Research Findings in Health Sciences Literature In summary, it is best to view this Special Issue as a reflection of both where we are as a research community and where we need to go. The 11 papers ultimately chosen for this issue represent a small fraction of the excellent work ongoing in many of our communities. Yet there is much more than can and should be done. As the gap in health access and health outcomes grows wider and is further defined by socioeconomics, race, language, country of origin, and other markers and designations inherent in a multicultural, multiethnic society, we need CBPR to help find the answers and sustainable solutions.

560 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The costs of pediatric environmental disease are high, in contrast with the limited resources directed to research, tracking, and prevention, because the incidence, prevalence, mortality, and cost of pediatric disease in American children are high.
Abstract: In this study, we aimed to estimate the contribution of environmental pollutants to the incidence, prevalence, mortality, and costs of pediatric disease in American children. We examined four categories of illness: lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and neurobehavioral disorders. To estimate the proportion of each attributable to toxins in the environment, we used an environmentally attributable fraction (EAF) model. EAFs for lead poisoning, asthma, and cancer were developed by panels of experts through a Delphi process, whereas that for neurobehavioral disorders was based on data from the National Academy of Sciences. We define environmental pollutants as toxic chemicals of human origin in air, food, water, and communities. To develop estimates of costs, we relied on data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Health Care Financing Agency, and the Practice Management Information Corporation. EAFs were judged to be 100% for lead poisoning, 30% for asthma (range, 10-35%), 5% for cancer (range, 2-10%), and 10% for neurobehavioral disorders (range, 5-20%). Total annual costs are estimated to be $54.9 billion (range $48.8-64.8 billion): $43.4 billion for lead poisoning, $2.0 billion for asthma, $0.3 billion for childhood cancer, and $9.2 billion for neurobehavioral disorders. This sum amounts to 2.8 percent of total U.S. health care costs. This estimate is likely low because it considers only four categories of illness, incorporates conservative assumptions, ignores costs of pain and suffering, and does not include late complications for which etiologic associations are poorly quantified. The costs of pediatric environmental disease are high, in contrast with the limited resources directed to research, tracking, and prevention.

559 citations


Authors

Showing all 37948 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Robert Langer2812324326306
Shizuo Akira2611308320561
Gordon H. Guyatt2311620228631
Eugene Braunwald2301711264576
Bruce S. McEwen2151163200638
Robert J. Lefkowitz214860147995
Peter Libby211932182724
Mark J. Daly204763304452
Stuart H. Orkin186715112182
Paul G. Richardson1831533155912
Alan C. Evans183866134642
John C. Morris1831441168413
Paul M. Thompson1832271146736
Tadamitsu Kishimoto1811067130860
Bruce M. Psaty1811205138244
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
79.2K papers, 4.7M citations

99% related

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
75.2K papers, 4.4M citations

98% related

University of California, San Francisco
186.2K papers, 12M citations

98% related

Baylor College of Medicine
94.8K papers, 5M citations

98% related

Brigham and Women's Hospital
110.5K papers, 6.8M citations

98% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023157
2022844
20217,117
20206,224
20195,200
20184,505