scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Karolinska Institutet

EducationStockholm, Sweden
About: Karolinska Institutet is a education organization based out in Stockholm, Sweden. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Cancer. The organization has 46212 authors who have published 121142 publications receiving 6008130 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Joshua A. Salomon1, Theo Vos, Daniel R Hogan1, Michael L. Gagnon1, Mohsen Naghavi2, Ali Mokdad2, Nazma Begum3, Razibuzzaman Shah1, Muhammad Karyana, Soewarta Kosen, Mario Reyna Farje, Gilberto Moncada, Arup Dutta, Sunil Sazawal, Andrew Dyer4, Jason F. S. Seiler4, Victor Aboyans, Lesley Baker2, Amanda J Baxter5, Emelia J. Benjamin6, Kavi Bhalla1, Aref A. Bin Abdulhak, Fiona M. Blyth, Rupert R A Bourne, Tasanee Braithwaite7, Peter Brooks, Traolach S. Brugha8, Claire Bryan-Hancock, Rachelle Buchbinder, Peter Burney9, Bianca Calabria10, Honglei Chen11, Sumeet S. Chugh12, Rebecca Cooley2, Michael H. Criqui13, Marita Cross5, Kaustubh Dabhadkar, Nabila Dahodwala14, Adrian Davis15, Louisa Degenhardt16, Cesar Diaz-Torne17, E. Ray Dorsey3, Tim Driscoll, Karen Edmond18, Alexis Elbaz19, Majid Ezzati20, Valery L. Feigin21, Cleusa P. Ferri22, Abraham D. Flaxman2, Louise Flood8, Marlene Fransen, Kana Fuse, Belinda J. Gabbe23, Richard F. Gillum24, Juanita A. Haagsma25, James Harrison8, Rasmus Havmoeller16, Roderick J. Hay26, Abdullah Hel-Baqui, Hans W. Hoek27, Howard J. Hoffman28, Emily Hogeland29, Damian G Hoy5, Deborah Jarvis2, Ganesan Karthikeyan1, Lisa M. Knowlton30, Tim Lathlean8, Janet L Leasher31, Stephen S Lim2, Steven E. Lipshultz32, Alan D. Lopez, Rafael Lozano2, Ronan A Lyons33, Reza Malekzadeh, Wagner Marcenes, Lyn March6, David J. Margolis14, Neil McGill, John J. McGrath34, George A. Mensah35, Ana-Claire Meyer, Catherine Michaud36, Andrew E. Moran, Rintaro Mori37, Michele E. Murdoch38, Luigi Naldi39, Charles R. Newton12, Rosana E. Norman, Saad B. Omer40, Richard H. Osborne, Neil Pearce18, Fernando Perez-Ruiz, Norberto Perico41, Konrad Pesudovs8, David Phillips42, Farshad Pourmalek43, Martin Prince, Jürgen Rehm, G. Remuzzi41, Kathryn Richardson, Robin Room44, Sukanta Saha45, Uchechukwu Sampson, Lidia Sanchez-Riera46, Maria Segui-Gomez47, Saeid Shahraz48, Kenji Shibuya, David Singh49, Karen Sliwa50, Emma Smith50, Isabelle Soerjomataram51, Timothy J. Steiner, Wilma A. Stolk, Lars Jacob Stovner, Christopher R. Sudfeld1, Hugh R. Taylor, Imad M. Tleyjeh4, Marieke J. van der Werf52, Wendy L. Watson53, David J. Weatherall12, Robert G. Weintraub, Marc G. Weisskopf1, Harvey Whiteford, James D. Wilkinson32, Anthony D. Woolf52, Zhi-Jie Zheng54, Christopher J L Murray2 
Harvard University1, University of Queensland2, Johns Hopkins University3, ICF International4, Centre for Mental Health5, Boston University6, University of Sydney7, University of Melbourne8, Imperial College London9, University of New South Wales10, University of California, San Diego11, Emory University12, University of Pennsylvania13, Autonomous University of Barcelona14, University of London15, National Institutes of Health16, French Institute of Health and Medical Research17, Medical Research Council18, Auckland University of Technology19, Federal University of São Paulo20, National Institute of Population and Social Security Research21, Howard University22, Flinders University23, Erasmus University Rotterdam24, King's College London25, Karolinska Institutet26, University of California, San Francisco27, All India Institute of Medical Sciences28, Nova Southeastern University29, University of Miami30, Swansea University31, Tehran University of Medical Sciences32, Queen Mary University of London33, Allen Institute for Brain Science34, University of Cape Town35, Columbia University36, Watford General Hospital37, Centro Studi GISED38, University of Oxford39, Deakin University40, University of British Columbia41, University of Toronto42, Box Hill Hospital43, Vanderbilt University44, University of Washington45, Brandeis University46, University of Tokyo47, The Queen's Medical Center48, Norwegian University of Science and Technology49, China Medical Board50, University of Cambridge51, Royal Cornwall Hospital52, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center53, Shanghai Jiao Tong University54
TL;DR: In this paper, a comprehensive re-estimation of disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 through a large-scale empirical investigation in which judgments about health losses associated with many causes of disease and injury were elicited from the general public in diverse communities through a new, standardised approach.

1,130 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

1,129 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In colorectal cancer, the Immunoscore may add to the significance of the current AJCC/UICC TNM classification, since it has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor superior to the AJCC or UICCTNM classification.
Abstract: The American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (AJCC/UICC) TNM staging system provides the most reliable guidelines for the routine prognostication and treatment of colorectal carcinoma. This traditional tumour staging summarizes data on tumour burden (T), the presence of cancer cells in draining and regional lymph nodes (N) and evidence for distant metastases (M). However, it is now recognized that the clinical outcome can vary significantly among patients within the same stage. The current classification provides limited prognostic information and does not predict response to therapy. Multiple ways to classify cancer and to distinguish different subtypes of colorectal cancer have been proposed, including morphology, cell origin, molecular pathways, mutation status and gene expression-based stratification. These parameters rely on tumour-cell characteristics. Extensive literature has investigated the host immune response against cancer and demonstrated the prognostic impact of the in situ immune cell infiltrate in tumours. A methodology named 'Immunoscore' has been defined to quantify the in situ immune infiltrate. In colorectal cancer, the Immunoscore may add to the significance of the current AJCC/UICC TNM classification, since it has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor superior to the AJCC/UICC TNM classification. An international consortium has been initiated to validate and promote the Immunoscore in routine clinical settings. The results of this international consortium may result in the implementation of the Immunoscore as a new component for the classification of cancer, designated TNM-I (TNM-Immune).

1,128 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
03 Dec 1999-Science
TL;DR: In this paper, the coding regions of the perforin gene of eight unrelated 10q21-22-linked FHL patients revealed homozygous nonsense mutations in four patients and missense mutations in the other four patients.
Abstract: Familial hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (FHL) is a rare, rapidly fatal, autosomal recessive immune disorder characterized by uncontrolled activation of T cells and macrophages and overproduction of inflammatory cytokines. Linkage analyses indicate that FHL is genetically heterogeneous and linked to 9q21.3-22, 10q21-22, or another as yet undefined locus. Sequencing of the coding regions of the perforin gene of eight unrelated 10q21-22–linked FHL patients revealed homozygous nonsense mutations in four patients and missense mutations in the other four patients. Cultured lymphocytes from patients had defective cytotoxic activity, and immunostaining revealed little or no perforin in the granules. Thus, defects in perforin are responsible for 10q21-22–linked FHL. Perforin-based effector systems are, therefore, involved not only in the lysis of abnormal cells but also in the down-regulation of cellular immune activation.

1,126 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These findings indicate that patients with heart failure should not generally be maintained on very low doses of an ACE inhibitor (unless these are the only doses that can be tolerated) and suggest that the difference in efficacy between intermediate and high doses of a ACE inhibitor is likely to be very small.
Abstract: Background—Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are generally prescribed by physicians in doses lower than the large doses that have been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with heart failure. It is unclear, however, if low doses and high doses of ACE inhibitors have similar benefits. Methods and Results—We randomly assigned 3164 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV heart failure and an ejection fraction #30% to double-blind treatment with either low doses (2.5 to 5.0 mg daily, n51596) or high doses (32.5 to 35 mg daily, n51568) of the ACE inhibitor, lisinopril, for 39 to 58 months, while background therapy for heart failure was continued. When compared with the low-dose group, patients in the high-dose group had a nonsignificant 8% lower risk of death (P50.128) but a significant 12% lower risk of death or hospitalization for any reason (P50.002) and 24% fewer hospitalizations for heart failure (P50.002). Dizziness and renal insufficiency was observed more frequently in the high-dose group, but the 2 groups were similar in the number of patients requiring discontinuation of the study medication. Conclusions—These findings indicate that patients with heart failure should not generally be maintained on very low doses of an ACE inhibitor (unless these are the only doses that can be tolerated) and suggest that the difference in efficacy between intermediate and high doses of an ACE inhibitor (if any) is likely to be very small. (Circulation. 1999;100:2312-2318.)

1,125 citations


Authors

Showing all 46522 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Meir J. Stampfer2771414283776
Albert Hofman2672530321405
Guido Kroemer2361404246571
Eric B. Rimm196988147119
Scott M. Grundy187841231821
Jing Wang1844046202769
Tadamitsu Kishimoto1811067130860
John Hardy1771178171694
Marc G. Caron17367499802
Ramachandran S. Vasan1721100138108
Adrian L. Harris1701084120365
Douglas F. Easton165844113809
Zulfiqar A Bhutta1651231169329
Judah Folkman165499148611
Ralph A. DeFronzo160759132993
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
National Institutes of Health
297.8K papers, 21.3M citations

94% related

French Institute of Health and Medical Research
174.2K papers, 8.3M citations

94% related

Lund University
124.6K papers, 5M citations

93% related

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
79.2K papers, 4.7M citations

93% related

University of Copenhagen
149.7K papers, 5.9M citations

93% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023101
2022500
20217,763
20206,922
20196,057
20185,548