scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

New York University

EducationNew York, New York, United States
About: New York University is a education organization based out in New York, New York, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 72380 authors who have published 165545 publications receiving 8334030 citations. The organization is also known as: NYU & University of the City of New York.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Barbara A. Methé1, Karen E. Nelson1, Mihai Pop2, Heather Huot Creasy3  +250 moreInstitutions (42)
14 Jun 2012-Nature
TL;DR: The Human Microbiome Project (HMP) Consortium has established a population-scale framework which catalyzed significant development of metagenomic protocols resulting in a broad range of quality-controlled resources and data including standardized methods for creating, processing and interpreting distinct types of high-throughput metagenomics data available to the scientific community as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: A variety of microbial communities and their genes (microbiome) exist throughout the human body, playing fundamental roles in human health and disease. The NIH funded Human Microbiome Project (HMP) Consortium has established a population-scale framework which catalyzed significant development of metagenomic protocols resulting in a broad range of quality-controlled resources and data including standardized methods for creating, processing and interpreting distinct types of high-throughput metagenomic data available to the scientific community. Here we present resources from a population of 242 healthy adults sampled at 15 to 18 body sites up to three times, which to date, have generated 5,177 microbial taxonomic profiles from 16S rRNA genes and over 3.5 Tb of metagenomic sequence. In parallel, approximately 800 human-associated reference genomes have been sequenced. Collectively, these data represent the largest resource to date describing the abundance and variety of the human microbiome, while providing a platform for current and future studies.

2,172 citations

Proceedings Article
20 Apr 2018
TL;DR: A benchmark of nine diverse NLU tasks, an auxiliary dataset for probing models for understanding of specific linguistic phenomena, and an online platform for evaluating and comparing models, which favors models that can represent linguistic knowledge in a way that facilitates sample-efficient learning and effective knowledge-transfer across tasks.
Abstract: Human ability to understand language is general, flexible, and robust. In contrast, most NLU models above the word level are designed for a specific task and struggle with out-of-domain data. If we aspire to develop models with understanding beyond the detection of superficial correspondences between inputs and outputs, then it is critical to develop a unified model that can execute a range of linguistic tasks across different domains. To facilitate research in this direction, we present the General Language Understanding Evaluation (GLUE, gluebenchmark.com): a benchmark of nine diverse NLU tasks, an auxiliary dataset for probing models for understanding of specific linguistic phenomena, and an online platform for evaluating and comparing models. For some benchmark tasks, training data is plentiful, but for others it is limited or does not match the genre of the test set. GLUE thus favors models that can represent linguistic knowledge in a way that facilitates sample-efficient learning and effective knowledge-transfer across tasks. While none of the datasets in GLUE were created from scratch for the benchmark, four of them feature privately-held test data, which is used to ensure that the benchmark is used fairly. We evaluate baselines that use ELMo (Peters et al., 2018), a powerful transfer learning technique, as well as state-of-the-art sentence representation models. The best models still achieve fairly low absolute scores. Analysis with our diagnostic dataset yields similarly weak performance over all phenomena tested, with some exceptions.

2,167 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Christopher J L Murray1, Jerry Puthenpurakal Abraham2, Mohammed K. Ali3, Miriam Alvarado1, Charles Atkinson1, Larry M. Baddour4, David Bartels5, Emelia J. Benjamin6, Kavi Bhalla5, Gretchen L. Birbeck7, Ian Bolliger1, Roy Burstein1, Emily Carnahan1, Honglei Chen8, David Chou1, Sumeet S. Chugh9, Aaron Cohen10, K. Ellicott Colson1, Leslie T. Cooper11, William G. Couser12, Michael H. Criqui13, Kaustubh Dabhadkar3, Nabila Dahodwala14, Goodarz Danaei5, Robert P. Dellavalle15, Don C. Des Jarlais16, Daniel Dicker1, Eric L. Ding5, E. Ray Dorsey17, Herbert C. Duber1, Beth E. Ebel12, Rebecca E. Engell1, Majid Ezzati18, David T. Felson6, Mariel M. Finucane5, Seth Flaxman19, Abraham D. Flaxman1, Thomas D. Fleming1, Mohammad H. Forouzanfar1, Greg Freedman1, Michael Freeman1, Sherine E. Gabriel4, Emmanuela Gakidou1, Richard F. Gillum20, Diego Gonzalez-Medina1, Richard A. Gosselin21, Bridget F. Grant8, Hialy R. Gutierrez22, Holly Hagan23, Rasmus Havmoeller9, Rasmus Havmoeller24, Howard J. Hoffman8, Kathryn H. Jacobsen25, Spencer L. James1, Rashmi Jasrasaria1, Sudha Jayaraman5, Nicole E. Johns1, Nicholas J Kassebaum12, Shahab Khatibzadeh5, Lisa M. Knowlton5, Qing Lan, Janet L Leasher26, Stephen S Lim1, John K Lin5, Steven E. Lipshultz27, Stephanie J. London8, Rafael Lozano, Yuan Lu5, Michael F. Macintyre1, Leslie Mallinger1, Mary M. McDermott28, Michele Meltzer29, George A. Mensah8, Catherine Michaud30, Ted R. Miller31, Charles Mock12, Terrie E. Moffitt32, Ali A. Mokdad1, Ali H. Mokdad1, Andrew E. Moran22, Dariush Mozaffarian33, Dariush Mozaffarian5, Tasha B. Murphy1, Mohsen Naghavi1, K.M. Venkat Narayan3, Robert G. Nelson8, Casey Olives12, Saad B. Omer3, Katrina F Ortblad1, Bart Ostro34, Pamela M. Pelizzari35, David Phillips1, C. Arden Pope36, Murugesan Raju37, Dharani Ranganathan1, Homie Razavi, Beate Ritz38, Frederick P. Rivara12, Thomas Roberts1, Ralph L. Sacco27, Joshua A. Salomon5, Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson39, Ella Sanman1, Amir Sapkota40, David C. Schwebel41, Saeid Shahraz42, Kenji Shibuya43, Rupak Shivakoti17, Donald H. Silberberg14, Gitanjali M Singh5, David Singh44, Jasvinder A. Singh41, David A. Sleet, Kyle Steenland3, Mohammad Tavakkoli5, Jennifer A. Taylor45, George D. Thurston23, Jeffrey A. Towbin46, Monica S. Vavilala12, Theo Vos1, Gregory R. Wagner47, Martin A. Weinstock48, Marc G. Weisskopf5, James D. Wilkinson27, Sarah Wulf1, Azadeh Zabetian3, Alan D. Lopez49 
14 Aug 2013-JAMA
TL;DR: To measure the burden of diseases, injuries, and leading risk factors in the United States from 1990 to 2010 and to compare these measurements with those of the 34 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), systematic analysis of descriptive epidemiology was used.
Abstract: Importance Understanding the major health problems in the United States and how they are changing over time is critical for informing national health policy. Objectives To measure the burden of diseases, injuries, and leading risk factors in the United States from 1990 to 2010 and to compare these measurements with those of the 34 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Design We used the systematic analysis of descriptive epidemiology of 291 diseases and injuries, 1160 sequelae of these diseases and injuries, and 67 risk factors or clusters of risk factors from 1990 to 2010 for 187 countries developed for the Global Burden of Disease 2010 Study to describe the health status of the United States and to compare US health outcomes with those of 34 OECD countries. Years of life lost due to premature mortality (YLLs) were computed by multiplying the number of deaths at each age by a reference life expectancy at that age. Years lived with disability (YLDs) were calculated by multiplying prevalence (based on systematic reviews) by the disability weight (based on population-based surveys) for each sequela; disability in this study refers to any short- or long-term loss of health. Disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) were estimated as the sum of YLDs and YLLs. Deaths and DALYs related to risk factors were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of exposure data and relative risks for risk-outcome pairs. Healthy life expectancy (HALE) was used to summarize overall population health, accounting for both length of life and levels of ill health experienced at different ages. Results US life expectancy for both sexes combined increased from 75.2 years in 1990 to 78.2 years in 2010; during the same period, HALE increased from 65.8 years to 68.1 years. The diseases and injuries with the largest number of YLLs in 2010 were ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and road injury. Age-standardized YLL rates increased for Alzheimer disease, drug use disorders, chronic kidney disease, kidney cancer, and falls. The diseases with the largest number of YLDs in 2010 were low back pain, major depressive disorder, other musculoskeletal disorders, neck pain, and anxiety disorders. As the US population has aged, YLDs have comprised a larger share of DALYs than have YLLs. The leading risk factors related to DALYs were dietary risks, tobacco smoking, high body mass index, high blood pressure, high fasting plasma glucose, physical inactivity, and alcohol use. Among 34 OECD countries between 1990 and 2010, the US rank for the age-standardized death rate changed from 18th to 27th, for the age-standardized YLL rate from 23rd to 28th, for the age-standardized YLD rate from 5th to 6th, for life expectancy at birth from 20th to 27th, and for HALE from 14th to 26th. Conclusions and Relevance From 1990 to 2010, the United States made substantial progress in improving health. Life expectancy at birth and HALE increased, all-cause death rates at all ages decreased, and age-specific rates of years lived with disability remained stable. However, morbidity and chronic disability now account for nearly half of the US health burden, and improvements in population health in the United States have not kept pace with advances in population health in other wealthy nations.

2,159 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors developed a quantitative monetary DSGE model with financial intermediaries that face endogenously determined balance sheet constraints and used the model to evaluate the effects of the central bank using unconventional monetary policy to combat a simulated financial crisis.

2,158 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors develop a top-down approach to measure investor sentiment and quantify its effects, and show that it is quite possible to measure sentiment and that waves of sentiment have clearly discernible, important, and regular effects on individual firms and on the stock market as a whole.
Abstract: Investor sentiment, defined broadly, is a belief about future cash flows and investment risks that is not justified by the facts at hand. The question is no longer whether investor sentiment affects stock prices, but how to measure investor sentiment and quantify its effects. One approach is "bottom up," using biases in individual investor psychology, such as overconfidence, representativeness, and conservatism, to explain how individual investors underreact or overreact to past returns or fundamentals. The investor sentiment approach that we develop in this paper is, by contrast, distinctly "top down" and macroeconomic: we take the origin of investor sentiment as exogenous and focus on its empirical effects. We show that it is quite possible to measure investor sentiment and that waves of sentiment have clearly discernible, important, and regular effects on individual firms and on the stock market as a whole. The top-down approach builds on the two broader and more irrefutable assumptions of behavioral finance -- sentiment and the limits to arbitrage -- to explain which stocks are likely to be most affected by sentiment. In particular, stocks that are difficult to arbitrage or to value are most affected by sentiment.

2,147 citations


Authors

Showing all 73237 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Rob Knight2011061253207
Virginia M.-Y. Lee194993148820
Frank E. Speizer193636135891
Stephen V. Faraone1881427140298
Eric R. Kandel184603113560
Andrei Shleifer171514271880
Eliezer Masliah170982127818
Roderick T. Bronson169679107702
Timothy A. Springer167669122421
Alvaro Pascual-Leone16596998251
Nora D. Volkow165958107463
Dennis R. Burton16468390959
Charles N. Serhan15872884810
Giacomo Bruno1581687124368
Tomas Hökfelt158103395979
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Pennsylvania
257.6K papers, 14.1M citations

98% related

Columbia University
224K papers, 12.8M citations

98% related

Yale University
220.6K papers, 12.8M citations

97% related

Harvard University
530.3K papers, 38.1M citations

97% related

University of Washington
305.5K papers, 17.7M citations

96% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023245
20221,205
20218,761
20209,108
20198,417
20187,680