Northwestern University

About: Northwestern University is a education organization based out in Evanston, Illinois, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 75430 authors who have published 188857 publications receiving 9463252 citations. The organization is also known as: Northwestern & NU.

When Does Gender Trump Money? Bargaining and Time in Household Work

Abstract: Using data from Australia and the United States, the authors explore the effect of spouses’ contribution to family income on how housework is divided. Consistent with exchange‐bargaining theory, women decrease their housework as their earnings increase, up to the point where both spouses contribute equally to income. In other respects, gender trumps money. The base level of housework for women is much higher. Among the small percentage of couples who are in the range where women provide 51%–100% of household income, the change in housework is opposite what exchange theory predicts: couples that deviate from the normative income standard (men make more money than women) seem to compensate with a more traditional division of household work.

Social Utility and Decision Making in Interpersonal Contexts

Abstract: Three studies examined preferences for outcomes to self and a codisputant. Studies I and 2 estimated social utility functions from judgments of satisfaction with alternative outcomes. Comparing functional forms, we found that a utility function, including terms for own payoff and for positive and negative discrepancies between the parties' payoffs (advantageous and disadvantageous inequality), provides a close fit to the data. The typical utility function is steeply increasing and convex for disadvantageous inequality and weakly declining and convex for advantageous inequality. We manipulated dispute type (personal, business) and disputant relationship (positive, neutral, or negative) and found that both strongly influence preferences for advantageous but not disadvantageous inequality. A third study contrasted implications of the social utility functions with predictions of individual utility theories. People care about the outcomes of others. We sacrifice our own interests to help loved ones or harm adversaries. Participants withdraw from profitable participation in a laboratory experiment if they perceive inequity in remuneration (Schmitt & Marweli, 1972). Players in two-person ultimatum games (in which one player proposes a distribution of a fixed amount of money that the other has the option of either accepting or rejecting) frequently reject a positive but inequitable offer even though the alternative is no gain at all (Guth, Schmittberger, & Schwarze, 1982). Negotiations between parties often collapse when one party becomes incensed with the other and attempts to "maximize his opponent's displeasure rather than his own satisfaction" (scigel & Fouraker, 1960, p. 100). In general, disputants are concerned not only with the outcomes they receive, but also with the outcomes of their opponents (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986).

Zidovudine in Asymptomatic Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection: A Controlled Trial in Persons with Fewer Than 500 CD4-Positive Cells per Cubic Millimeter

Abstract: Zidovudine (AZT) is a potent inhibitor of the replication of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and it has been shown to improve survival in advanced HIV disease. We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial in adults with asymptomatic HIV infection who had CD4+ cell counts of fewer than 500 per cubic millimeter on entry into the study. The subjects (92 percent male) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: placebo (428 subjects); zidovudine, 500 mg per day (453); or zidovudine, 1500 mg per day (457). After a mean follow-up of 55 weeks (range, 19 to 107), 33 of the subjects assigned to placebo had the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), as compared with 11 of those assigned to receive 500 mg of zidovudine (P = 0.002; relative risk, 2.8; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.4 to 5.6) and 14 of those assigned to receive 1500 mg of zidovudine (P = 0.05; relative risk, 1.9; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.0 to 3.5). In the three treatment groups, the rates of progression (per 100 person-years) to either AIDS or advanced AIDS-related complex were 7.6, 3.6, and 4.3, respectively. As compared with those assigned to placebo, the subjects in the zidovudine groups had significant increases in the number of CD4+ cells and significant declines in p24 antigen levels. In the 1500-mg zidovudine group, severe hematologic toxicity (anemia or neutropenia) was more frequent than in the other groups (P less than 0.0001). In the 500-mg zidovudine group, nausea was the only toxicity that was significantly more frequent (in 3.3 percent) than in the placebo group (P = 0.001). We conclude that zidovudine is safe and effective in persons with asymptomatic HIV infection and fewer than 500 CD4+ cells per cubic millimeter. Additional study will be required to determine whether such treatment will ultimately improve survival for persons infected with HIV.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

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.

American College of Rheumatology guidelines for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis

Abstract: In the United States, approximately 35% of adults with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) have clinical evidence of nephritis at the time of diagnosis; with an estimated total of 50–60% developing nephritis during the first 10 years of disease [1–4]. The prevalence of nephritis is significantly higher in African Americans and Hispanics than in Caucasians, and is higher in men than in women. Renal damage is more likely to develop in non-Caucasian groups [2–4]. Overall survival in patients with SLE is approximately 95% at 5 years after diagnosis and 92% at 10 years [5, 6]. The presence of lupus nephritis significantly reduces survival, to approximately 88% at 10 years, with even lower survival in African Americans [5, 6]. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) last published guidelines for management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in 1999 [7]. That publication was designed primarily for education of primary care physicians and recommended therapeutic and management approaches for many manifestations of SLE. Recommendations for management of lupus nephritis (LN) consisted of pulse glucocorticoids followed by high dose daily glucocorticoids in addition to an immunosuppressive medication, with cyclophosphamide viewed as the most effective immunosuppressive medication for diffuse proliferative glomerulonephritis. Mycophenolate mofetil was not yet in use for lupus nephritis and was not mentioned. Since that time, many clinical trials of glucocorticoids-plus-immunosuppressive interventions have been published, some of which are high quality prospective trials, and some not only prospective but also randomized. Thus, the ACR determined that a new set of management recommendations was in order. A combination of extensive literature review and the opinions of highly qualified experts, including rheumatologists, nephrologists and pathologists, has been used to reach the recommendations. The management strategies discussed here apply to lupus nephritis in adults, particularly to those receiving care in the United States of America, and include interventions that were available in the United States as of April 2011. While these recommendations were developed using rigorous methodology, guidelines do have inherent limitations in informing individual patient care; hence the selection of the term “recommendations.” While they should not supplant clinical judgment or limit clinical judgment, they do provide expert advice to the practicing physician managing patients with lupus nephritis.