Institution
Radboud University Nijmegen
Education•Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands•
About: Radboud University Nijmegen is a education organization based out in Nijmegen, Gelderland, Netherlands. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 35417 authors who have published 83035 publications receiving 3285064 citations. The organization is also known as: Catholic University of Nijmegen & Radboud University.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Karolinska University Hospital1, Karolinska Institutet2, Pasteur Institute3, University of Toulouse4, Wolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases5, University of Cambridge6, University of New South Wales7, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University8, La Trobe University9, Umeå University10, University of British Columbia11, University of Geneva12, Douglas Mental Health University Institute13, Alzheimer Europe14, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases15, University of Cologne16, London School of Economics and Political Science17, Radboud University Nijmegen18, Rockefeller University19, VU University Medical Center20, University of Southern California21, Brigham and Women's Hospital22, University of Copenhagen23, UCL Institute of Neurology24, University of Gothenburg25
TL;DR: This poster aims to demonstrate the efforts towards in-situ applicability of EMMARM, which aims to provide real-time information about the physical and cognitive properties of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias.
Abstract: Defeating Alzheimer's disease and other dementias : a priority for European science and society
1,215 citations
TL;DR: The results show that ICA-AROMA effectively reduces motion-induced signal variations in fMRI data, is applicable across datasets without requiring classifier re-training, and preserves the temporal characteristics of the f MRI data.
1,214 citations
University of Sydney1, University of Michigan2, Duke University3, University of Alabama at Birmingham4, University of Pittsburgh5, University of Florida6, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention7, University of Münster8, University of Udine9, Ankara University10, University of Wisconsin-Madison11, Paris Diderot University12, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences13, University of Paris14, University of Lausanne15, Brown University16, Istituto Giannina Gaslini17, Carlos III Health Institute18, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences19, National Institutes of Health20, University of Pennsylvania21, St George's, University of London22, Heidelberg University23, University of Copenhagen24, University College London25, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center26, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven27, Goethe University Frankfurt28, University of Würzburg29, Johns Hopkins University30, Monash University31, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro32, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart33, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio34, Masaryk University35, RMIT University36, Radboud University Nijmegen37, University of Melbourne38, Stanford University39, University of California, Davis40, Georgia Regents University41, Cornell University42, University of Aberdeen43, University Hospital of Wales44
TL;DR: These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality. The consensus definitions of the Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group have been of immense value to researchers who conduct clinical trials of antifungals, assess diagnostic tests, and undertake epidemiologic studies. However, their utility has not extended beyond patients with cancer or recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants. With newer diagnostic techniques available, it was clear that an update of these definitions was essential. METHODS: To achieve this, 10 working groups looked closely at imaging, laboratory diagnosis, and special populations at risk of IFD. A final version of the manuscript was agreed upon after the groups' findings were presented at a scientific symposium and after a 3-month period for public comment. There were several rounds of discussion before a final version of the manuscript was approved. RESULTS: There is no change in the classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" IFD, although the definition of "probable" has been expanded and the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven IFD can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised. The probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only, except for endemic mycoses. CONCLUSIONS: These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.
1,211 citations
TL;DR: It is experimentally demonstrate that the magnetization can be reversed in a reproducible manner by a single 40 femtosecond circularly polarized laser pulse, without any applied magnetic field, revealing an ultrafast and efficient pathway for writing magnetic bits at record-breaking speeds.
Abstract: We experimentally demonstrate that the magnetization can be reversed in a reproducible manner by a single 40 femtosecond circularly polarized laser pulse, without any applied magnetic field. This optically induced ultrafast magnetization reversal previously believed impossible is the combined result of femtosecond laser heating of the magnetic system to just below the Curie point and circularly polarized light simultaneously acting as a magnetic field. The direction of this opto-magnetic switching is determined only by the helicity of light. This finding reveals an ultrafast and efficient pathway for writing magnetic bits at record-breaking speeds.
1,208 citations
TL;DR: Experiences with more than 10 years of development and dissemination of clinical guidelines for family medicine in the Netherlands show a multifaceted approach with written and personal approaches seems to be effective in the dissemination of guidelines.
Abstract: BackgroundThe development and implementation of (evidence-based) clinical practice guidelines is one of the promising and effective tools for improving the quality of care However, many guidelines are not used after dissemination Implementation activities frequently produce only moderate improvem
1,207 citations
Authors
Showing all 35749 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Charles A. Dinarello | 190 | 1058 | 139668 |
| Richard H. Friend | 169 | 1182 | 140032 |
| Yang Gao | 168 | 2047 | 146301 |
| Ian J. Deary | 166 | 1795 | 114161 |
| David T. Felson | 153 | 861 | 133514 |
| Margaret A. Pericak-Vance | 149 | 826 | 118672 |
| Fernando Rivadeneira | 146 | 628 | 86582 |
| Shah Ebrahim | 146 | 733 | 96807 |
| Mihai G. Netea | 142 | 1170 | 86908 |
| Mingshui Chen | 141 | 1543 | 125369 |
| George Alverson | 140 | 1653 | 105074 |
| Barry Blumenfeld | 140 | 1909 | 105694 |
| Harvey B Newman | 139 | 1594 | 88308 |
| Tariq Aziz | 138 | 1646 | 96586 |
| Stylianos E. Antonarakis | 138 | 746 | 93605 |