scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Rutgers University

EducationNew Brunswick, New Jersey, United States
About: Rutgers University is a education organization based out in New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 68736 authors who have published 159418 publications receiving 6713860 citations. The organization is also known as: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey & Rutgers.


Papers
More filters
Book
01 Jan 1991
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss the importance of unbiased error rate estimation and find the right complexity fit to estimate the true performance of a learning system and compare it to the expected patterns of classifier behavior.
Abstract: Preface 1 Overview of Learning Systems 1.1 What is a Learning System? 1.2 Motivation for Building Learning Systems 1.3 Types of Practical Empirical Learning Systems 1.3.1 Common Theme: The Classification Model 1.3.2 Let the Data Speak 1.4 What's New in Learning Methods 1.4.1 The Impact of New Technology 1.5 Outline of the Book 1.6 Bibliographical and Historical Remarks 2 How to Estimate the True Performance of a Learning System 2.1 The Importance of Unbiased Error Rate Estimation 2.2. What is an Error? 2.2.1 Costs and Risks 2.3 Apparent Error Rate Estimates 2.4 Too Good to Be True: Overspecialization 2.5 True Error Rate Estimation 2.5.1 The Idealized Model for Unlimited Samples 2.5.2 Train-and Test Error Rate Estimation 2.5.3 Resampling Techniques 2.5.4 Finding the Right Complexity Fit 2.6 Getting the Most Out of the Data 2.7 Classifier Complexity and Feature Dimensionality 2.7.1 Expected Patterns of Classifier Behavior 2.8 What Can Go Wrong? 2.8.1 Poor Features, Data Errors, and Mislabeled Classes 2.8.2 Unrepresentative Samples 2.9 How Close to the Truth? 2.10 Common Mistakes in Performance Analysis 2.11 Bibliographical and Historical Remarks 3 Statistical Pattern Recognition 3.1 Introduction and Overview 3.2 A Few Sample Applications 3.3 Bayesian Classifiers 3.3.1 Direct Application of the Bayes Rule 3.4 Linear Discriminants 3.4.1 The Normality Assumption and Discriminant Functions 3.4.2 Logistic Regression 3.5 Nearest Neighbor Methods 3.6 Feature Selection 3.7 Error Rate Analysis 3.8 Bibliographical and Historical Remarks 4 Neural Nets 4.1 Introduction and Overview 4.2 Perceptrons 4.2.1 Least Mean Square Learning Systems 4.2.2 How Good Is a Linear Separation Network? 4.3 Multilayer Neural Networks 4.3.1 Back-Propagation 4.3.2 The Practical Application of Back-Propagation 4.4 Error Rate and Complexity Fit Estimation 4.5 Improving on Standard Back-Propagation 4.6 Bibliographical and Historical Remarks 5 Machine Learning: Easily Understood Decision Rules 5.1 Introduction and Overview 5.2 Decision Trees 5.2.1 Finding the Perfect Tree 5.2.2 The Incredible Shrinking Tree 5.2.3 Limitations of Tree Induction Methods 5.3 Rule Induction 5.3.1 Predictive Value Maximization 5.4 Bibliographical and Historical Remarks 6 Which Technique is Best? 6.1 What's Important in Choosing a Classifier? 6.1.1 Prediction Accuracy 6.1.2 Speed of Learning and Classification 6.1.3 Explanation and Insight 6.2 So, How Do I Choose a Learning System? 6.3 Variations on the Standard Problem 6.3.1 Missing Data 6.3.2 Incremental Learning 6.4 Future Prospects for Improved Learning Methods 6.5 Bibliographical and Historical Remarks 7 Expert Systems 7.1 Introduction and Overview 7.1.1 Why Build Expert Systems? New vs. Old Knowledge 7.2 Estimating Error Rates for Expert Systems 7.3 Complexity of Knowledge Bases 7.3.1 How Many Rules Are Too Many? 7.4 Knowledge Base Example 7.5 Empirical Analysis of Knowledge Bases 7.6 Future: Combined Learning and Expert Systems 7.7 Bibliographical and Historical Remarks References Author Index Subject Index

813 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
07 Mar 2001-Gene
TL;DR: This review presents a discussion of some recently identified examples of regulated and deregulated mRNA stability in order to illustrate the diversity of genes regulated by alterations in the degradation rates of their mRNAs.

812 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
15 Nov 2016-JAMA
TL;DR: A restrictive RBC transfusion threshold is safe in most clinical settings and the current blood banking practices of using standard-issue blood should be continued.
Abstract: Importance More than 100 million units of blood are collected worldwide each year, yet the indication for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and the optimal length of RBC storage prior to transfusion are uncertain. Objective To provide recommendations for the target hemoglobin level for RBC transfusion among hospitalized adult patients who are hemodynamically stable and the length of time RBCs should be stored prior to transfusion. Evidence Review Reference librarians conducted a literature search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating hemoglobin thresholds for RBC transfusion (1950-May 2016) and RBC storage duration (1948-May 2016) without language restrictions. The results were summarized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. For RBC transfusion thresholds, 31 RCTs included 12 587 participants and compared restrictive thresholds (transfusion not indicated until the hemoglobin level is 7-8 g/dL) with liberal thresholds (transfusion not indicated until the hemoglobin level is 9-10 g/dL). The summary estimates across trials demonstrated that restrictive RBC transfusion thresholds were not associated with higher rates of adverse clinical outcomes, including 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, rebleeding, pneumonia, or thromboembolism. For RBC storage duration, 13 RCTs included 5515 participants randomly allocated to receive fresher blood or standard-issue blood. These RCTs demonstrated that fresher blood did not improve clinical outcomes. Findings It is good practice to consider the hemoglobin level, the overall clinical context, patient preferences, and alternative therapies when making transfusion decisions regarding an individual patient. Recommendation 1: a restrictive RBC transfusion threshold in which the transfusion is not indicated until the hemoglobin level is 7 g/dL is recommended for hospitalized adult patients who are hemodynamically stable, including critically ill patients, rather than when the hemoglobin level is 10 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). A restrictive RBC transfusion threshold of 8 g/dL is recommended for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, cardiac surgery, and those with preexisting cardiovascular disease (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). The restrictive transfusion threshold of 7 g/dL is likely comparable with 8 g/dL, but RCT evidence is not available for all patient categories. These recommendations do not apply to patients with acute coronary syndrome, severe thrombocytopenia (patients treated for hematological or oncological reasons who are at risk of bleeding), and chronic transfusion–dependent anemia (not recommended due to insufficient evidence). Recommendation 2: patients, including neonates, should receive RBC units selected at any point within their licensed dating period (standard issue) rather than limiting patients to transfusion of only fresh (storage length: Conclusions and Relevance Research in RBC transfusion medicine has significantly advanced the science in recent years and provides high-quality evidence to inform guidelines. A restrictive transfusion threshold is safe in most clinical settings and the current blood banking practices of using standard-issue blood should be continued.

812 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Stephen G. Oliver1, Q. J. M. van der Aart2, M. L. Agostoni-Carbone3, Michel Aigle, Lilia Alberghina3, Despina Alexandraki, G. Antoine4, Rashida Anwar1, Juan P. G. Ballesta, Paule Bénit4, Gilbert Berben, Elisabetta Bergantino, N. Biteau, P. A. Bolle, Monique Bolotin-Fukuhara5, Anthony G. A. Brown1, Alistair J. P. Brown6, J. M. Buhler, C. Carcano3, Giovanna Carignani, Håkan Cederberg, R. Chanet4, Roland Contreras, Marc Crouzet, B. Daignan-Fornier5, E. Defoor7, M. Delgado, Jan Demolder, C. Doira5, Evelyne Dubois, Bernard Dujon8, A. Düsterhöft, D. Erdmann, M. Esteban, F. Fabre4, Cécile Fairhead8, Gérard Faye4, Horst Feldmann9, Walter Fiers, M. C. Francingues-Gaillard5, L. Franco, Laura Frontali10, H. Fukuhara4, L. J. Fuller11, P. Galland, Manda E. Gent1, D. Gigot, Véronique Gilliquet, Glansdorff Nn, André Goffeau12, M. Grenson13, P. Grisanti10, Leslie A. Grivell14, M. de Haan14, M. Haasemann, D. Hatat15, Janet Hoenicka, Johannes H. Hegemann, C. J. Herbert16, François Hilger, Stefan Hohmann, Cornelis P. Hollenberg, K. Huse, F. Iborra5, K. J. Indje1, K. Isono17, C. Jacq15, M. Jacquet5, C. M. James1, J. C. Jauniaux13, Y. Jia16, Alberto Jiménez, A. Kelly18, U. Kleinhans, P Kreisl, G. Lanfranchi, C Lewis11, C. G. vanderLinden19, G Lucchini3, K Lutzenkirchen, M.J. Maat14, L. Mallet5, G. Mannhaupet9, Enzo Martegani3, A. Mathieu4, C. T. C. Maurer19, David J. McConnell18, R. A. McKee11, F. Messenguy, Hans-Werner Mewes, Francis Molemans, M. A. Montague18, M. Muzi Falconi3, L. Navas, Carol S. Newlon20, D. Noone18, C. Pallier5, L. Panzeri3, Bruce M. Pearson11, J. Perea15, Peter Philippsen, A. Pierard, Rudi J. Planta19, Paolo Plevani3, B. Poetsch, Fritz M. Pohl21, B. Purnelle12, M. Ramezani Rad, S. W. Rasmussen, A. Raynal5, Miguel Remacha, P. Richterich21, Aki Roberts6, F. Rodriguez3, E. Sanz, I. Schaaff-Gerstenschlager, Bart Scherens, Bertold Schweitzer, Y. Shu15, J. Skala12, Piotr P. Slonimski16, F. Sor4, C. Soustelle5, R. Spiegelberg, Lubomira Stateva1, H. Y. Steensma2, S. Steiner, Agnès Thierry8, George Thireos, Maria Tzermia, L. A. Urrestarazu13, Giorgio Valle, I. Vetter9, J. C. van Vliet-Reedijk19, Marleen Voet7, Guido Volckaert7, P. Vreken19, H. Wang18, John R. Warmington1, D. von Wettstein, Barton Luke Wicksteed6, C. Wilson10, H. Wurst21, G. Xu, A. Yoshikawa17, Friedrich K. Zimmermann, J. G. Sgouros 
07 May 1992-Nature
TL;DR: The entire DNA sequence of chromosome III of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has been determined, which is the first complete sequence analysis of an entire chromosome from any organism.
Abstract: The entire DNA sequence of chromosome III of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has been determined. This is the first complete sequence analysis of an entire chromosome from any organism. The 315-kilobase sequence reveals 182 open reading frames for proteins longer than 100 amino acids, of which 37 correspond to known genes and 29 more show some similarity to sequences in databases. Of 55 new open reading frames analysed by gene disruption, three are essential genes; of 42 non-essential genes that were tested, 14 show some discernible effect on phenotype and the remaining 28 have no overt function.

811 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Lorenzo Galluzzi1, J M Bravo-San Pedro2, Ilio Vitale, Stuart A. Aaronson3, John M. Abrams4, Dieter Adam5, Emad S. Alnemri6, Lucia Altucci7, David W. Andrews8, Margherita Annicchiarico-Petruzzelli, Eric H. Baehrecke9, Nicolas G. Bazan10, Mathieu J.M. Bertrand11, Mathieu J.M. Bertrand12, Katiuscia Bianchi13, Katiuscia Bianchi14, Mikhail V. Blagosklonny15, Klas Blomgren16, Christoph Borner17, Dale E. Bredesen18, Dale E. Bredesen19, Catherine Brenner20, Catherine Brenner21, Michelangelo Campanella22, Eleonora Candi23, Francesco Cecconi23, Francis Ka-Ming Chan9, Navdeep S. Chandel24, Emily H. Cheng25, Jerry E. Chipuk3, John A. Cidlowski26, Aaron Ciechanover27, Ted M. Dawson28, Valina L. Dawson28, V De Laurenzi29, R De Maria, Klaus-Michael Debatin30, N. Di Daniele23, Vishva M. Dixit31, Brian David Dynlacht32, Wafik S. El-Deiry33, Gian Maria Fimia34, Richard A. Flavell35, Simone Fulda36, Carmen Garrido37, Marie-Lise Gougeon38, Douglas R. Green, Hinrich Gronemeyer39, György Hajnóczky6, J M Hardwick28, Michael O. Hengartner40, Hidenori Ichijo41, Bertrand Joseph16, Philipp J. Jost42, Thomas Kaufmann43, Oliver Kepp2, Daniel J. Klionsky44, Richard A. Knight22, Richard A. Knight45, Sharad Kumar46, Sharad Kumar47, John J. Lemasters48, Beth Levine49, Beth Levine50, Andreas Linkermann5, Stuart A. Lipton, Richard A. Lockshin51, Carlos López-Otín52, Enrico Lugli, Frank Madeo53, Walter Malorni54, Jean-Christophe Marine55, Seamus J. Martin56, J-C Martinou57, Jan Paul Medema58, Pascal Meier, Sonia Melino23, Noboru Mizushima41, Ute M. Moll59, Cristina Muñoz-Pinedo, Gabriel Núñez44, Andrew Oberst60, Theocharis Panaretakis16, Josef M. Penninger, Marcus E. Peter24, Mauro Piacentini23, Paolo Pinton61, Jochen H. M. Prehn62, Hamsa Puthalakath63, Gabriel A. Rabinovich64, Kodi S. Ravichandran65, Rosario Rizzuto66, Cecília M. P. Rodrigues67, David C. Rubinsztein68, Thomas Rudel69, Yufang Shi70, Hans-Uwe Simon43, Brent R. Stockwell71, Brent R. Stockwell50, Gyorgy Szabadkai22, Gyorgy Szabadkai66, Stephen W.G. Tait72, H. L. Tang28, Nektarios Tavernarakis73, Nektarios Tavernarakis74, Yoshihide Tsujimoto, T Vanden Berghe12, T Vanden Berghe11, Peter Vandenabeele11, Peter Vandenabeele12, Andreas Villunger75, Erwin F. Wagner76, Henning Walczak22, Eileen White77, W. G. Wood78, Junying Yuan79, Zahra Zakeri80, Boris Zhivotovsky81, Boris Zhivotovsky16, Gerry Melino23, Gerry Melino45, Guido Kroemer1 
Paris Descartes University1, Institut Gustave Roussy2, Mount Sinai Hospital3, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center4, University of Kiel5, Thomas Jefferson University6, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli7, University of Toronto8, University of Massachusetts Medical School9, Louisiana State University10, Flanders Institute for Biotechnology11, Ghent University12, Queen Mary University of London13, Cancer Research UK14, Roswell Park Cancer Institute15, Karolinska Institutet16, University of Freiburg17, University of California, San Francisco18, Buck Institute for Research on Aging19, Université Paris-Saclay20, French Institute of Health and Medical Research21, University College London22, University of Rome Tor Vergata23, Northwestern University24, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center25, National Institutes of Health26, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology27, Johns Hopkins University28, University of Chieti-Pescara29, University of Ulm30, Genentech31, New York University32, Pennsylvania State University33, University of Salento34, Yale University35, Goethe University Frankfurt36, University of Burgundy37, Pasteur Institute38, University of Strasbourg39, University of Zurich40, University of Tokyo41, Technische Universität München42, University of Bern43, University of Michigan44, Medical Research Council45, University of Adelaide46, University of South Australia47, Medical University of South Carolina48, University of Texas at Dallas49, Howard Hughes Medical Institute50, St. John's University51, University of Oviedo52, University of Graz53, Istituto Superiore di Sanità54, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven55, Trinity College, Dublin56, University of Geneva57, University of Amsterdam58, Stony Brook University59, University of Washington60, University of Ferrara61, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland62, La Trobe University63, University of Buenos Aires64, University of Virginia65, University of Padua66, University of Lisbon67, University of Cambridge68, University of Würzburg69, Soochow University (Suzhou)70, Columbia University71, University of Glasgow72, Foundation for Research & Technology – Hellas73, University of Crete74, Innsbruck Medical University75, Carlos III Health Institute76, Rutgers University77, University of Minnesota78, Harvard University79, City University of New York80, Moscow State University81
TL;DR: The Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death formulates a set of recommendations to help scientists and researchers to discriminate between essential and accessory aspects of cell death.
Abstract: Cells exposed to extreme physicochemical or mechanical stimuli die in an uncontrollable manner, as a result of their immediate structural breakdown. Such an unavoidable variant of cellular demise is generally referred to as ‘accidental cell death’ (ACD). In most settings, however, cell death is initiated by a genetically encoded apparatus, correlating with the fact that its course can be altered by pharmacologic or genetic interventions. ‘Regulated cell death’ (RCD) can occur as part of physiologic programs or can be activated once adaptive responses to perturbations of the extracellular or intracellular microenvironment fail. The biochemical phenomena that accompany RCD may be harnessed to classify it into a few subtypes, which often (but not always) exhibit stereotyped morphologic features. Nonetheless, efficiently inhibiting the processes that are commonly thought to cause RCD, such as the activation of executioner caspases in the course of apoptosis, does not exert true cytoprotective effects in the mammalian system, but simply alters the kinetics of cellular demise as it shifts its morphologic and biochemical correlates. Conversely, bona fide cytoprotection can be achieved by inhibiting the transduction of lethal signals in the early phases of the process, when adaptive responses are still operational. Thus, the mechanisms that truly execute RCD may be less understood, less inhibitable and perhaps more homogeneous than previously thought. Here, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death formulates a set of recommendations to help scientists and researchers to discriminate between essential and accessory aspects of cell death.

809 citations


Authors

Showing all 69437 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Salim Yusuf2311439252912
Daniel Levy212933194778
Eugene V. Koonin1991063175111
Eric Boerwinkle1831321170971
David L. Kaplan1771944146082
Derek R. Lovley16858295315
Mark Gerstein168751149578
Gang Chen1673372149819
Hongfang Liu1662356156290
Robert Stone1601756167901
Mark E. Cooper1581463124887
Michael B. Sporn15755994605
Cumrun Vafa15750988515
Wolfgang Wagner1562342123391
David M. Sabatini155413135833
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Minnesota
257.9K papers, 11.9M citations

97% related

Cornell University
235.5K papers, 12.2M citations

97% related

University of Washington
305.5K papers, 17.7M citations

97% related

Columbia University
224K papers, 12.8M citations

97% related

University of Wisconsin-Madison
237.5K papers, 11.8M citations

97% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023274
20221,028
20218,250
20208,150
20197,397
20186,594