scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Shandong University

EducationJinan, Shandong, China
About: Shandong University is a education organization based out in Jinan, Shandong, China. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Laser & Cancer. The organization has 99070 authors who have published 99160 publications receiving 1625094 citations. The organization is also known as: Shāndōng Dàxué.
Topics: Laser, Cancer, Cell growth, Population, Apoptosis


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Georges Aad1, T. Abajyan2, Brad Abbott3, Jalal Abdallah4  +2964 moreInstitutions (200)
TL;DR: In this article, a search for the Standard Model Higgs boson in proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC is presented, which has a significance of 5.9 standard deviations, corresponding to a background fluctuation probability of 1.7×10−9.

9,282 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Marie Ng1, Tom P Fleming1, Margaret Robinson1, Blake Thomson1, Nicholas Graetz1, Christopher Margono1, Erin C Mullany1, Stan Biryukov1, Cristiana Abbafati2, Semaw Ferede Abera3, Jerry Abraham4, Niveen M E Abu-Rmeileh, Tom Achoki1, Fadia AlBuhairan5, Zewdie Aderaw Alemu6, Rafael Alfonso1, Mohammed K. Ali7, Raghib Ali8, Nelson Alvis Guzmán9, Walid Ammar, Palwasha Anwari10, Amitava Banerjee11, Simón Barquera, Sanjay Basu12, Derrick A Bennett8, Zulfiqar A Bhutta13, Jed D. Blore14, N Cabral, Ismael Ricardo Campos Nonato, Jung-Chen Chang15, Rajiv Chowdhury16, Karen J. Courville, Michael H. Criqui17, David K. Cundiff, Kaustubh Dabhadkar7, Lalit Dandona1, Lalit Dandona18, Adrian Davis19, Anand Dayama7, Samath D Dharmaratne20, Eric L. Ding21, Adnan M. Durrani22, Alireza Esteghamati23, Farshad Farzadfar23, Derek F J Fay19, Valery L. Feigin24, Abraham D. Flaxman1, Mohammad H. Forouzanfar1, Atsushi Goto, Mark A. Green25, Rajeev Gupta, Nima Hafezi-Nejad23, Graeme J. Hankey26, Heather Harewood, Rasmus Havmoeller27, Simon I. Hay8, Lucia Hernandez, Abdullatif Husseini28, Bulat Idrisov29, Nayu Ikeda, Farhad Islami30, Eiman Jahangir31, Simerjot K. Jassal17, Sun Ha Jee32, Mona Jeffreys33, Jost B. Jonas34, Edmond K. Kabagambe35, Shams Eldin Ali Hassan Khalifa, Andre Pascal Kengne36, Yousef Khader37, Young-Ho Khang38, Daniel Kim39, Ruth W Kimokoti40, Jonas Minet Kinge41, Yoshihiro Kokubo, Soewarta Kosen, Gene F. Kwan42, Taavi Lai, Mall Leinsalu22, Yichong Li, Xiaofeng Liang43, Shiwei Liu43, Giancarlo Logroscino44, Paulo A. Lotufo45, Yuan Qiang Lu21, Jixiang Ma43, Nana Kwaku Mainoo, George A. Mensah22, Tony R. Merriman46, Ali H. Mokdad1, Joanna Moschandreas47, Mohsen Naghavi1, Aliya Naheed48, Devina Nand, K.M. Venkat Narayan7, Erica Leigh Nelson1, Marian L. Neuhouser49, Muhammad Imran Nisar13, Takayoshi Ohkubo50, Samuel Oti, Andrea Pedroza, Dorairaj Prabhakaran, Nobhojit Roy51, Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson35, Hyeyoung Seo, Sadaf G. Sepanlou23, Kenji Shibuya52, Rahman Shiri53, Ivy Shiue54, Gitanjali M Singh21, Jasvinder A. Singh55, Vegard Skirbekk41, Nicolas J. C. Stapelberg56, Lela Sturua57, Bryan L. Sykes58, Martin Tobias1, Bach Xuan Tran59, Leonardo Trasande60, Hideaki Toyoshima, Steven van de Vijver, Tommi Vasankari, J. Lennert Veerman61, Gustavo Velasquez-Melendez62, Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov63, Stein Emil Vollset64, Stein Emil Vollset41, Theo Vos1, Claire L. Wang65, Xiao Rong Wang66, Elisabete Weiderpass, Andrea Werdecker, Jonathan L. Wright1, Y Claire Yang67, Hiroshi Yatsuya68, Jihyun Yoon, Seok Jun Yoon69, Yong Zhao70, Maigeng Zhou, Shankuan Zhu71, Alan D. Lopez14, Christopher J L Murray1, Emmanuela Gakidou1 
University of Washington1, Sapienza University of Rome2, Mekelle University3, University of Texas at San Antonio4, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences5, Debre markos University6, Emory University7, University of Oxford8, University of Cartagena9, United Nations Population Fund10, University of Birmingham11, Stanford University12, Aga Khan University13, University of Melbourne14, National Taiwan University15, University of Cambridge16, University of California, San Diego17, Public Health Foundation of India18, Public Health England19, University of Peradeniya20, Harvard University21, National Institutes of Health22, Tehran University of Medical Sciences23, Auckland University of Technology24, University of Sheffield25, University of Western Australia26, Karolinska Institutet27, Birzeit University28, Brandeis University29, American Cancer Society30, Ochsner Medical Center31, Yonsei University32, University of Bristol33, Heidelberg University34, Vanderbilt University35, South African Medical Research Council36, Jordan University of Science and Technology37, New Generation University College38, Northeastern University39, Simmons College40, Norwegian Institute of Public Health41, Boston University42, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention43, University of Bari44, University of São Paulo45, University of Otago46, University of Crete47, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh48, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center49, Teikyo University50, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre51, University of Tokyo52, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health53, Heriot-Watt University54, University of Alabama at Birmingham55, Griffith University56, National Center for Disease Control and Public Health57, University of California, Irvine58, Johns Hopkins University59, New York University60, University of Queensland61, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais62, National Research University – Higher School of Economics63, University of Bergen64, Columbia University65, Shandong University66, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill67, Fujita Health University68, Korea University69, Chongqing Medical University70, Zhejiang University71
TL;DR: The global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013 is estimated using a spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression model to estimate prevalence with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).

9,180 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Mohsen Naghavi1, Haidong Wang1, Rafael Lozano1, Adrian Davis2  +728 moreInstitutions (294)
TL;DR: In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013) as discussed by the authors, the authors used the GBD 2010 methods with some refinements to improve accuracy applied to an updated database of vital registration, survey, and census data.

5,792 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

5,187 citations

Proceedings ArticleDOI
03 Apr 2017
TL;DR: This work strives to develop techniques based on neural networks to tackle the key problem in recommendation --- collaborative filtering --- on the basis of implicit feedback, and presents a general framework named NCF, short for Neural network-based Collaborative Filtering.
Abstract: In recent years, deep neural networks have yielded immense success on speech recognition, computer vision and natural language processing. However, the exploration of deep neural networks on recommender systems has received relatively less scrutiny. In this work, we strive to develop techniques based on neural networks to tackle the key problem in recommendation --- collaborative filtering --- on the basis of implicit feedback. Although some recent work has employed deep learning for recommendation, they primarily used it to model auxiliary information, such as textual descriptions of items and acoustic features of musics. When it comes to model the key factor in collaborative filtering --- the interaction between user and item features, they still resorted to matrix factorization and applied an inner product on the latent features of users and items. By replacing the inner product with a neural architecture that can learn an arbitrary function from data, we present a general framework named NCF, short for Neural network-based Collaborative Filtering. NCF is generic and can express and generalize matrix factorization under its framework. To supercharge NCF modelling with non-linearities, we propose to leverage a multi-layer perceptron to learn the user-item interaction function. Extensive experiments on two real-world datasets show significant improvements of our proposed NCF framework over the state-of-the-art methods. Empirical evidence shows that using deeper layers of neural networks offers better recommendation performance.

4,419 citations


Authors

Showing all 99666 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Hong-Cai Zhou11448966320
Flemming Besenbacher11472851827
L. L. Ma11489962778
Xiaohu Sun11461458367
Xiaoming Li113193272445
Zhaoxia Meng11251553725
John R. Falck11298945430
Jianjun Liu112104071032
Zheng Wang110121055478
Dong Liu11040050442
Cunfeng Feng10952054416
Yitai Qian108117550350
Peng Wang108167254529
Mingwei Chen10853651351
Bo Liu10779950217
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
184.6K papers, 3.4M citations

96% related

Zhejiang University
183.2K papers, 3.4M citations

96% related

Nanjing University
105.5K papers, 2.2M citations

95% related

Fudan University
117.9K papers, 2.6M citations

95% related

Peking University
181K papers, 4.1M citations

94% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20241
2023279
20221,269
202110,931
20209,808
20198,538