scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Stanford University

EducationStanford, California, United States
About: Stanford University is a education organization based out in Stanford, California, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Transplantation. The organization has 125751 authors who have published 320347 publications receiving 21892059 citations. The organization is also known as: Leland Stanford Junior University & University of Stanford.
Topics: Population, Transplantation, Medicine, Cancer, Gene


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The approach taken in ADNI to standardization across sites and platforms of the MRI protocol, postacquisition corrections, and phantom‐based monitoring of all scanners could be used as a model for other multisite trials.
Abstract: Dementia, one of the most feared associates of increasing longevity, represents a pressing public health problem and major research priority. Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia, affecting many millions around the world. There is currently no cure for AD, but large numbers of novel compounds are currently under development that have the potential to modify the course of the disease and slow its progression. There is a pressing need for imaging biomarkers to improve understanding of the disease and to assess the efficacy of these proposed treatments. Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has already been shown to be sensitive to presymptomatic disease (1-10) and has the potential to provide such a biomarker. For use in large-scale multicenter studies, however, standardized methods that produce stable results across scanners and over time are needed. The Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) study is a longitudinal multisite observational study of elderly individuals with normal cognition, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or AD (11,12). It is jointly funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and industry via the Foundation for the NIH. The study will assess how well information (alone or in combination) obtained from MRI, (18F)-fludeoyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET), urine, serum, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers, as well as clinical and neuropsychometric assessments, can measure disease progression in the three groups of elderly subjects mentioned above. At the 55 participating sites in North America, imaging, clinical, and biologic samples will be collected at multiple time points in 200 elderly cognitively normal, 400 MCI, and 200 AD subjects. All subjects will be scanned with 1.5 T MRI at each time point, and half of these will also be scanned with FDG PET. Subjects not assigned to the PET arm of the study will be eligible for 3 T MRI scanning. The goal is to acquire both 1.5 T and 3 T MRI studies at multiple time points in 25% of the subjects who do not undergo PET scanning [R2C1]. CSF collection at both baseline and 12 months is targeted for 50% of the subjects. Sampling varies by clinical group. Healthy elderly controls will be sampled at 0, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Subjects with MCI will be sampled at 0, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months. AD subjects will be sampled at 0, 6, 12, and 24 months. Major goals of the ADNI study are: to link all of these data at each time point and make this repository available to the general scientific community; to develop technical standards for imaging in longitudinal studies; to determine the optimum methods for acquiring and analyzing images; to validate imaging and biomarker data by correlating these with concurrent psychometric and clinical assessments; and to improve methods for clinical trials in MCI and AD. The ADNI study overall is divided into cores, with each core managing ADNI-related activities within its sphere of expertise: clinical, informatics, biostatistics, biomarkers, and imaging. The purpose of this report is to describe the MRI methods and decision-making process underlying the selection of the MRI protocol employed in the ADNI study.

3,611 citations

Book ChapterDOI
22 May 2005
TL;DR: In this article, a new type of identity-based encryption called Fuzzy Identity-Based Encryption (IBE) was introduced, where an identity is viewed as set of descriptive attributes, and a private key for an identity can decrypt a ciphertext encrypted with an identity if and only if the identities are close to each other as measured by the set overlap distance metric.
Abstract: We introduce a new type of Identity-Based Encryption (IBE) scheme that we call Fuzzy Identity-Based Encryption. In Fuzzy IBE we view an identity as set of descriptive attributes. A Fuzzy IBE scheme allows for a private key for an identity, ω, to decrypt a ciphertext encrypted with an identity, ω ′, if and only if the identities ω and ω ′ are close to each other as measured by the “set overlap” distance metric. A Fuzzy IBE scheme can be applied to enable encryption using biometric inputs as identities; the error-tolerance property of a Fuzzy IBE scheme is precisely what allows for the use of biometric identities, which inherently will have some noise each time they are sampled. Additionally, we show that Fuzzy-IBE can be used for a type of application that we term “attribute-based encryption”. In this paper we present two constructions of Fuzzy IBE schemes. Our constructions can be viewed as an Identity-Based Encryption of a message under several attributes that compose a (fuzzy) identity. Our IBE schemes are both error-tolerant and secure against collusion attacks. Additionally, our basic construction does not use random oracles. We prove the security of our schemes under the Selective-ID security model.

3,610 citations

Book
01 Jan 1971

3,604 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A unified approach is proposed that makes it possible for researchers to preprocess data with matching and then to apply the best parametric techniques they would have used anyway and this procedure makes parametric models produce more accurate and considerably less model-dependent causal inferences.
Abstract: Although published works rarely include causal estimates from more than a few model specifications, authors usually choose the presented estimates from numerous trial runs readers never see. Given the often large variation in estimates across choices of control variables, functional forms, and other modeling assumptions, how can researchers ensure that the few estimates presented are accurate or representative? How do readers know that publications are not merely demonstrations that it is possible to find a specification that fits the author's favorite hypothesis? And how do we evaluate or even define statistical properties like unbiasedness or mean squared error when no unique model or estimator even exists? Matching methods, which offer the promise of causal inference with fewer assumptions, constitute one possible way forward, but crucial results in this fast-growing methodological literature are often grossly misinterpreted. We explain how to avoid these misinterpretations and propose a unified approach that makes it possible for researchers to preprocess data with matching (such as with the easy-to-use software we offer) and then to apply the best parametric techniques they would have used anyway. This procedure makes parametric models produce more accurate and considerably less model-dependent causal inferences.

3,601 citations

Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors consider the problem of reasoning about whether a strategy will achieve a goal in a deterministic world and present a method to construct a sentence of first-order logic which will be true in all models of certain axioms if and only if a certain strategy can achieve a certain goal.
Abstract: A computer program capable of acting intelligently in the world must have a general representation of the world in terms of which its inputs are interpreted. Designing such a program requires commitments about what knowledge is and how it is obtained. Thus, some of the major traditional problems of philosophy arise in artificial intelligence. More specifically, we want a computer program that decides what to do by inferring in a formal language that a certain strategy will achieve its assigned goal. This requires formalizing concepts of causality, ability, and knowledge. Such formalisms are also considered in philosophical logic. The first part of the paper begins with a philosophical point of view that seems to arise naturally once we take seriously the idea of actually making an intelligent machine. We go on to the notions of metaphysically and epistemo-logically adequate representations of the world and then to an explanation of can, causes, and knows in terms of a representation of the world by a system of interacting automata. A proposed resolution of the problem of freewill in a deterministic universe and of counterfactual conditional sentences is presented. The second part is mainly concerned with formalisms within which it can be proved that a strategy will achieve a goal. Concepts of situation, fluent, future operator, action, strategy, result of a strategy and knowledge are formalized. A method is given of constructing a sentence of first-order logic which will be true in all models of certain axioms if and only if a certain strategy will achieve a certain goal. The formalism of this paper represents an advance over McCarthy (1963) and Green (1969) in that it permits proof of the correctness of strategies that contain loops and strategies that involve the acquisition of knowledge; and it is also somewhat more concise. The third part discusses open problems in extending the formalism of part 2. The fourth part is a review of work in philosophical logic in relation to problems of artificial intelligence and a discussion of previous efforts to program ‘general intelligence’ from the point of view of this paper.

3,588 citations


Authors

Showing all 127468 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Eric S. Lander301826525976
George M. Whitesides2401739269833
Yi Cui2201015199725
Yi Chen2174342293080
David Miller2032573204840
David Baltimore203876162955
Edward Witten202602204199
Irving L. Weissman2011141172504
Hongjie Dai197570182579
Robert M. Califf1961561167961
Frank E. Speizer193636135891
Thomas C. Südhof191653118007
Gad Getz189520247560
Mark Hallett1861170123741
John P. A. Ioannidis1851311193612
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Columbia University
224K papers, 12.8M citations

97% related

University of Washington
305.5K papers, 17.7M citations

97% related

University of Pennsylvania
257.6K papers, 14.1M citations

96% related

Harvard University
530.3K papers, 38.1M citations

96% related

University of Michigan
342.3K papers, 17.6M citations

96% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023504
20222,786
202117,867
202018,236
201916,190
201814,684