scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Tehran University of Medical Sciences

EducationTehran, Iran
About: Tehran University of Medical Sciences is a education organization based out in Tehran, Iran. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 35661 authors who have published 57234 publications receiving 878523 citations. The organization is also known as: TUMS.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Tomi Akinyemiju1, Semaw Ferede Abera2, Semaw Ferede Abera3, Muktar Beshir Ahmed4, Noore Alam5, Noore Alam6, Mulubirhan Assefa Alemayohu7, Christine Allen8, Rajaa Al-Raddadi, Nelson Alvis-Guzman9, Yaw Ampem Amoako10, Al Artaman11, Tadesse Awoke Ayele12, Aleksandra Barac, Isabela M. Benseñor13, Adugnaw Berhane2, Zulfiqar A Bhutta14, Jacqueline Castillo-Rivas, Abdulaal A Chitheer, Jee-Young Choi15, Benjamin C Cowie, Lalit Dandona16, Lalit Dandona8, Rakhi Dandona8, Rakhi Dandona16, Subhojit Dey, Daniel Dicker8, Huyen Do Phuc17, Donatus U. Ekwueme18, Maysaa El Sayed Zaki, Florian Fischer19, Thomas Fürst20, Thomas Fürst21, Thomas Fürst22, Jamie Hancock8, Simon I. Hay8, Peter J. Hotez23, Peter J. Hotez24, Sun Ha Jee25, Amir Kasaeian26, Yousef Khader27, Young-Ho Khang15, G Anil Kumar16, Michael Kutz8, Heidi J. Larson28, Alan D. Lopez29, Alan D. Lopez8, Raimundas Lunevicius30, Raimundas Lunevicius31, Reza Malekzadeh26, Colm McAlinden, Toni Meier32, Walter Mendoza33, Ali H. Mokdad8, Maziar Moradi-Lakeh34, Gabriele Nagel35, Quyen Nguyen17, Grant Nguyen8, Felix Akpojene Ogbo36, George C Patton29, David M. Pereira37, Farshad Pourmalek38, Mostafa Qorbani, Amir Radfar39, Gholamreza Roshandel40, Joshua A. Salomon41, Juan Sanabria42, Juan Sanabria43, Benn Sartorius44, Maheswar Satpathy45, Maheswar Satpathy46, Monika Sawhney43, Sadaf G. Sepanlou26, Katya Anne Shackelford8, Hirbo Shore47, Jiandong Sun48, Desalegn Tadese Mengistu7, Roman Topór-Mądry49, Roman Topór-Mądry50, Bach Xuan Tran51, Bach Xuan Tran52, Kingsley N. Ukwaja, Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov53, Stein Emil Vollset54, Stein Emil Vollset55, Theo Vos8, Tolassa Wakayo4, Elisabete Weiderpass56, Elisabete Weiderpass57, Andrea Werdecker, Naohiro Yonemoto58, Mustafa Z. Younis59, Mustafa Z. Younis41, Chuanhua Yu60, Zoubida Zaidi, Liguo Zhu18, Christopher J L Murray8, Mohsen Naghavi8, Christina Fitzmaurice61, Christina Fitzmaurice8 
University of Alabama at Birmingham1, College of Health Sciences, Bahrain2, University of Hohenheim3, Jimma University4, Queensland Government5, University of Queensland6, Mekelle University7, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation8, University of Cartagena9, Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital10, University of Manitoba11, University of Gondar12, University of São Paulo13, Aga Khan University14, New Generation University College15, Public Health Foundation of India16, Duy Tan University17, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention18, Bielefeld University19, University of Basel20, Imperial College London21, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute22, Boston Children's Hospital23, Baylor College of Medicine24, Yonsei University25, Tehran University of Medical Sciences26, Jordan University of Science and Technology27, University of London28, University of Melbourne29, Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust30, University of Liverpool31, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg32, United Nations Population Fund33, Iran University of Medical Sciences34, University of Ulm35, University of Sydney36, University of Porto37, University of British Columbia38, A.T. Still University39, Golestan University40, Harvard University41, Case Western Reserve University42, Marshall University43, University of KwaZulu-Natal44, AIIMS, New Delhi45, Utkal University46, Haramaya University47, Queensland University of Technology48, Jagiellonian University Medical College49, Wrocław Medical University50, Hanoi Medical University51, Johns Hopkins University52, National Research University – Higher School of Economics53, University of Bergen54, Norwegian Institute of Public Health55, Karolinska Institutet56, University of Tromsø57, Kyoto University58, Jackson State University59, Wuhan University60, University of Washington61
TL;DR: In this article, the authors report results of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2015 study on primary liver cancer incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 195 countries or territories from 1990 to 2015, and present global, regional, and national estimates on the burden of liver cancer attributable to hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and alcohol, and an “other” group that encompasses residual causes.
Abstract: Importance Liver cancer is among the leading causes of cancer deaths globally. The most common causes for liver cancer include hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and alcohol use. Objective To report results of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2015 study on primary liver cancer incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 195 countries or territories from 1990 to 2015, and present global, regional, and national estimates on the burden of liver cancer attributable to HBV, HCV, alcohol, and an “other” group that encompasses residual causes. Design, Settings, and Participants Mortality was estimated using vital registration and cancer registry data in an ensemble modeling approach. Single-cause mortality estimates were adjusted for all-cause mortality. Incidence was derived from mortality estimates and the mortality-to-incidence ratio. Through a systematic literature review, data on the proportions of liver cancer due to HBV, HCV, alcohol, and other causes were identified. Years of life lost were calculated by multiplying each death by a standard life expectancy. Prevalence was estimated using mortality-to-incidence ratio as surrogate for survival. Total prevalence was divided into 4 sequelae that were multiplied by disability weights to derive years lived with disability (YLDs). DALYs were the sum of years of life lost and YLDs. Main Outcomes and Measures Liver cancer mortality, incidence, YLDs, years of life lost, DALYs by etiology, age, sex, country, and year. Results There were 854 000 incident cases of liver cancer and 810 000 deaths globally in 2015, contributing to 20 578 000 DALYs. Cases of incident liver cancer increased by 75% between 1990 and 2015, of which 47% can be explained by changing population age structures, 35% by population growth, and −8% to changing age-specific incidence rates. The male-to-female ratio for age-standardized liver cancer mortality was 2.8. Globally, HBV accounted for 265 000 liver cancer deaths (33%), alcohol for 245 000 (30%), HCV for 167 000 (21%), and other causes for 133 000 (16%) deaths, with substantial variation between countries in the underlying etiologies. Conclusions and Relevance Liver cancer is among the leading causes of cancer deaths in many countries. Causes of liver cancer differ widely among populations. Our results show that most cases of liver cancer can be prevented through vaccination, antiviral treatment, safe blood transfusion and injection practices, as well as interventions to reduce excessive alcohol use. In line with the Sustainable Development Goals, the identification and elimination of risk factors for liver cancer will be required to achieve a sustained reduction in liver cancer burden. The GBD study can be used to guide these prevention efforts.

1,208 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this review, the limitations and recent advances in the development of superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles for hyperthermia are presented.

1,161 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A critical review of the biophysicochemical properties of various nanomaterials with emphasis on currently available toxicology data and methodologies for evaluating nanoparticle toxicity suggests that NPs may need to be sequestered into products so that the NPs are not released into the atmosphere during the product's life or during recycling.
Abstract: Nanoscience has matured significantly during the last decade as it has transitioned from bench top science to applied technology. Presently, nanomaterials are used in a wide variety of commercial products such as electronic components, sports equipment, sun creams and biomedical applications. There are few studies of the long-term consequences of nanoparticles on human health, but governmental agencies, including the United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and Japan's Ministry of Health, have recently raised the question of whether seemingly innocuous materials such as carbon-based nanotubes should be treated with the same caution afforded known carcinogens such as asbestos. Since nanomaterials are increasing a part of everyday consumer products, manufacturing processes, and medical products, it is imperative that both workers and end-users be protected from inhalation of potentially toxic NPs. It also suggests that NPs may need to be sequestered into products so that the NPs are not released into the atmosphere during the product's life or during recycling. Further, non-inhalation routes of NP absorption, including dermal and medical injectables, must be studied in order to understand possible toxic effects. Fewer studies to date have addressed whether the body can eventually eliminate nanomaterials to prevent particle build-up in tissues or organs. This critical review discusses the biophysicochemical properties of various nanomaterials with emphasis on currently available toxicology data and methodologies for evaluating nanoparticle toxicity (286 references).

1,138 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Joshua A. Salomon1, Theo Vos, Daniel R Hogan1, Michael L. Gagnon1, Mohsen Naghavi2, Ali Mokdad2, Nazma Begum3, Razibuzzaman Shah1, Muhammad Karyana, Soewarta Kosen, Mario Reyna Farje, Gilberto Moncada, Arup Dutta, Sunil Sazawal, Andrew Dyer4, Jason F. S. Seiler4, Victor Aboyans, Lesley Baker2, Amanda J Baxter5, Emelia J. Benjamin6, Kavi Bhalla1, Aref A. Bin Abdulhak, Fiona M. Blyth, Rupert R A Bourne, Tasanee Braithwaite7, Peter Brooks, Traolach S. Brugha8, Claire Bryan-Hancock, Rachelle Buchbinder, Peter Burney9, Bianca Calabria10, Honglei Chen11, Sumeet S. Chugh12, Rebecca Cooley2, Michael H. Criqui13, Marita Cross5, Kaustubh Dabhadkar, Nabila Dahodwala14, Adrian Davis15, Louisa Degenhardt16, Cesar Diaz-Torne17, E. Ray Dorsey3, Tim Driscoll, Karen Edmond18, Alexis Elbaz19, Majid Ezzati20, Valery L. Feigin21, Cleusa P. Ferri22, Abraham D. Flaxman2, Louise Flood8, Marlene Fransen, Kana Fuse, Belinda J. Gabbe23, Richard F. Gillum24, Juanita A. Haagsma25, James Harrison8, Rasmus Havmoeller16, Roderick J. Hay26, Abdullah Hel-Baqui, Hans W. Hoek27, Howard J. Hoffman28, Emily Hogeland29, Damian G Hoy5, Deborah Jarvis2, Ganesan Karthikeyan1, Lisa M. Knowlton30, Tim Lathlean8, Janet L Leasher31, Stephen S Lim2, Steven E. Lipshultz32, Alan D. Lopez, Rafael Lozano2, Ronan A Lyons33, Reza Malekzadeh, Wagner Marcenes, Lyn March6, David J. Margolis14, Neil McGill, John J. McGrath34, George A. Mensah35, Ana-Claire Meyer, Catherine Michaud36, Andrew E. Moran, Rintaro Mori37, Michele E. Murdoch38, Luigi Naldi39, Charles R. Newton12, Rosana E. Norman, Saad B. Omer40, Richard H. Osborne, Neil Pearce18, Fernando Perez-Ruiz, Norberto Perico41, Konrad Pesudovs8, David Phillips42, Farshad Pourmalek43, Martin Prince, Jürgen Rehm, G. Remuzzi41, Kathryn Richardson, Robin Room44, Sukanta Saha45, Uchechukwu Sampson, Lidia Sanchez-Riera46, Maria Segui-Gomez47, Saeid Shahraz48, Kenji Shibuya, David Singh49, Karen Sliwa50, Emma Smith50, Isabelle Soerjomataram51, Timothy J. Steiner, Wilma A. Stolk, Lars Jacob Stovner, Christopher R. Sudfeld1, Hugh R. Taylor, Imad M. Tleyjeh4, Marieke J. van der Werf52, Wendy L. Watson53, David J. Weatherall12, Robert G. Weintraub, Marc G. Weisskopf1, Harvey Whiteford, James D. Wilkinson32, Anthony D. Woolf52, Zhi-Jie Zheng54, Christopher J L Murray2 
Harvard University1, University of Queensland2, Johns Hopkins University3, ICF International4, Centre for Mental Health5, Boston University6, University of Sydney7, University of Melbourne8, Imperial College London9, University of New South Wales10, University of California, San Diego11, Emory University12, University of Pennsylvania13, Autonomous University of Barcelona14, University of London15, National Institutes of Health16, French Institute of Health and Medical Research17, Medical Research Council18, Auckland University of Technology19, Federal University of São Paulo20, National Institute of Population and Social Security Research21, Howard University22, Flinders University23, Erasmus University Rotterdam24, King's College London25, Karolinska Institutet26, University of California, San Francisco27, All India Institute of Medical Sciences28, Nova Southeastern University29, University of Miami30, Swansea University31, Tehran University of Medical Sciences32, Queen Mary University of London33, Allen Institute for Brain Science34, University of Cape Town35, Columbia University36, Watford General Hospital37, Centro Studi GISED38, University of Oxford39, Deakin University40, University of British Columbia41, University of Toronto42, Box Hill Hospital43, Vanderbilt University44, University of Washington45, Brandeis University46, University of Tokyo47, The Queen's Medical Center48, Norwegian University of Science and Technology49, China Medical Board50, University of Cambridge51, Royal Cornwall Hospital52, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center53, Shanghai Jiao Tong University54
TL;DR: In this paper, a comprehensive re-estimation of disability weights for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 through a large-scale empirical investigation in which judgments about health losses associated with many causes of disease and injury were elicited from the general public in diverse communities through a new, standardised approach.

1,130 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors 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.
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.

1,129 citations


Authors

Showing all 35946 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Graeme J. Hankey137844143373
Paul D.P. Pharoah13079471338
Jerome Ritz12064447987
Reza Malekzadeh118900139272
Robert N. Weinreb117112459101
Javad Parvizi11196951075
Omid C. Farokhzad11032964226
Ali Mohammadi106114954596
Alexander R. Vaccaro102117939346
John R. Speakman9566734484
Philip J. Devereaux94443110428
Rafael Lozano94265126513
Mohammad Abdollahi90104535531
Ingmar Skoog8945828998
Morteza Mahmoudi8333426229
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Mashhad University of Medical Sciences
18.7K papers, 252.5K citations

97% related

Isfahan University of Medical Sciences
19.5K papers, 248.6K citations

95% related

Tarbiat Modares University
32.6K papers, 526.3K citations

89% related

Shahid Beheshti University
21K papers, 293.7K citations

88% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023105
2022525
20216,042
20206,181
20195,322
20184,885