scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Université de Montréal

EducationMontreal, Quebec, Canada
About: Université de Montréal is a education organization based out in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 45641 authors who have published 100476 publications receiving 4004007 citations. The organization is also known as: University of Montreal & UdeM.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A meta-analysis of the results shows that early math skills have the greatest predictive power, followed by reading and then attention skills, while measures of socioemotional behaviors were generally insignificant predictors of later academic performance.
Abstract: Using 6 longitudinal data sets, the authors estimate links between three key elements of school readiness--school-entry academic, attention, and socioemotional skills--and later school reading and math achievement In an effort to isolate the effects of these school-entry skills, the authors ensured that most of their regression models control for cognitive, attention, and socioemotional skills measured prior to school entry, as well as a host of family background measures Across all 6 studies, the strongest predictors of later achievement are school-entry math, reading, and attention skills A meta-analysis of the results shows that early math skills have the greatest predictive power, followed by reading and then attention skills By contrast, measures of socioemotional behaviors, including internalizing and externalizing problems and social skills, were generally insignificant predictors of later academic performance, even among children with relatively high levels of problem behavior Patterns of association were similar for boys and girls and for children from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds

4,384 citations

Proceedings Article
08 Dec 2014
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors quantify the transferability of features from the first layer to the last layer of a deep neural network and show that transferability is negatively affected by two distinct issues: (1) the specialization of higher layer neurons to their original task at the expense of performance on the target task and (2) optimization difficulties related to splitting networks between co-adapted neurons.
Abstract: Many deep neural networks trained on natural images exhibit a curious phenomenon in common: on the first layer they learn features similar to Gabor filters and color blobs. Such first-layer features appear not to be specific to a particular dataset or task, but general in that they are applicable to many datasets and tasks. Features must eventually transition from general to specific by the last layer of the network, but this transition has not been studied extensively. In this paper we experimentally quantify the generality versus specificity of neurons in each layer of a deep convolutional neural network and report a few surprising results. Transferability is negatively affected by two distinct issues: (1) the specialization of higher layer neurons to their original task at the expense of performance on the target task, which was expected, and (2) optimization difficulties related to splitting networks between co-adapted neurons, which was not expected. In an example network trained on ImageNet, we demonstrate that either of these two issues may dominate, depending on whether features are transferred from the bottom, middle, or top of the network. We also document that the transferability of features decreases as the distance between the base task and target task increases, but that transferring features even from distant tasks can be better than using random features. A final surprising result is that initializing a network with transferred features from almost any number of layers can produce a boost to generalization that lingers even after fine-tuning to the target dataset.

4,368 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These guidelines are presented 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.
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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased 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. 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. 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 autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

4,316 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Transitions are proposed for species data tables which allow ecologists to use ordination methods such as PCA and RDA for the analysis of community data, while circumventing the problems associated with the Euclidean distance, and avoiding CA and CCA which present problems of their own in some cases.
Abstract: This paper examines how to obtain species biplots in unconstrained or constrained ordination without resorting to the Euclidean distance [used in principal-component analysis (PCA) and redundancy analysis (RDA)] or the chi-square distance [preserved in correspondence analysis (CA) and canonical correspondence analysis (CCA)] which are not always appropriate for the analysis of community composition data. To achieve this goal, transformations are proposed for species data tables. They allow ecologists to use ordination methods such as PCA and RDA, which are Euclidean-based, for the analysis of community data, while circumventing the problems associated with the Euclidean distance, and avoiding CA and CCA which present problems of their own in some cases. This allows the use of the original (transformed) species data in RDA carried out to test for relationships with explanatory variables (i.e. environmental variables, or factors of a multifactorial analysis-of-variance model); ecologists can then draw biplots displaying the relationships of the species to the explanatory variables. Another application allows the use of species data in other methods of multivariate data analysis which optimize a least-squares loss function; an example is K-means partitioning.

4,194 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Luke Jostins1, Stephan Ripke2, Rinse K. Weersma3, Richard H. Duerr4, Dermot P.B. McGovern5, Ken Y. Hui6, James Lee7, L. Philip Schumm8, Yashoda Sharma6, Carl A. Anderson1, Jonah Essers9, Mitja Mitrovic3, Kaida Ning6, Isabelle Cleynen10, Emilie Theatre11, Sarah L. Spain12, Soumya Raychaudhuri9, Philippe Goyette13, Zhi Wei14, Clara Abraham6, Jean-Paul Achkar15, Tariq Ahmad16, Leila Amininejad17, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan9, Vibeke Andersen18, Jane M. Andrews19, Leonard Baidoo4, Tobias Balschun20, Peter A. Bampton21, Alain Bitton22, Gabrielle Boucher13, Stephan Brand23, Carsten Büning24, Ariella Cohain25, Sven Cichon26, Mauro D'Amato27, Dirk De Jong3, Kathy L Devaney9, Marla Dubinsky5, Cathryn Edwards28, David Ellinghaus20, Lynnette R. Ferguson29, Denis Franchimont17, Karin Fransen3, Richard B. Gearry30, Michel Georges11, Christian Gieger, Jürgen Glas22, Talin Haritunians5, Ailsa Hart31, Christopher J. Hawkey32, Matija Hedl6, Xinli Hu9, Tom H. Karlsen33, Limas Kupčinskas34, Subra Kugathasan35, Anna Latiano36, Debby Laukens37, Ian C. Lawrance38, Charlie W. Lees39, Edouard Louis11, Gillian Mahy40, John C. Mansfield41, Angharad R. Morgan29, Craig Mowat42, William G. Newman43, Orazio Palmieri36, Cyriel Y. Ponsioen44, Uroš Potočnik45, Natalie J. Prescott6, Miguel Regueiro4, Jerome I. Rotter5, Richard K Russell46, Jeremy D. Sanderson47, Miquel Sans, Jack Satsangi39, Stefan Schreiber20, Lisa A. Simms48, Jurgita Sventoraityte34, Stephan R. Targan, Kent D. Taylor5, Mark Tremelling49, Hein W. Verspaget50, Martine De Vos37, Cisca Wijmenga3, David C. Wilson39, Juliane Winkelmann51, Ramnik J. Xavier9, Sebastian Zeissig20, Bin Zhang25, Clarence K. Zhang6, Hongyu Zhao6, Mark S. Silverberg52, Vito Annese, Hakon Hakonarson53, Steven R. Brant54, Graham L. Radford-Smith55, Christopher G. Mathew12, John D. Rioux13, Eric E. Schadt25, Mark J. Daly2, Andre Franke20, Miles Parkes7, Severine Vermeire10, Jeffrey C. Barrett1, Judy H. Cho6 
Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute1, Broad Institute2, University of Groningen3, University of Pittsburgh4, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center5, Yale University6, University of Cambridge7, University of Chicago8, Harvard University9, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven10, University of Liège11, King's College London12, Université de Montréal13, New Jersey Institute of Technology14, Cleveland Clinic15, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry16, Université libre de Bruxelles17, Aarhus University18, University of Adelaide19, University of Kiel20, Flinders University21, McGill University22, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich23, Charité24, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai25, University of Bonn26, Karolinska Institutet27, Torbay Hospital28, University of Auckland29, Christchurch Hospital30, Imperial College London31, Queen's University32, University of Oslo33, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences34, Emory University35, Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza36, Ghent University37, University of Western Australia38, University of Edinburgh39, Queensland Health40, Newcastle University41, University of Dundee42, University of Manchester43, University of Amsterdam44, University of Maribor45, Royal Hospital for Sick Children46, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust47, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute48, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital49, Leiden University50, Technische Universität München51, University of Toronto52, University of Pennsylvania53, Johns Hopkins University54, University of Queensland55
01 Nov 2012-Nature
TL;DR: A meta-analysis of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis genome-wide association scans is undertaken, followed by extensive validation of significant findings, with a combined total of more than 75,000 cases and controls.
Abstract: Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the two common forms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), affect over 2.5 million people of European ancestry, with rising prevalence in other populations. Genome-wide association studies and subsequent meta-analyses of these two diseases as separate phenotypes have implicated previously unsuspected mechanisms, such as autophagy, in their pathogenesis and showed that some IBD loci are shared with other inflammatory diseases. Here we expand on the knowledge of relevant pathways by undertaking a meta-analysis of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis genome-wide association scans, followed by extensive validation of significant findings, with a combined total of more than 75,000 cases and controls. We identify 71 new associations, for a total of 163 IBD loci, that meet genome-wide significance thresholds. Most loci contribute to both phenotypes, and both directional (consistently favouring one allele over the course of human history) and balancing (favouring the retention of both alleles within populations) selection effects are evident. Many IBD loci are also implicated in other immune-mediated disorders, most notably with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis. We also observe considerable overlap between susceptibility loci for IBD and mycobacterial infection. Gene co-expression network analysis emphasizes this relationship, with pathways shared between host responses to mycobacteria and those predisposing to IBD.

4,094 citations


Authors

Showing all 45957 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Yoshua Bengio2021033420313
Alan C. Evans183866134642
Richard H. Friend1691182140032
Anders Björklund16576984268
Charles N. Serhan15872884810
Fernando Rivadeneira14662886582
C. Dallapiccola1361717101947
Michael J. Meaney13660481128
Claude Leroy135117088604
Georges Azuelos134129490690
Phillip Gutierrez133139196205
Danny Miller13351271238
Henry T. Lynch13392586270
Stanley Nattel13277865700
Lucie Gauthier13267964794
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Toronto
294.9K papers, 13.5M citations

96% related

University of Pennsylvania
257.6K papers, 14.1M citations

93% related

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

92% related

University of Minnesota
257.9K papers, 11.9M citations

92% related

Harvard University
530.3K papers, 38.1M citations

92% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023118
2022485
20216,077
20205,753
20195,212
20184,696