Institution
University of Alabama
Education•Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States•
About: University of Alabama is a education organization based out in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 27323 authors who have published 48609 publications receiving 1565337 citations. The organization is also known as: Alabama & Bama.
Topics: Population, Poison control, Galaxy, Health care, Large Hadron Collider
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, a review of existing literature in the area of nano-modification of asphalt and proceed to apply nano-materials to asphalt to improve the performance is presented.
360 citations
TL;DR: Initial results on the formation of thin cellulose films incorporating dispersed laccase indicate that active enzyme-encapsulated films can be prepared using this methodology and that precoating the enzyme with a second, hydrophobic ionic liquid prior to dispersion in the cellulose/ionic liquid solution can provide an increase in enzyme activity relative to that of untreated films.
360 citations
National Institutes of Health1, Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures2, University of Perugia3, University of Sydney4, University of Gothenburg5, University of Tennessee6, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign7, Royal Botanic Gardens8, University of Tartu9, Purdue University10, Mae Fah Luang University11, Kunming Institute of Botany12, Complutense University of Madrid13, American Museum of Natural History14, University of Pretoria15, Spanish National Research Council16, University of British Columbia17, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic18, University of Toronto19, Aberystwyth University20, University of Graz21, University of the Free State22, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation23, Swedish Museum of Natural History24, Rural Development Administration25, University of California, Davis26, Landcare Research27, Hungarian Academy of Sciences28, Eötvös Loránd University29, Field Museum of Natural History30, University of Szeged31, United States Department of Agriculture32, University of Alabama33, University of Helsinki34, Thailand National Science and Technology Development Agency35, University of Wisconsin-Madison36, National Research Council37, University of North Carolina at Greensboro38, Sungkyunkwan University39, Hirosaki University40, Brandon University41, University of Jena42, University of Findlay43, University of Tübingen44, McMaster University45, Rutgers University46
TL;DR: A set of standards and protocols are proposed to improve the data quality of new sequences, and it is suggested how type and other reference sequences can be used to improve identification of Fungi.
Abstract: DNA phylogenetic comparisons have shown that morphology-based species recognition often underestimates fungal diversity. Therefore, the need for accurate DNA sequence data, tied to both correct taxonomic names and clearly annotated specimen data, has never been greater. Furthermore, the growing number of molecular ecology and microbiome projects using high-throughput sequencing require fast and effective methods for en masse species assignments. In this article, we focus on selecting and re-annotating a set of marker reference sequences that represent each currently accepted order of Fungi. The particular focus is on sequences from the internal transcribed spacer region in the nuclear ribosomal cistron, derived from type specimens and/or ex-type cultures. Re-annotated and verified sequences were deposited in a curated public database at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), namely the RefSeq Targeted Loci (RTL) database, and will be visible during routine sequence similarity searches with NR_prefixed accession numbers. A set of standards and protocols is proposed to improve the data quality of new sequences, and we suggest how type and other reference sequences can be used to improve identification of Fungi.
360 citations
Roswell Park Cancer Institute1, Stanford University2, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center3, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston4, Wayne State University5, University of Genoa6, National Institutes of Health7, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven8, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio9, Duke University10, University of Paris11, University of Florida12, University of Lausanne13, University of Michigan14, Harvard University15, University of Alabama16, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center17, University of Milan18, Medical University of Vienna19, University of Manitoba20, Radboud University Nijmegen21
TL;DR: An expert international panel consisting of the Mycoses Study Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer was convened to propose guidelines for assessing treatment responses in clinical trials of IFDs and for defining study outcomes.
Abstract: Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) have become major causes of morbidity and mortality among highly immunocompromised patients. Authoritative consensus criteria to diagnose IFD have been useful in establishing eligibility criteria for antifungal trials. There is an important need for generation of consensus definitions of outcomes of IFD that will form a standard for evaluating treatment success and failure in clinical trials. Therefore, an expert international panel consisting of the Mycoses Study Group and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer was convened to propose guidelines for assessing treatment responses in clinical trials of IFDs and for defining study outcomes. Major fungal diseases that are discussed include invasive disease due to Candida species, Aspergillus species and other molds, Cryptococcus neoformans, Histoplasma capsulatum, and Coccidioides immitis. We also discuss potential pitfalls in assessing outcome, such as conflicting clinical, radiological, and/or mycological data and gaps in knowledge.
360 citations
Johns Hopkins University1, University of Utah2, Fox Chase Cancer Center3, University of Michigan4, Roswell Park Cancer Institute5, Brigham and Women's Hospital6, Duke University7, Washington University in St. Louis8, City of Hope National Medical Center9, University of Alabama10, Vanderbilt University11, University of California, San Francisco12, Stanford University13, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center14, Nebraska Medical Center15, Harvard University16, Seattle Cancer Care Alliance17, Ohio State University18, Northwestern University19, University of South Florida20, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center21, University Of Tennessee System22, National Comprehensive Cancer Network23
TL;DR: This topic was the subject of a major update in the 2013 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.
Abstract: These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the diagnostic evaluation of suspected lung cancer. This topic was the subject of a major update in the 2013 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. The NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the major updates in the NCCN Guidelines and discuss the new updates in greater detail.
360 citations
Authors
Showing all 27508 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jasvinder A. Singh | 176 | 2382 | 223370 |
| Hongfang Liu | 166 | 2356 | 156290 |
| Ian J. Deary | 166 | 1795 | 114161 |
| Yongsun Kim | 156 | 2588 | 145619 |
| Dong-Chul Son | 138 | 1370 | 98686 |
| Simon C. Watkins | 135 | 950 | 68358 |
| Kenichi Hatakeyama | 134 | 1731 | 102438 |
| Conor Henderson | 133 | 1387 | 88725 |
| Peter R Hobson | 133 | 1590 | 94257 |
| Tulika Bose | 132 | 1285 | 88895 |
| Helen F Heath | 132 | 1185 | 89466 |
| James Rohlf | 131 | 1215 | 89436 |
| Panos A Razis | 130 | 1287 | 90704 |
| David B. Allison | 129 | 836 | 69697 |
| Eduardo Marbán | 129 | 579 | 49586 |