scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of California, Davis

EducationDavis, California, United States
About: University of California, Davis is a education organization based out in Davis, California, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 78770 authors who have published 180033 publications receiving 8064158 citations. The organization is also known as: UC Davis & UCD.
Topics: Population, Poison control, Gene, Galaxy, Genome


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
08 May 2008-Nature
TL;DR: It is shown that, when presented with more than a few simple objects, human observers store a high-resolution representation of a subset of the objects and retain no information about the others.
Abstract: Limits on the storage capacity of working memory significantly affect cognitive abilities in a wide range of domains, but the nature of these capacity limits has been elusive. Some researchers have proposed that working memory stores a limited set of discrete, fixed-resolution representations, whereas others have proposed that working memory consists of a pool of resources that can be allocated flexibly to provide either a small number of high-resolution representations or a large number of low-resolution representations. Here we resolve this controversy by providing independent measures of capacity and resolution. We show that, when presented with more than a few simple objects, human observers store a high-resolution representation of a subset of the objects and retain no information about the others. Memory resolution varied over a narrow range that cannot be explained in terms of a general resource pool but can be well explained by a small set of discrete, fixed-resolution representations.

1,389 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Observers can easily be constructed for those nonlinear systems which can be transformed into a linear system by change of state variables and output injection.

1,384 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The theory of pair-bond attachment was originally formulated by C. Hazan and P. R. Shaver in 1987 and describes how it has evolved over more than a decade as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: The authors review the theory of romantic, or pair-bond, attachment as it was originally formulated by C. Hazan and P. R. Shaver in 1987 and describe how it has evolved over more than a decade. In ...

1,384 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Jan Schipper1, Jan Schipper2, Janice Chanson2, Janice Chanson1, Federica Chiozza3, Neil A. Cox2, Neil A. Cox1, Michael R. Hoffmann1, Michael R. Hoffmann2, Vineet Katariya2, John F. Lamoreux2, John F. Lamoreux4, Ana S. L. Rodrigues5, Ana S. L. Rodrigues6, Simon N. Stuart1, Simon N. Stuart2, Helen J. Temple2, Jonathan E. M. Baillie7, Luigi Boitani3, Thomas E. Lacher4, Thomas E. Lacher1, Russell A. Mittermeier, Andrew T. Smith8, Daniel Absolon, John M. Aguiar4, John M. Aguiar1, Giovanni Amori, Noura Bakkour9, Noura Bakkour1, Ricardo Baldi10, Ricardo Baldi11, Richard J. Berridge, Jon Bielby12, Jon Bielby7, Patricia Ann Black13, Julian Blanc, Thomas M. Brooks14, Thomas M. Brooks15, Thomas M. Brooks1, James Burton16, James Burton17, Thomas M. Butynski18, Gianluca Catullo, Roselle Chapman, Zoe Cokeliss7, Ben Collen7, Jim Conroy, Justin Cooke, Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca19, Gustavo A. B. da Fonseca20, Andrew E. Derocher21, Holly T. Dublin, J. W. Duckworth10, Louise H. Emmons22, Richard H. Emslie2, Marco Festa-Bianchet23, Matthew N. Foster, Sabrina Foster24, David L. Garshelis25, C. Cormack Gates26, Mariano Gimenez-Dixon, Susana González, José F. González-Maya, Tatjana C. Good27, Geoffrey Hammerson28, Philip S. Hammond29, D. C. D. Happold30, Meredith Happold30, John Hare, Richard B. Harris31, Clare E. Hawkins32, Clare E. Hawkins15, Mandy Haywood33, Lawrence R. Heaney34, Simon Hedges10, Kristofer M. Helgen22, Craig Hilton-Taylor2, Syed Ainul Hussain35, Nobuo Ishii36, Thomas Jefferson37, Richard K. B. Jenkins38, Charlotte H. Johnston8, Mark Keith39, Jonathan Kingdon40, David Knox1, Kit M. Kovacs41, Kit M. Kovacs42, Penny F. Langhammer8, Kristin Leus43, Rebecca L. Lewison44, Gabriela Lichtenstein, Lloyd F. Lowry45, Zoe Macavoy12, Georgina M. Mace12, David Mallon46, Monica Masi, Meghan W. McKnight, Rodrigo A. Medellín47, Patricia Medici48, G. Mills, Patricia D. Moehlman, Sanjay Molur, Arturo Mora2, Kristin Nowell, John F. Oates49, Wanda Olech, William R.L. Oliver, Monik Oprea22, Bruce D. Patterson34, William F. Perrin37, Beth Polidoro2, Caroline M. Pollock2, Abigail Powel50, Yelizaveta Protas9, Paul A. Racey38, Jim Ragle2, Pavithra Ramani24, Galen B. Rathbun51, Randall R. Reeves, Stephen B. Reilly37, John E. Reynolds52, Carlo Rondinini3, Ruth Grace Rosell-Ambal1, Monica Rulli, Anthony B. Rylands, Simona Savini, Cody J. Schank24, Wes Sechrest24, Caryn Self-Sullivan, Alan Shoemaker2, Claudio Sillero-Zubiri40, Naamal De Silva, David E. Smith24, Chelmala Srinivasulu53, P. J. Stephenson, Nico van Strien54, Bibhab Kumar Talukdar55, Barbara L. Taylor37, Rob Timmins, Diego G. Tirira, Marcelo F. Tognelli56, Marcelo F. Tognelli11, Katerina Tsytsulina, Liza M. Veiga57, Jean-Christophe Vié2, Elizabeth A. Williamson58, Sarah A. Wyatt, Yan Xie, Bruce E. Young28 
Conservation International1, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources2, Sapienza University of Rome3, Texas A&M University4, Instituto Superior Técnico5, University of Cambridge6, Zoological Society of London7, Arizona State University8, Columbia University9, Wildlife Conservation Society10, National Scientific and Technical Research Council11, Imperial College London12, National University of Tucumán13, University of the Philippines Los Baños14, University of Tasmania15, University of Edinburgh16, Earthwatch Institute17, Drexel University18, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais19, Global Environment Facility20, University of Alberta21, Smithsonian Institution22, Université de Sherbrooke23, University of Virginia24, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources25, University of Calgary26, James Cook University27, NatureServe28, University of St Andrews29, Australian National University30, University of Montana31, General Post Office32, University of Otago33, Field Museum of Natural History34, Wildlife Institute of India35, Tokyo Woman's Christian University36, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration37, University of Aberdeen38, University of the Witwatersrand39, University of Oxford40, University Centre in Svalbard41, Norwegian Polar Institute42, Copenhagen Zoo43, San Diego State University44, University of Alaska Fairbanks45, Manchester Metropolitan University46, National Autonomous University of Mexico47, University of Kent48, City University of New York49, Victoria University of Wellington50, California Academy of Sciences51, Mote Marine Laboratory52, Osmania University53, White Oak Conservation54, Aaranyak55, University of California, Davis56, Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi57, University of Stirling58
10 Oct 2008-Science
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a comprehensive assessment of the conservation status and distribution of the world's mammals, including marine mammals, using data collected by 1700+ experts, covering all 5487 species.
Abstract: Knowledge of mammalian diversity is still surprisingly disparate, both regionally and taxonomically. Here, we present a comprehensive assessment of the conservation status and distribution of the world's mammals. Data, compiled by 1700+ experts, cover all 5487 species, including marine mammals. Global macroecological patterns are very different for land and marine species but suggest common mechanisms driving diversity and endemism across systems. Compared with land species, threat levels are higher among marine mammals, driven by different processes (accidental mortality and pollution, rather than habitat loss), and are spatially distinct (peaking in northern oceans, rather than in Southeast Asia). Marine mammals are also disproportionately poorly known. These data are made freely available to support further scientific developments and conservation action.

1,383 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A risk stratification schema can establish the risk of chemotherapy toxicity in older adults and Geriatric assessment variables independently predicted therisk of toxicity.
Abstract: Purpose Older adults are vulnerable to chemotherapy toxicity; however, there are limited data to identify those at risk. The goals of this study are to identify risk factors for chemotherapy toxicity in older adults and develop a risk stratification schema for chemotherapy toxicity. Patients and Methods Patients age 65 years with cancer from seven institutions completed a prechemotherapy assessment that captured sociodemographics, tumor/treatment variables, laboratory test results, and geriatric assessment variables (function, comorbidity, cognition, psychological state, social activity/support, and nutritional status). Patients were followed through the chemotherapy course to capture grade 3 (severe), grade 4 (life-threatening or disabling), and grade 5 (death) as defined by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Results In total, 500 patients with a mean age of 73 years (range, 65 to 91 years) with stage I to IV lung (29%), GI (27%), gynecologic (17%), breast (11%), genitourinary (10%), or other (6%) cancer joined this prospective study. Grade 3 to 5 toxicity occurred in 53% of the patients (39% grade 3, 12% grade 4, 2% grade 5). A predictive model for grade 3 to 5 toxicity was developed that consisted of geriatric assessment variables, laboratory test values, and patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. A scoring system in which the median risk score was 7 (range, 0 to 19) and risk stratification schema (risk score: percent incidence of grade 3 to 5 toxicity) identified older adults at low (0 to 5 points; 30%), intermediate (6 to 9 points; 52%), or high risk (10 to 19 points; 83%) of chemotherapy toxicity (P .001).

1,383 citations


Authors

Showing all 79538 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Eric S. Lander301826525976
Ronald C. Kessler2741332328983
George M. Whitesides2401739269833
Ronald M. Evans199708166722
Virginia M.-Y. Lee194993148820
Scott M. Grundy187841231821
Julie E. Buring186950132967
Patrick O. Brown183755200985
Anil K. Jain1831016192151
John C. Morris1831441168413
Douglas R. Green182661145944
John R. Yates1771036129029
Barry Halliwell173662159518
Roderick T. Bronson169679107702
Hongfang Liu1662356156290
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Cornell University
235.5K papers, 12.2M citations

98% related

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

97% related

University of Minnesota
257.9K papers, 11.9M citations

97% related

University of Pennsylvania
257.6K papers, 14.1M citations

95% related

University of Washington
305.5K papers, 17.7M citations

95% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023262
20221,122
20218,398
20208,661
20198,165
20187,556