University of Cologne
About: University of Cologne is a(n) education organization based out in Cologne, Germany. It is known for research contribution in the topic(s): Population & Transplantation. The organization has 32050 authors who have published 66350 publication(s) receiving 2210092 citation(s). The organization is also known as: Universität zu Köln & Universitatis Coloniensis.
Topics: Population, Transplantation, Gene, Star formation, Cancer
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: The reliability and validity of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire were highly consistent across the three language-cultural groups studied: patients from English-speaking countries, Northern Europe, and Southern Europe.
Abstract: Background In 1986, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) initiated a research program to develop an integrated, modular approach for evaluating the quality of life of patients participating in international clinical trials. Purpose We report here the results of an international field study of the practicality, reliability, and validity of the EORTC QLQ-C30, the current core questionnaire. The QLQ-C30 incorporates nine multi-item scales: five functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social); three symptom scales (fatigue, pain, and nausea and vomiting); and a global health and quality-of-life scale. Several single-item symptom measures are also included. Methods The questionnaire was administered before treatment and once during treatment to 305 patients with nonresectable lung cancer from centers in 13 countries. Clinical variables assessed included disease stage, weight loss, performance status, and treatment toxicity. Results The average time required to complete the questionnaire was approximately 11 minutes, and most patients required no assistance. The data supported the hypothesized scale structure of the questionnaire with the exception of role functioning (work and household activities), which was also the only multi-item scale that failed to meet the minimal standards for reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficient > or = .70) either before or during treatment. Validity was shown by three findings. First, while all interscale correlations were statistically significant, the correlation was moderate, indicating that the scales were assessing distinct components of the quality-of-life construct. Second, most of the functional and symptom measures discriminated clearly between patients differing in clinical status as defined by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scale, weight loss, and treatment toxicity. Third, there were statistically significant changes, in the expected direction, in physical and role functioning, global quality of life, fatigue, and nausea and vomiting, for patients whose performance status had improved or worsened during treatment. The reliability and validity of the questionnaire were highly consistent across the three language-cultural groups studied: patients from English-speaking countries, Northern Europe, and Southern Europe. Conclusions These results support the EORTC QLQ-C30 as a reliable and valid measure of the quality of life of cancer patients in multicultural clinical research settings. Work is ongoing to examine the performance of the questionnaire among more heterogenous patient samples and in phase II and phase III clinical trials.
Harvard University1, University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne2, College of William & Mary3, Old Dominion University4, University of Lisbon5, University of Burgundy6, California Institute of Technology7, Centre national de la recherche scientifique8, Université catholique de Louvain9, University of York10, University College London11, National Institute of Standards and Technology12, University of Waterloo13, National Center for Atmospheric Research14, University of Cologne15, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology16, Langley Research Center17
TL;DR: The new HITRAN is greatly extended in terms of accuracy, spectral coverage, additional absorption phenomena, added line-shape formalisms, and validity, and molecules, isotopologues, and perturbing gases have been added that address the issues of atmospheres beyond the Earth.
Abstract: This paper describes the contents of the 2016 edition of the HITRAN molecular spectroscopic compilation. The new edition replaces the previous HITRAN edition of 2012 and its updates during the intervening years. The HITRAN molecular absorption compilation is composed of five major components: the traditional line-by-line spectroscopic parameters required for high-resolution radiative-transfer codes, infrared absorption cross-sections for molecules not yet amenable to representation in a line-by-line form, collision-induced absorption data, aerosol indices of refraction, and general tables such as partition sums that apply globally to the data. The new HITRAN is greatly extended in terms of accuracy, spectral coverage, additional absorption phenomena, added line-shape formalisms, and validity. Moreover, molecules, isotopologues, and perturbing gases have been added that address the issues of atmospheres beyond the Earth. Of considerable note, experimental IR cross-sections for almost 300 additional molecules important in different areas of atmospheric science have been added to the database. The compilation can be accessed through www.hitran.org. Most of the HITRAN data have now been cast into an underlying relational database structure that offers many advantages over the long-standing sequential text-based structure. The new structure empowers the user in many ways. It enables the incorporation of an extended set of fundamental parameters per transition, sophisticated line-shape formalisms, easy user-defined output formats, and very convenient searching, filtering, and plotting of data. A powerful application programming interface making use of structured query language (SQL) features for higher-level applications of HITRAN is also provided.
TL;DR: The 2016 edition of the World Health Organization classification of tumors of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues represents a revision of the prior classification rather than an entirely new classification and attempts to incorporate new clinical, prognostic, morphologic, immunophenotypic, and genetic data that have emerged since the last edition.
Abstract: The World Health Organization (WHO) classification of tumors of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues was last updated in 2008. Since then, there have been numerous advances in the identification of unique biomarkers associated with some myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias, largely derived from gene expression analysis and next-generation sequencing that can significantly improve the diagnostic criteria as well as the prognostic relevance of entities currently included in the WHO classification and that also suggest new entities that should be added. Therefore, there is a clear need for a revision to the current classification. The revisions to the categories of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemia will be published in a monograph in 2016 and reflect a consensus of opinion of hematopathologists, hematologists, oncologists, and geneticists. The 2016 edition represents a revision of the prior classification rather than an entirely new classification and attempts to incorporate new clinical, prognostic, morphologic, immunophenotypic, and genetic data that have emerged since the last edition. The major changes in the classification and their rationale are presented here.
01 Feb 2008-Journal of Economic Surveys
TL;DR: Propensity score matching (PSM) has become a popular approach to estimate causal treatment effects as discussed by the authors, but empirical examples can be found in very diverse fields of study, and each implementation step involves a lot of decisions and different approaches can be thought of.
Abstract: Propensity score matching (PSM) has become a popular approach to estimate causal treatment effects. It is widely applied when evaluating labour market policies, but empirical examples can be found in very diverse fields of study. Once the researcher has decided to use PSM, he is confronted with a lot of questions regarding its implementation. To begin with, a first decision has to be made concerning the estimation of the propensity score. Following that one has to decide which matching algorithm to choose and determine the region of common support. Subsequently, the matching quality has to be assessed and treatment effects and their standard errors have to be estimated. Furthermore, questions like 'what to do if there is choice-based sampling?' or 'when to measure effects?' can be important in empirical studies. Finally, one might also want to test the sensitivity of estimated treatment effects with respect to unobserved heterogeneity or failure of the common support condition. Each implementation step involves a lot of decisions and different approaches can be thought of. The aim of this paper is to discuss these implementation issues and give some guidance to researchers who want to use PSM for evaluation purposes.
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4 +2519 more•Institutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy 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. For example, 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 versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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 assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
Showing all 32050 results
|Julie E. Buring||186||950||132967|
|Stuart H. Orkin||186||715||112182|
|Cornelia M. van Duijn||183||1030||146009|
|Dorret I. Boomsma||176||1507||136353|
|Frederick W. Alt||171||577||95573|
|Donald E. Ingber||164||610||100682|
|Hidde L. Ploegh||135||674||67437|
|Peter G. Martin||125||553||97257|
Related Institutions (5)
119.1K papers, 4.6M citations
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich
161.5K papers, 5.7M citations
University of Zurich
124K papers, 5.3M citations
University of Amsterdam
140.8K papers, 5.9M citations
139.3K papers, 6.2M citations