Institution
University of Cologne
Education•Cologne, Germany•
About: University of Cologne is a education organization based out in Cologne, Germany. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Gene. The organization has 32050 authors who have published 66350 publications receiving 2210092 citations. The organization is also known as: Universität zu Köln & Universitatis Coloniensis.
Topics: Population, Gene, Transplantation, Medicine, Cancer
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Public Health Research Institute1, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven2, Leiden University3, John Radcliffe Hospital4, University of Oxford5, Keele University6, Medical University of Vienna7, University Medical Center Utrecht8, University College Cork9, University of Pennsylvania10, University of Cologne11, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre12, University of Aberdeen13, RMIT University14, University of Manchester15, University of Amsterdam16, University of Ioannina17, Imperial College London18, Maastricht University Medical Centre19, Humboldt University of Berlin20
TL;DR: Proposed models for covid-19 are poorly reported, at high risk of bias, and their reported performance is probably optimistic, according to a review of published and preprint reports.
Abstract: Objective To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for diagnosing coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in patients with suspected infection, for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital with the disease. Design Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the COVID-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group. Data sources PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 1 July 2020, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020. Study selection Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model. Data extraction At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool). Results 37 421 titles were screened, and 169 studies describing 232 prediction models were included. The review identified seven models for identifying people at risk in the general population; 118 diagnostic models for detecting covid-19 (75 were based on medical imaging, 10 to diagnose disease severity); and 107 prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to severe disease, intensive care unit admission, ventilation, intubation, or length of hospital stay. The most frequent types of predictors included in the covid-19 prediction models are vital signs, age, comorbidities, and image features. Flu-like symptoms are frequently predictive in diagnostic models, while sex, C reactive protein, and lymphocyte counts are frequent prognostic factors. Reported C index estimates from the strongest form of validation available per model ranged from 0.71 to 0.99 in prediction models for the general population, from 0.65 to more than 0.99 in diagnostic models, and from 0.54 to 0.99 in prognostic models. All models were rated at high or unclear risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, high risk of model overfitting, and unclear reporting. Many models did not include a description of the target population (n=27, 12%) or care setting (n=75, 32%), and only 11 (5%) were externally validated by a calibration plot. The Jehi diagnostic model and the 4C mortality score were identified as promising models. Conclusion Prediction models for covid-19 are quickly entering the academic literature to support medical decision making at a time when they are urgently needed. This review indicates that almost all pubished prediction models are poorly reported, and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performance is probably optimistic. However, we have identified two (one diagnostic and one prognostic) promising models that should soon be validated in multiple cohorts, preferably through collaborative efforts and data sharing to also allow an investigation of the stability and heterogeneity in their performance across populations and settings. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/. Methodological guidance as provided in this paper should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction model authors should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline. Systematic review registration Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 3 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.
2,183 citations
••
King's College London1, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center2, Harvard University3, University of Pennsylvania4, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center5, City of Hope National Medical Center6, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center7, Lund University8, University of Cologne9, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre10, National Institute for Health Research11, AstraZeneca12
TL;DR: Findings from this phase 2 study provide positive proof of concept of the efficacy and tolerability of genetically targeted treatment with olaparib in BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer.
2,119 citations
••
TL;DR: It is determined that short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), microbiota-derived bacterial fermentation products, regulated microglia homeostasis and mice deficient for the SCFA receptor FFAR2 mirroredmicroglia defects found under GF conditions, suggesting that host bacteria vitally regulate microglian maturation and function.
Abstract: As the tissue macrophages of the CNS, microglia are critically involved in diseases of the CNS. However, it remains unknown what controls their maturation and activation under homeostatic conditions. We observed substantial contributions of the host microbiota to microglia homeostasis, as germ-free (GF) mice displayed global defects in microglia with altered cell proportions and an immature phenotype, leading to impaired innate immune responses. Temporal eradication of host microbiota severely changed microglia properties. Limited microbiota complexity also resulted in defective microglia. In contrast, recolonization with a complex microbiota partially restored microglia features. We determined that short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), microbiota-derived bacterial fermentation products, regulated microglia homeostasis. Accordingly, mice deficient for the SCFA receptor FFAR2 mirrored microglia defects found under GF conditions. These findings suggest that host bacteria vitally regulate microglia maturation and function, whereas microglia impairment can be rectified to some extent by complex microbiota.
2,096 citations
••
University of Pennsylvania1, University of Chicago2, University of Melbourne3, Emory University4, University of Cologne5, University of Kansas6, Medical University of Vienna7, Ohio State University8, University of California, San Francisco9, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center10, Université de Montréal11, University of Minnesota12, McMaster University13, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital14, University of Würzburg15, Karolinska Institutet16, University of Michigan17, University of Oslo18, Novartis19, University of Lyon20
TL;DR: The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy tisagenlecleucel targets and eliminates CD19-expressing B cells and showed efficacy against B-cell lymphomas in a single-center, phase 2a study.
Abstract: Background Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma that is refractory to primary and second-line therapies or that has relapsed after stem-cell transplantation have a poor prognosis. The chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy tisagenlecleucel targets and eliminates CD19-expressing B cells and showed efficacy against B-cell lymphomas in a single-center, phase 2a study. Methods We conducted an international, phase 2, pivotal study of centrally manufactured tisagenlecleucel involving adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who were ineligible for or had disease progression after autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. The primary end point was the best overall response rate (i.e., the percentage of patients who had a complete or partial response), as judged by an independent review committee. Results A total of 93 patients received an infusion and were included in the evaluation of efficacy. The median time from infusion to data cutoff was 14 ...
2,086 citations
••
VU University Amsterdam1, University of La Rioja2, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre3, University of Cologne4, Erasmus University Rotterdam5, King's College London6, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center7, Vanderbilt University Medical Center8, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center9, University of Iowa10, Bosch11, Medical University of Vienna12
TL;DR: Both the previous and these new guidelines specifically aim to achieve standardised uptake value harmonisation in multicentre settings.
Abstract: The purpose of these guidelines is to assist physicians in recommending, performing, interpreting and reporting the results of FDG PET/CT for oncological imaging of adult patients. PET is a quantitative imaging technique and therefore requires a common quality control (QC)/quality assurance (QA) procedure to maintain the accuracy and precision of quantitation. Repeatability and reproducibility are two essential requirements for any quantitative measurement and/or imaging biomarker. Repeatability relates to the uncertainty in obtaining the same result in the same patient when he or she is examined more than once on the same system. However, imaging biomarkers should also have adequate reproducibility, i.e. the ability to yield the same result in the same patient when that patient is examined on different systems and at different imaging sites. Adequate repeatability and reproducibility are essential for the clinical management of patients and the use of FDG PET/CT within multicentre trials. A common standardised imaging procedure will help promote the appropriate use of FDG PET/CT imaging and increase the value of publications and, therefore, their contribution to evidence-based medicine. Moreover, consistency in numerical values between platforms and institutes that acquire the data will potentially enhance the role of semiquantitative and quantitative image interpretation. Precision and accuracy are additionally important as FDG PET/CT is used to evaluate tumour response as well as for diagnosis, prognosis and staging. Therefore both the previous and these new guidelines specifically aim to achieve standardised uptake value harmonisation in multicentre settings.
2,029 citations
Authors
Showing all 32558 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
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 |
Klaus Müllen | 164 | 2125 | 140748 |
Klaus Rajewsky | 154 | 504 | 88793 |
Frederik Barkhof | 154 | 1449 | 104982 |
Stefanie Dimmeler | 147 | 574 | 81658 |
Detlef Weigel | 142 | 516 | 84670 |
Hidde L. Ploegh | 135 | 674 | 67437 |
Luca Valenziano | 130 | 437 | 94728 |
Peter Walter | 126 | 841 | 71580 |
Peter G. Martin | 125 | 553 | 97257 |