scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Colorado Denver

EducationDenver, Colorado, United States
About: University of Colorado Denver is a education organization based out in Denver, Colorado, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 27444 authors who have published 57213 publications receiving 2539937 citations. The organization is also known as: CU Denver & UCD.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This study shows that, although acute inflammatory stresses from different etiologies result in highly similar genomic responses in humans, the responses in corresponding mouse models correlate poorly with the human conditions and also, one another.
Abstract: A cornerstone of modern biomedical research is the use of mouse models to explore basic pathophysiological mechanisms, evaluate new therapeutic approaches, and make go or no-go decisions to carry new drug candidates forward into clinical trials. Systematic studies evaluating how well murine models mimic human inflammatory diseases are nonexistent. Here, we show that, although acute inflammatory stresses from different etiologies result in highly similar genomic responses in humans, the responses in corresponding mouse models correlate poorly with the human conditions and also, one another. Among genes changed significantly in humans, the murine orthologs are close to random in matching their human counterparts (e.g., R2 between 0.0 and 0.1). In addition to improvements in the current animal model systems, our study supports higher priority for translational medical research to focus on the more complex human conditions rather than relying on mouse models to study human inflammatory diseases.

2,438 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Biopsy-detected prostate cancer, including high-grade cancers, is not rare among men with PSA levels of 4.0 ng per milliliter or less--levels generally thought to be in the normal range.
Abstract: Background The optimal upper limit of the normal range for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is unknown. We investigated the prevalence of prostate cancer among men in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial who had a PSA level of 4.0 ng per milliliter or less. Methods Of 18,882 men enrolled in the prevention trial, 9459 were randomly assigned to receive placebo and had an annual measurement of PSA and a digital rectal examination. Among these 9459 men, 2950 men never had a PSA level of more than 4.0 ng per milliliter or an abnormal digital rectal examination, had a final PSA determination, and underwent a prostate biopsy after being in the study for seven years. Results Among the 2950 men (age range, 62 to 91 years), prostate cancer was diagnosed in 449 (15.2 percent); 67 of these 449 cancers (14.9 percent) had a Gleason score of 7 or higher. The prevalence of prostate cancer was 6.6 percent among men with a PSA level of up to 0.5 ng per milliliter, 10.1 percent among those with values of 0.6 to 1.0 ng per mi...

2,425 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Ranibizumab given as needed with monthly evaluation had effects on vision that were equivalent to those of ranibizuab administered monthly, although the comparison between bevacizumAB as needed and monthly bevicizumabs was inconclusive.
Abstract: Background Clinical trials have established the efficacy of ranibizumab for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD). In addition, bevacizumab is used off-label to treat AMD, despite the absence of similar supporting data. Methods In a multicenter, single-blind, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 1208 patients with neovascular AMD to receive intravitreal injections of ranibizumab or bevacizumab on either a monthly schedule or as needed with monthly evaluation. The primary outcome was the mean change in visual acuity at 1 year, with a noninferiority limit of 5 letters on the eye chart. Results Bevacizumab administered monthly was equivalent to ranibizumab administered monthly, with 8.0 and 8.5 letters gained, respectively. Bevacizumab administered as needed was equivalent to ranibizumab as needed, with 5.9 and 6.8 letters gained, respectively. Ranibizumab as needed was equivalent to monthly ranibizumab, although the comparison between bevacizumab as needed and monthly bevacizumab was inconclusive. The mean decrease in central retinal thickness was greater in the ranibizumab-monthly group (196 μm) than in the other groups (152 to 168 μm, P=0.03 by analysis of variance). Rates of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke were similar for patients receiving either bevacizumab or ranibizumab (P>0.20). The proportion of patients with serious systemic adverse events (primarily hospitalizations) was higher with bevacizumab than with ranibizumab (24.1% vs. 19.0%; risk ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to 1.66), with excess events broadly distributed in disease categories not identified in previous studies as areas of concern. Conclusions At 1 year, bevacizumab and ranibizumab had equivalent effects on visual acuity when administered according to the same schedule. Ranibizumab given as needed with monthly evaluation had effects on vision that were equivalent to those of ranibizumab administered monthly. Differences in rates of serious adverse events require further study. (Funded by the National Eye Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00593450.).

2,425 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Christina Fitzmaurice1, Christina Fitzmaurice2, Daniel Dicker2, Daniel Dicker1, Amanda W Pain1, Hannah Hamavid1, Maziar Moradi-Lakeh1, Michael F. MacIntyre1, Michael F. MacIntyre3, Christine Allen1, Gillian M. Hansen1, Rachel Woodbrook1, Charles D.A. Wolfe1, Randah R. Hamadeh4, Ami R. Moore5, A. Werdecker6, Bradford D. Gessner, Braden Te Ao, Brian J. McMahon7, Chante Karimkhani8, Chuanhua Yu9, Graham S Cooke10, David C. Schwebel11, David O. Carpenter12, David M. Pereira13, Denis Nash, Dhruv S. Kazi14, Diego De Leo15, Dietrich Plass16, Kingsley N. Ukwaja17, George D. Thurston, Kim Yun Jin18, Edgar P. Simard19, Edward J Mills20, Eun-Kee Park21, Ferrán Catalá-López22, Gabrielle deVeber, Carolyn C. Gotay23, Gulfaraz Khan24, H. Dean Hosgood25, Itamar S. Santos26, Janet L Leasher27, Jasvinder A. Singh28, James Leigh12, Jost B. Jonas29, Juan R. Sanabria30, Justin Beardsley31, Justin Beardsley32, Kathryn H. Jacobsen33, Ken Takahashi34, Richard C. Franklin, Luca Ronfani35, Marcella Montico36, Luigi Naldi36, Marcello Tonelli, Johanna M. Geleijnse37, Max Petzold38, Mark G. Shrime39, Mark G. Shrime40, Mustafa Z. Younis41, Naohiro Yonemoto42, Nicholas J K Breitborde, Paul S. F. Yip43, Farshad Pourmalek44, Paulo A. Lotufo24, Alireza Esteghamati27, Graeme J. Hankey45, Raghib Ali46, Raimundas Lunevicius33, Reza Malekzadeh47, Robert P. Dellavalle45, Robert G. Weintraub48, Robert G. Weintraub49, Robyn M. Lucas50, Robyn M. Lucas51, Roderick J Hay52, David Rojas-Rueda, Ronny Westerman, Sadaf G. Sepanlou53, Sandra Nolte, Scott B. Patten54, Scott Weichenthal37, Semaw Ferede Abera55, Seyed-Mohammad Fereshtehnejad56, Ivy Shiue57, Tim Driscoll58, Tim Driscoll59, Tommi J. Vasankari29, Ubai Alsharif, Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar54, Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov45, W. S. Marcenes60, Wubegzier Mekonnen61, Yohannes Adama Melaku62, Yuichiro Yano56, Al Artaman63, Ismael Campos, Jennifer H MacLachlan41, Ulrich O Mueller, Daniel Kim53, Matias Trillini64, Babak Eshrati65, Hywel C Williams66, Kenji Shibuya67, Rakhi Dandona68, Kinnari S. Murthy69, Benjamin C Cowie69, Azmeraw T. Amare, Carl Abelardo T. Antonio70, Carlos A Castañeda-Orjuela71, Coen H. Van Gool, Francesco Saverio Violante, In-Hwan Oh72, Kedede Deribe73, Kjetil Søreide74, Kjetil Søreide62, Luke D. Knibbs75, Luke D. Knibbs76, Maia Kereselidze77, Mark Green78, Rosario Cardenas79, Nobhojit Roy80, Taavi Tillmann57, Yongmei Li81, Hans Krueger82, Lorenzo Monasta24, Subhojit Dey36, Sara Sheikhbahaei, Nima Hafezi-Nejad45, G Anil Kumar45, Chandrashekhar T Sreeramareddy69, Lalit Dandona83, Haidong Wang69, Haidong Wang1, Stein Emil Vollset1, Ali Mokdad84, Ali Mokdad75, Joshua A. Salomon1, Rafael Lozano41, Theo Vos1, Mohammad H. Forouzanfar1, Alan D. Lopez1, Christopher J L Murray50, Mohsen Naghavi1 
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation1, University of Washington2, Iran University of Medical Sciences3, King's College London4, Arabian Gulf University5, University of North Texas6, Auckland University of Technology7, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium8, Columbia University9, Wuhan University10, Imperial College London11, University of Alabama at Birmingham12, University at Albany, SUNY13, City University of New York14, University of California, San Francisco15, Griffith University16, Environment Agency17, New York University18, Southern University College19, Emory University20, University of Ottawa21, Kosin University22, University of Toronto23, University of British Columbia24, United Arab Emirates University25, Albert Einstein College of Medicine26, University of São Paulo27, Nova Southeastern University28, University of Sydney29, Heidelberg University30, Cancer Treatment Centers of America31, Case Western Reserve University32, University of Oxford33, George Mason University34, James Cook University35, University of Trieste36, University of Calgary37, Wageningen University and Research Centre38, University of the Witwatersrand39, University of Gothenburg40, Harvard University41, Jackson State University42, University of Arizona43, University of Hong Kong44, Tehran University of Medical Sciences45, University of Western Australia46, Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust47, University of Colorado Denver48, Veterans Health Administration49, University of Melbourne50, Royal Children's Hospital51, Australian National University52, University of Marburg53, Charité54, Health Canada55, College of Health Sciences, Bahrain56, Karolinska Institutet57, University of Edinburgh58, Northumbria University59, National Research University – Higher School of Economics60, Queen Mary University of London61, Addis Ababa University62, Northwestern University63, Northeastern University64, Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research65, Arak University of Medical Sciences66, University of Nottingham67, University of Tokyo68, Public Health Foundation of India69, University of Groningen70, University of the Philippines Manila71, University of Bologna72, Kyung Hee University73, Brighton and Sussex Medical School74, University of Bergen75, Stavanger University Hospital76, University of Queensland77, National Centre for Disease Control78, University of Sheffield79, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana80, University College London81, Genentech82, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman83, Norwegian Institute of Public Health84
TL;DR: To estimate mortality, incidence, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years for 28 cancers in 188 countries by sex from 1990 to 2013, the general methodology of the Global Burden of Disease 2013 study was used.
Abstract: Importance Cancer is among the leading causes of death worldwide. Current estimates of cancer burden in individual countries and regions are necessary to inform local cancer control strategies. Objective To estimate mortality, incidence, years lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 28 cancers in 188 countries by sex from 1990 to 2013. Evidence Review The general methodology of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2013 study was used. Cancer registries were the source for cancer incidence data as well as mortality incidence (MI) ratios. Sources for cause of death data include vital registration system data, verbal autopsy studies, and other sources. The MI ratios were used to transform incidence data to mortality estimates and cause of death estimates to incidence estimates. Cancer prevalence was estimated using MI ratios as surrogates for survival data; YLDs were calculated by multiplying prevalence estimates with disability weights, which were derived from population-based surveys; YLLs were computed by multiplying the number of estimated cancer deaths at each age with a reference life expectancy; and DALYs were calculated as the sum of YLDs and YLLs. Findings In 2013 there were 14.9 million incident cancer cases, 8.2 million deaths, and 196.3 million DALYs. Prostate cancer was the leading cause for cancer incidence (1.4 million) for men and breast cancer for women (1.8 million). Tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer was the leading cause for cancer death in men and women, with 1.6 million deaths. For men, TBL cancer was the leading cause of DALYs (24.9 million). For women, breast cancer was the leading cause of DALYs (13.1 million). Age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) per 100 000 and age-standardized death rates (ASDRs) per 100 000 for both sexes in 2013 were higher in developing vs developed countries for stomach cancer (ASIR, 17 vs 14; ASDR, 15 vs 11), liver cancer (ASIR, 15 vs 7; ASDR, 16 vs 7), esophageal cancer (ASIR, 9 vs 4; ASDR, 9 vs 4), cervical cancer (ASIR, 8 vs 5; ASDR, 4 vs 2), lip and oral cavity cancer (ASIR, 7 vs 6; ASDR, 2 vs 2), and nasopharyngeal cancer (ASIR, 1.5 vs 0.4; ASDR, 1.2 vs 0.3). Between 1990 and 2013, ASIRs for all cancers combined (except nonmelanoma skin cancer and Kaposi sarcoma) increased by more than 10% in 113 countries and decreased by more than 10% in 12 of 188 countries. Conclusions and Relevance Cancer poses a major threat to public health worldwide, and incidence rates have increased in most countries since 1990. The trend is a particular threat to developing nations with health systems that are ill-equipped to deal with complex and expensive cancer treatments. The annual update on the Global Burden of Cancer will provide all stakeholders with timely estimates to guide policy efforts in cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and palliation.

2,375 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia.
Abstract: It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.

2,359 citations


Authors

Showing all 27683 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Matthew Meyerson194553243726
Charles A. Dinarello1901058139668
Gad Getz189520247560
Gordon B. Mills1871273186451
Jasvinder A. Singh1762382223370
David Haussler172488224960
Donald G. Truhlar1651518157965
Charles M. Perou156573202951
David Cella1561258106402
Bruce D. Walker15577986020
Marco A. Marra153620184684
Thomas E. Starzl150162591704
Marc Humbert1491184100577
Rajesh Kumar1494439140830
Martin J. Blaser147820104104
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Pittsburgh
201K papers, 9.6M citations

98% related

University of California, San Francisco
186.2K papers, 12M citations

97% related

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
185.3K papers, 9.9M citations

97% related

Duke University
200.3K papers, 10.7M citations

97% related

University of Pennsylvania
257.6K papers, 14.1M citations

96% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20241
202383
2022358
20213,831
20203,913
20193,632