Institution
University of Colorado Denver
Education•Denver, 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.
Topics: Population, Health care, Poison control, Medicine, Diabetes mellitus
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Evidence that adolescence is part of a single protracted postnatal sensitive period for steroid-dependent organization of male mating behavior that begins perinatally and ends in late adolescence is presented and is consistent with the original formulation of the organizational/activational hypothesis.
513 citations
••
University of California, San Francisco1, Mayo Clinic2, American College of Medical Genetics3, Michigan Department of Community Health4, University of Colorado Denver5, University of Wisconsin-Madison6, Women & Children's Hospital of Buffalo7, Christiana Care Health System8, Harvard University9, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio10, Wadsworth Center11, Albany Medical College12, University of Southern California13, University of Massachusetts Medical School14, University of Michigan15, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai16, Medical College of Wisconsin17, University of Mississippi18, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center19, Spectrum Health20, University of Rochester21, Baylor College of Medicine22, Boston Children's Hospital23, Texas Department of State Health Services24, University of California, Los Angeles25, PerkinElmer26, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station27, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital28, Stanford University29, Quest Diagnostics30, Yale University31, Westchester Medical Center32, State University of New York Upstate Medical University33
TL;DR: Newborn screening in 11 programs in the United States identified SCID in 1 in 58,000 infants, with high survival, and the usefulness of detection of non-SCID T-cell lymphopenia by the same screening remains to be determined.
Abstract: The purpose of newborn screening is early detection of inborn conditions for which prompt treatments mitigate mortality or irreversible damage. The first heritable immune disorders to which newborn screening has been applied are those that together comprise severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), caused by defects in any of a diverse group of gene products essential for development of adaptive immunity provided by T and B lymphocytes.1,2 A feature of all SCID is defective production of T cells. In most SCID, B cells are also defective, but even normal B cells cannot produce antibodies without T-cell help. Thus, infants with SCID are susceptible to life-threatening infections. Early detection and treatment optimize survival.3-5 Provided that SCID is diagnosed before infections become overwhelming, affected infants can be rescued with hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; gene therapy; or, for adenosine deaminase deficiency, enzyme replacement therapy.2,5-8
Population-based screening is the only means to detect SCID prior to the onset of infections in most cases, as more than 80% lack a positive family history.9,10 T-cell receptor excision circles (TRECs), a biomarker for T lymphopoiesis,11 can be measured by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using DNA isolated from infant dried blood spots collected for newborn screening.9 Dried blood spots from apparently healthy newborns who were later diagnosed with SCID lacked TRECs.9 Confirmation of the utility of the TREC test,12 adaptation for pilot newborn screening programs in Wisconsin13 and Massachusetts,14 and an evidence-based review led to the recommendation by the US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary in 2010 that SCID be added to the Uniform Screening Panel for all newborns, with related T-cell deficiencies added to the list of secondary targets.15 Currently, 23 states, the District of Columbia, and the Navajo Nation screen approximately two-thirds of all infants born in the United States for SCID. Individual states have confirmed detection of SCID as well as additional disorders with low T-cell numbers, which also may benefit from further assessment of immune dysfunction and from protective treatments.13,16-18 Here we present the first combined analysis of more than 3 million infants screened for SCID in 10 states and the Navajo Nation, providing a population-based overview of SCID and non-SCID T-cell lymphopenia.
512 citations
••
University of Colorado Denver1, University of Southern California2, University of Pennsylvania3, University of Michigan4, University of California, San Diego5, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center6, Washington University in St. Louis7, University of Virginia8, Cleveland Clinic9, University of Texas at Austin10, University of California, Los Angeles11
TL;DR: Recommendations on delivery methods, data interpretation, dose normalization, the use of γ analysis routines and choice of tolerance limits for IMRT QA are made with focus on detecting differences between calculated and measured doses via the useof robust analysis methods and an in-depth understanding of IMRT verification metrics.
Abstract: Purpose Patient-specific IMRT QA measurements are important components of processes designed to identify discrepancies between calculated and delivered radiation doses. Discrepancy tolerance limits are neither well defined nor consistently applied across centers. The AAPM TG-218 report provides a comprehensive review aimed at improving the understanding and consistency of these processes as well as recommendations for methodologies and tolerance limits in patient-specific IMRT QA. Methods The performance of the dose difference/distance-to-agreement (DTA) and γ dose distribution comparison metrics are investigated. Measurement methods are reviewed and followed by a discussion of the pros and cons of each. Methodologies for absolute dose verification are discussed and new IMRT QA verification tools are presented. Literature on the expected or achievable agreement between measurements and calculations for different types of planning and delivery systems are reviewed and analyzed. Tests of vendor implementations of the γ verification algorithm employing benchmark cases are presented. Results Operational shortcomings that can reduce the γ tool accuracy and subsequent effectiveness for IMRT QA are described. Practical considerations including spatial resolution, normalization, dose threshold, and data interpretation are discussed. Published data on IMRT QA and the clinical experience of the group members are used to develop guidelines and recommendations on tolerance and action limits for IMRT QA. Steps to check failed IMRT QA plans are outlined. Conclusion Recommendations on delivery methods, data interpretation, dose normalization, the use of γ analysis routines and choice of tolerance limits for IMRT QA are made with focus on detecting differences between calculated and measured doses via the use of robust analysis methods and an in-depth understanding of IMRT verification metrics. The recommendations are intended to improve the IMRT QA process and establish consistent, and comparable IMRT QA criteria among institutions.
511 citations
••
TL;DR: A systematic review of transitional care interventions for persons with HF for the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and a broad range of intervention types applicable to adults transitioning from hospital to home that aimed to prevent readmissions are conducted.
Abstract: Background Nearly 25% of patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) are readmitted within 30 days. Purpose To assess the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and harms of transitional care interventions to reduce readmission and mortality rates for adults hospitalized with HF. Data sources MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (1 January 1990 to late October 2013). Study selection Two reviewers independently selected randomized, controlled trials published in English reporting a readmission or mortality rate within 6 months of an index hospitalization. Data extraction One reviewer extracted data, and another checked accuracy. Two reviewers assessed risk of bias and graded strength of evidence (SOE). Data synthesis Forty-seven trials were included. Most enrolled adults with moderate to severe HF and a mean age of 70 years. Few trials reported 30-day readmission rates. At 30 days, a high-intensity home-visiting program reduced all-cause readmission and the composite end point (all-cause readmission or death; low SOE). Over 3 to 6 months, home-visiting programs and multidisciplinary heart failure (MDS-HF) clinic interventions reduced all-cause readmission (high SOE). Home-visiting programs reduced HF-specific readmission and the composite end point (moderate SOE). Structured telephone support (STS) interventions reduced HF-specific readmission (high SOE) but not all-cause readmissions (moderate SOE). Home-visiting programs, MDS-HF clinics, and STS interventions produced a mortality benefit. Neither telemonitoring nor primarily educational interventions reduced readmission or mortality rates. Limitations Few trials reported 30-day readmission rates. Usual care was heterogeneous and sometimes not adequately described. Conclusion Home-visiting programs and MDS-HF clinics reduced all-cause readmission and mortality; STS reduced HF-specific readmission and mortality. These interventions should receive the greatest consideration by systems or providers seeking to implement transitional care interventions for persons with HF. Primary funding source Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
510 citations
••
TL;DR: Findings are discussed, which provide possible molecular mechanisms for crosstalk between apoptosis and autophagy and suggest that it may be useful to think of these processes as different facets of the same cell death continuum rather than completely separate processes.
Abstract: Apoptosis and autophagy are genetically-regulated, evolutionarily-conserved processes that regulate cell fate. Both apoptosis and autophagy are important in development and normal physiology and in a wide range of diseases. Recent studies show that despite the marked differences between these two processes, their regulation is intimately connected and the same regulators can sometimes control both apoptosis and autophagy. In this review, I discuss some of these findings, which provide possible molecular mechanisms for crosstalk between apoptosis and autophagy and suggest that it may be useful to think of these processes as different facets of the same cell death continuum rather than completely separate processes.
510 citations
Authors
Showing all 27683 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Matthew Meyerson | 194 | 553 | 243726 |
Charles A. Dinarello | 190 | 1058 | 139668 |
Gad Getz | 189 | 520 | 247560 |
Gordon B. Mills | 187 | 1273 | 186451 |
Jasvinder A. Singh | 176 | 2382 | 223370 |
David Haussler | 172 | 488 | 224960 |
Donald G. Truhlar | 165 | 1518 | 157965 |
Charles M. Perou | 156 | 573 | 202951 |
David Cella | 156 | 1258 | 106402 |
Bruce D. Walker | 155 | 779 | 86020 |
Marco A. Marra | 153 | 620 | 184684 |
Thomas E. Starzl | 150 | 1625 | 91704 |
Marc Humbert | 149 | 1184 | 100577 |
Rajesh Kumar | 149 | 4439 | 140830 |
Martin J. Blaser | 147 | 820 | 104104 |