Institution
University of Delaware
Education•Newark, Delaware, United States•
About: University of Delaware is a education organization based out in Newark, Delaware, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Catalysis. The organization has 22223 authors who have published 54810 publications receiving 2049136 citations. The organization is also known as: University of Delaware Emergency Care Unit & UD.
Topics: Population, Catalysis, Poison control, Neutrino, Adsorption
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: The review as discussed by the authors summarizes much of particle physics and cosmology using data from previous editions, plus 3,283 new measurements from 899 Japers, including the recently discovered Higgs boson, leptons, quarks, mesons and baryons.
Abstract: The Review summarizes much of particle physics and cosmology. Using data from previous editions, plus 3,283 new measurements from 899 Japers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons and the recently discovered Higgs boson, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as heavy neutrinos, supersymmetric and technicolor particles, axions, dark photons, etc. All the particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We also give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as Supersymmetry, Extra Dimensions, Particle Detectors, Probability, and Statistics. Among the 112 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised including those on: Dark Energy, Higgs Boson Physics, Electroweak Model, Neutrino Cross Section Measurements, Monte Carlo Neutrino Generators, Top Quark, Dark Matter, Dynamical Electroweak Symmetry Breaking, Accelerator Physics of Colliders, High-Energy Collider Parameters, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis, Astrophysical Constants and Cosmological Parameters.
7,337 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance at three commonly tested levels: factor loadings, intercepts, and residual variances was examined, and the most intriguing finding was that changes in fit statistics are affected by the interaction between the pattern of invariance and the proportion of invariant items.
Abstract: Two Monte Carlo studies were conducted to examine the sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance at 3 commonly tested levels: factor loadings, intercepts, and residual variances. Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) appears to be more sensitive to lack of invariance in factor loadings than in intercepts or residual variances. Comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) appear to be equally sensitive to all 3 types of lack of invariance. The most intriguing finding is that changes in fit statistics are affected by the interaction between the pattern of invariance and the proportion of invariant items: when the pattern of lack of invariance is uniform, the relation is nonmonotonic, whereas when the pattern of lack of invariance is mixed, the relation is monotonic. Unequal sample sizes affect changes across all 3 levels of invariance: Changes are bigger when sample sizes are equal rather than when they are unequal. Cutoff points for t...
6,202 citations
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.
5,187 citations
Tohoku University1, University of Zurich2, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory3, Stanford University4, College of William & Mary5, University of Urbino6, CERN7, Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics8, University of California, Irvine9, Cornell University10, Argonne National Laboratory11, ETH Zurich12, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research13, Hillsdale College14, Spanish National Research Council15, Ohio State University16, University of Notre Dame17, Kent State University18, University of California, San Diego19, University of California, Berkeley20, University of Minnesota21, University of Alabama22, University of Helsinki23, Los Alamos National Laboratory24, California Institute of Technology25, George Washington University26, Syracuse University27, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory28, Oklahoma State University–Stillwater29, University of Washington30, Max Planck Society31, Boston University32, University of California, Los Angeles33, Royal Holloway, University of London34, Université Paris-Saclay35, University of Pennsylvania36, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign37, University of Bristol38, University of Tokyo39, University of Delaware40, Carnegie Mellon University41, University of California, Santa Cruz42, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology43, Heidelberg University44, Florida State University45, University of Mainz46, University of Edinburgh47, Brookhaven National Laboratory48, Durham University49, University of Lausanne50, Massachusetts Institute of Technology51, University of Southampton52, Nagoya University53, University of Oxford54, Northwestern University55, University of British Columbia56, Columbia University57, Lund University58, University of Sheffield59, University of California, Santa Barbara60, Iowa State University61, University of Alberta62, University of Cambridge63
TL;DR: This biennial Review summarizes much of Particle Physics using data from previous editions, plus 2205 new measurements from 667 papers, and features expanded coverage of CP violation in B mesons and of neutrino oscillations.
Abstract: This biennial Review summarizes much of Particle Physics. Using data from previous editions, plus 2205 new measurements from 667 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We also summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as Higgs bosons, heavy neutrinos, and supersymmetric particles. All the particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We also give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as the Standard Model, particle detectors, probability, and statistics. This edition features expanded coverage of CP violation in B mesons and of neutrino oscillations. For the first time we cover searches for evidence of extra dimensions (both in the particle listings and in a new review). Another new review is on Grand Unified Theories. A booklet is available containing the Summary Tables and abbreviated versions of some of the other sections of this full Review. All tables, listings, and reviews (and errata) are also available on the Particle Data Group website: http://pdg.lbl.gov.
5,143 citations
TL;DR: A review of recent advances in carbon nanotubes and their composites can be found in this article, where the authors examine the research work reported in the literature on the structure and processing of carbon Nanotubes.
4,709 citations
Authors
Showing all 22448 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rakesh K. Jain | 200 | 1467 | 177727 |
| Chad A. Mirkin | 164 | 1078 | 134254 |
| Xiaoyuan Chen | 149 | 994 | 89870 |
| Bernhard O. Palsson | 147 | 831 | 85051 |
| John F. Hartwig | 145 | 714 | 66472 |
| Gordon T. Richards | 144 | 613 | 110666 |
| Mark A. Smith | 136 | 904 | 73530 |
| Peter M. Elias | 127 | 581 | 49825 |
| Jillian F. Banfield | 127 | 562 | 60687 |
| Jay Belsky | 124 | 441 | 55582 |
| Michael S. Lawrence | 121 | 256 | 149398 |
| Sanjay Kumar | 120 | 2052 | 82620 |
| Andrew H. Paterson | 119 | 496 | 59373 |
| Frederick P. Rivara | 118 | 940 | 86352 |
| Kenneth R. Feingold | 114 | 550 | 44650 |