Institution
University of Groningen
Education•Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands•
About: University of Groningen is a education organization based out in Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 36346 authors who have published 69116 publications receiving 2940370 citations. The organization is also known as: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen & RUG.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
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, Veterans Health Administration48, University of Colorado Denver49, 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
••
TL;DR: Everolimus, as compared with placebo, significantly prolonged progression-free survival among patients with progressive advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and was associated with a low rate of severe adverse events.
Abstract: A B S T R AC T BACKGROUND Everolimus, an oral inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), has shown antitumor activity in patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, in two phase 2 studies. We evaluated the agent in a prospective, randomized, phase 3 study. METHODS We randomly assigned 410 patients who had advanced, low-grade or intermediategrade pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with radiologic progression within the previous 12 months to receive everolimus, at a dose of 10 mg once daily (207 patients), or placebo (203 patients), both in conjunction with best supportive care. The primary end point was progression-free survival in an intention-to-treat analysis. In the case of patients in whom radiologic progression occurred during the study, the treatment assignments could be revealed, and patients who had been randomly assigned to placebo were offered open-label everolimus. Results The median progression-free survival was 11.0 months with everolimus as compared with 4.6 months with placebo (hazard ratio for disease progression or death from any cause with everolimus, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 to 0.45; P<0.001), representing a 65% reduction in the estimated risk of progression or death. Estimates of the proportion of patients who were alive and progression-free at 18 months were 34% (95% CI, 26 to 43) with everolimus as compared with 9% (95% CI, 4 to 16) with placebo. Drug-related adverse events were mostly grade 1 or 2 and included stomatitis (in 64% of patients in the everolimus group vs. 17% in the placebo group), rash (49% vs. 10%), diarrhea (34% vs. 10%), fatigue (31% vs. 14%), and infections (23% vs. 6%), which were primarily upper respiratory. Grade 3 or 4 events that were more frequent with everolimus than with placebo included anemia (6% vs. 0%) and hyperglycemia (5% vs. 2%). The median exposure to everolimus was longer than exposure to placebo by a factor of 2.3 (38 weeks vs. 16 weeks). Conclusions Everolimus, as compared with placebo, significantly prolonged progression-free survival among patients with progressive advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and was associated with a low rate of severe adverse events. (Funded by Novartis Oncology; RADIANT-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00510068.)
2,357 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide an overview of the existing literature on customer experience and expand on it to examine the creation of a customer experience from a holistic perspective, and propose a conceptual model, in which they discuss the determinants of customer experience.
2,337 citations
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Hagai Abeliovich2, Patrizia Agostinis3, Devendra K. Agrawal4 +232 more•Institutions (137)
TL;DR: A set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes are presented.
Abstract: Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi) Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response
2,310 citations
••
TL;DR: Six weeks after infusion of microbiota from lean donors, insulin sensitivity of recipients increased along with levels of butyrate-producing intestinal microbiota, and intestinal microbiota might be developed as therapeutic agents to increase insulin sensitivity in humans.
2,304 citations
Authors
Showing all 36692 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Ronald C. Kessler | 274 | 1332 | 328983 |
Nicholas J. Wareham | 212 | 1657 | 204896 |
André G. Uitterlinden | 199 | 1229 | 156747 |
Lei Jiang | 170 | 2244 | 135205 |
Brenda W.J.H. Penninx | 170 | 1139 | 119082 |
Richard H. Friend | 169 | 1182 | 140032 |
Panos Deloukas | 162 | 410 | 154018 |
Jerome I. Rotter | 156 | 1071 | 116296 |
Christopher M. Dobson | 150 | 1008 | 105475 |
Dirk Inzé | 149 | 647 | 74468 |
Scott T. Weiss | 147 | 1025 | 74742 |
Dieter Lutz | 139 | 671 | 67414 |
Wilmar B. Schaufeli | 137 | 513 | 95718 |
Cisca Wijmenga | 136 | 668 | 86572 |
Arnold B. Bakker | 135 | 506 | 103778 |