Institution
University of Guadalajara
Education•Guadalajara, Mexico•
About: University of Guadalajara is a education organization based out in Guadalajara, Mexico. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Control theory. The organization has 13040 authors who have published 17399 publications receiving 168085 citations. The organization is also known as: UdeG & UdG.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: Screening and intervention can prevent chronic kidney disease, and where management strategies have been implemented the incidence of end-stage kidney disease has been reduced, but awareness of the disorder remains low in many communities and among many physicians.
3,207 citations
Journal Article•
University of British Columbia1, University of Birmingham2, University of Western Australia3, University of Rochester4, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center5, Federal University of São Paulo6, Capital Medical University7, University of Buenos Aires8, University of Guadalajara9, University of Paris10, University College London11
TL;DR: The second revision of the ILAR Taskforce on Classification of Childhood Arthritis (ILAR-JIA) was presented at the 2001 ILAR Workshop on Rheumatology as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The primary aim of the International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) proposals for classification of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is to delineate, for research purposes, relatively homogeneous, mutually exclusive categories of idiopathic childhood arthritis based on predominant clinical and laboratory features. As part of a continuing review process, the ILAR Taskforce on Classification of Childhood Arthritis met in Edmonton in 2001 to discuss modifications to the proposed JIA classification. Since the publication of the first revision of the original classification 1 , a number of descriptive studies using the new classification have been reported 2-11. The aims of this communication are 2-fold: to outline modifications to the revised classification proposed as a result of the Edmonton meeting, and to correct misconceptions highlighted by the published studies concerning the clinical use of the classification. The Edmonton Revision The changes embodied in the second revision of the classification are as follows: 1. Clarification of the definitions of each category. 2. Improvement in the congruity between inclusion and exclusion criteria. 3. Removal of the requirement that a dermatologist make the diagnosis of psoriasis. 4. Removal of the requirement that there be medical confirmation of HLA-B27 associated disease in a relative. 5. Reduction in the age for criterion " 3 " of enthesitis related arthritis, and exclusion " b " from 8 years to 6 years of age. 6. Improvement in the consistency of the structure. The impracticality of the requirement that a diagnosis of psoriasis be made by a dermatologist was recognized, and this requirement was modified so that the diagnosis of psori-asis could be made by a physician (not necessarily a dermatologist). Similarly, it is no longer required that there be medical confirmation of an HLA-B27 associated disease in a relative as contained in exclusion " c. " It is evident that it is very difficult to obtain a reliable history of psoriasis or an HLA-B27 associated disease in a second-degree relative. Therefore, a history of importance to the application of the criteria is restricted to the patient or a first-degree relative (parents or siblings) only. The study of Murray, et al 8 indicated that the HLA-B27 association is important in boys over the age of 6 years at onset of arthritis, and this age was substituted for 8 years in exclusion " b. " Discrepancies between inclusion and exclusion criteria were resolved, and the exclusions were identified by the letters …
3,201 citations
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation1, Rutgers University2, Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies3, University of Jena4, University of Bonn5, University of Vienna6, Naturhistorisches Museum7, University of Tsukuba8, Landcare Research9, Johns Hopkins University10, University of Hamburg11, Ehime University12, Florida Museum of Natural History13, Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart14, Macquarie University15, National Evolutionary Synthesis Center16, Australian National University17, American Museum of Natural History18, University of Memphis19, University of Guadalajara20, Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities21, Natural History Museum22, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology23, California Academy of Sciences24, South China Agricultural University25, North Carolina State University26, Hokkaido University27
TL;DR: The phylogeny of all major insect lineages reveals how and when insects diversified and provides a comprehensive reliable scaffold for future comparative analyses of evolutionary innovations among insects.
Abstract: Insects are the most speciose group of animals, but the phylogenetic relationships of many major lineages remain unresolved. We inferred the phylogeny of insects from 1478 protein-coding genes. Phylogenomic analyses of nucleotide and amino acid sequences, with site-specific nucleotide or domain-specific amino acid substitution models, produced statistically robust and congruent results resolving previously controversial phylogenetic relations hips. We dated the origin of insects to the Early Ordovician [~479 million years ago (Ma)], of insect flight to the Early Devonian (~406 Ma), of major extant lineages to the Mississippian (~345 Ma), and the major diversification of holometabolous insects to the Early Cretaceous. Our phylogenomic study provides a comprehensive reliable scaffold for future comparative analyses of evolutionary innovations among insects.
1,998 citations
Columbia University1, University of Miami2, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill3, SUNY Downstate Medical Center4, University College London5, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust6, University of California, San Francisco7, University of California, Los Angeles8, University of Alabama at Birmingham9, Rio de Janeiro State University10, University of Guadalajara11, University of Düsseldorf12, New York University13, University of Barcelona14, Shanghai Jiao Tong University15, University of Lisbon16, Stellenbosch University17, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust18, Oregon Health & Science University19, University of Padua20, University of Leeds21, North Shore-LIJ Health System22, Northwestern University23, Medical University of South Carolina24, University of Birmingham25, Sun Yat-sen University26, Lille University of Science and Technology27, Charité28, Rutgers University29, Federal University of São Paulo30, University of Debrecen31, Imperial College London32, Emory University33, University of Liège34, University of Pittsburgh35, University of Paris36, University of the Witwatersrand37, California State University, Long Beach38, Royal Melbourne Hospital39, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center40, Autonomous University of Barcelona41, Pennsylvania State University42, Johns Hopkins University43, University of Szeged44, Duke University45, University of Colorado Denver46, Harvard University47, University of Cape Town48, University of Malaya49, Peking Union Medical College50
TL;DR: Although most patients in both treatment groups experienced clinical improvement, the study did not meet its primary objective of showing that MMF was superior to IVC as induction treatment for lupus nephritis.
Abstract: Recent studies have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may offer advantages over intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) for the treatment of lupus nephritis, but these therapies have not been compared in an international randomized, controlled trial. Here, we report the comparison of MMF and IVC as induction treatment for active lupus nephritis in a multinational, two-phase (induction and maintenance) study. We randomly assigned 370 patients with classes III through V lupus nephritis to open-label MMF (target dosage 3 g/d) or IVC (0.5 to 1.0 g/m(2) in monthly pulses) in a 24-wk induction study. Both groups received prednisone, tapered from a maximum starting dosage of 60 mg/d. The primary end point was a prespecified decrease in urine protein/creatinine ratio and stabilization or improvement in serum creatinine. Secondary end points included complete renal remission, systemic disease activity and damage, and safety. Overall, we did not detect a significantly different response rate between the two groups: 104 (56.2%) of 185 patients responded to MMF compared with 98 (53.0%) of 185 to IVC. Secondary end points were also similar between treatment groups. There were nine deaths in the MMF group and five in the IVC group. We did not detect significant differences between the MMF and IVC groups with regard to rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, or infections. Although most patients in both treatment groups experienced clinical improvement, the study did not meet its primary objective of showing that MMF was superior to IVC as induction treatment for lupus nephritis.
909 citations
Karolinska University Hospital1, Karolinska Institutet2, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania3, Great Ormond Street Hospital4, Brigham and Women's Hospital5, University of Kansas6, University of Alabama7, Mayo Clinic8, University of Pittsburgh9, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust10, University of Liverpool11, University of Debrecen12, University of Toronto13, University of Guadalajara14, University of Cambridge15, University of Tsukuba16, United States Department of Health and Human Services17, Tokyo Medical and Dental University18, Oregon State University19, Dalhousie University20, Peking University21, Duke University22, Oslo University Hospital23, New Generation University College24, Charles University in Prague25, National Institutes of Health26
TL;DR: New classification criteria for IIM have been endorsed by international rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and paediatric groups, and have been partially validated and generally perform better than existing criteria.
Abstract: Objective To develop and validate new classification criteria for adult and juvenile idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) and their major subgroups. Methods Candidate variables were assembled from published criteria and expert opinion using consensus methodology. Data were collected from 47 rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and paediatric clinics worldwide. Several statistical methods were used to derive the classification criteria. Results Based on data from 976 IIM patients (74% adults; 26% children) and 624 non-IIM patients with mimicking conditions (82% adults; 18% children), new criteria were derived. Each item is assigned a weighted score. The total score corresponds to a probability of having IIM. Subclassification is performed using a classification tree. A probability cut-off of 55%, corresponding to a score of 5.5 (6.7 with muscle biopsy) ‘probable IIM’, had best sensitivity/specificity (87%/82% without biopsies, 93%/88% with biopsies) and is recommended as a minimum to classify a patient as having IIM. A probability of ≥90%, corresponding to a score of ≥7.5 (≥8.7 with muscle biopsy), corresponds to ‘definite IIM’. A probability of Conclusions The European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology (EULAR/ACR) classification criteria for IIM have been endorsed by international rheumatology, dermatology, neurology and paediatric groups. They employ easily accessible and operationally defined elements, and have been partially validated. They allow classification of ‘definite’, ‘probable’ and ‘possible’ IIM, in addition to the major subgroups of IIM, including juvenile IIM. They generally perform better than existing criteria.
754 citations
Authors
Showing all 13179 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Charles A. Dinarello | 190 | 1058 | 139668 |
| Pierre Bourdieu | 153 | 592 | 194586 |
| Markus M. Nöthen | 125 | 943 | 83156 |
| Charles Antzelevitch | 118 | 515 | 54661 |
| Alvaro Muñoz | 88 | 334 | 29117 |
| Zygmunt Bauman | 73 | 313 | 34032 |
| Judith Butler | 68 | 228 | 68959 |
| Jean-Philippe Steyer | 66 | 351 | 17338 |
| Saskia Sassen | 66 | 195 | 31185 |
| Juan Carlos Diaz-Velez | 64 | 334 | 14252 |
| Miguel Martínez-Ramos | 59 | 164 | 11748 |
| Hendrik Vilstrup | 54 | 388 | 10884 |
| Leonardo Trasande | 51 | 212 | 22305 |
| Luis Cisneros-Zevallos | 50 | 149 | 10494 |
| Elena R. Alvarez-Buylla | 49 | 172 | 8237 |