scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Kansas

EducationLawrence, Kansas, United States
About: University of Kansas is a education organization based out in Lawrence, Kansas, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 38183 authors who have published 81381 publications receiving 2986312 citations. The organization is also known as: KU & Univ of Kansas.


Papers
More filters
Patent
22 Jan 1991
TL;DR: Sulfoalkyl ether cyclodextrin derivatives and their use as solubilizing agents for water insoluble drugs for oral, intranasal, or parenteral administration are disclosed in this paper.
Abstract: Sulfoalkyl ether cyclodextrin derivatives and their use as solubilizing agents for water insoluble drugs for oral, intranasal, or parenteral administration are disclosed.

762 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a combination of graphical and statistical analyses were performed on a 12-month time-series of MODIS EVI and NDVI data from more than 2000 cropped field sites across the U.S. state of Kansas.

756 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These data support the therapeutic potential of pemigatinib in previously treated patients with cholangiocarcinoma who have FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements.
Abstract: Summary Background Fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) 2 gene alterations are involved in the pathogenesis of cholangiocarcinoma. Pemigatinib is a selective, potent, oral inhibitor of FGFR1, 2, and 3. This study evaluated the safety and antitumour activity of pemigatinib in patients with previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with and without FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, single-arm, multicohort, phase 2 study (FIGHT-202), patients aged 18 years or older with disease progression following at least one previous treatment and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–2 recruited from 146 academic or community-based sites in the USA, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia were assigned to one of three cohorts: patients with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements, patients with other FGF/FGFR alterations, or patients with no FGF/FGFR alterations. All enrolled patients received a starting dose of 13·5 mg oral pemigatinib once daily (21-day cycle; 2 weeks on, 1 week off) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or physician decision. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response among those with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements, assessed centrally in all patients who received at least one dose of pemigatinib. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02924376 , and enrolment is completed. Findings Between Jan 17, 2017, and March 22, 2019, 146 patients were enrolled: 107 with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements, 20 with other FGF/FGFR alterations, 18 with no FGF/FGFR alterations, and one with an undetermined FGF/FGFR alteration. The median follow-up was 17·8 months (IQR 11·6–21·3). 38 (35·5% [95% CI 26·5–45·4]) patients with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements achieved an objective response (three complete responses and 35 partial responses). Overall, hyperphosphataemia was the most common all-grade adverse event irrespective of cause (88 [60%] of 146 patients). 93 (64%) patients had a grade 3 or worse adverse event (irrespective of cause); the most frequent were hypophosphataemia (18 [12%]), arthralgia (nine [6%]), stomatitis (eight [5%]), hyponatraemia (eight [5%]), abdominal pain (seven [5%]), and fatigue (seven [5%]). 65 (45%) patients had serious adverse events; the most frequent were abdominal pain (seven [5%]), pyrexia (seven [5%]), cholangitis (five [3%]), and pleural effusion (five [3%]). Overall, 71 (49%) patients died during the study, most frequently because of disease progression (61 [42%]); no deaths were deemed to be treatment related. Interpretation These data support the therapeutic potential of pemigatinib in previously treated patients with cholangiocarcinoma who have FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements. Funding Incyte Corporation.

756 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
Jarrod Chapman1, Ewen F. Kirkness2, Oleg Simakov3, Oleg Simakov4, Steven E. Hampson5, Therese Mitros3, Thomas Weinmaier6, Thomas Rattei6, Prakash G. Balasubramanian4, Jon Borman2, Dana A. Busam2, Kathryn Disbennett2, Cynthia Pfannkoch2, Nadezhda Sumin2, Granger G. Sutton2, Lakshmi D. Viswanathan2, Brian P. Walenz2, David Goodstein1, Uffe Hellsten1, Takeshi Kawashima3, Simon E. Prochnik1, Nicholas H. Putnam7, Nicholas H. Putnam1, Nicholas H. Putnam3, Shengquiang Shu1, Bruce Blumberg5, Catherine E. Dana5, Lydia Gee5, Dennis F. Kibler5, Lee Law5, Dirk Lindgens5, Daniel E. Martínez8, Jisong Peng5, Philip A. Wigge9, Philip A. Wigge7, Bianca Bertulat4, Corina Guder4, Yukio Nakamura4, Suat Özbek4, Hiroshi Watanabe4, Konstantin Khalturin10, Georg Hemmrich10, Andre Franke10, René Augustin10, Sebastian Fraune10, Eisuke Hayakawa11, Shiho Hayakawa11, Mamiko Hirose11, Jung Shan Hwang11, Kazuho Ikeo11, Chiemi Nishimiya-Fujisawa11, Atshushi Ogura11, Atshushi Ogura7, Toshio Takahashi, Patrick R. H. Steinmetz12, Xiaoming Zhang13, Roland Aufschnaiter14, Marie Kristin Eder14, Anne Kathrin Gorny7, Anne Kathrin Gorny14, Willi Salvenmoser14, Alysha M. Heimberg15, Benjamin M. Wheeler16, Kevin J. Peterson15, Angelika Böttger17, Patrick Tischler6, Alexander Wolf17, Takashi Gojobori11, Karin A. Remington2, Karin A. Remington7, Robert L. Strausberg2, J. Craig Venter2, Ulrich Technau12, Bert Hobmayer14, Thomas C. G. Bosch10, Thomas W. Holstein4, Toshitaka Fujisawa11, Hans R. Bode5, Charles N. David17, Daniel S. Rokhsar1, Daniel S. Rokhsar3, Robert Steele5 
25 Mar 2010-Nature
TL;DR: Comparisons of the Hydra genome to the genomes of other animals shed light on the evolution of epithelia, contractile tissues, developmentally regulated transcription factors, the Spemann–Mangold organizer, pluripotency genes and the neuromuscular junction.
Abstract: The freshwater cnidarian Hydra was first described in 17021 and has been the object of study for 300 years. Experimental studies of Hydra between 1736 and 1744 culminated in the discovery of asexual reproduction of an animal by budding, the first description of regeneration in an animal, and successful transplantation of tissue between animals2. Today, Hydra is an important model for studies of axial patterning3, stem cell biology4 and regeneration5. Here we report the genome of Hydra magnipapillata and compare it to the genomes of the anthozoan Nematostella vectensis6 and other animals. The Hydra genome has been shaped by bursts of transposable element expansion, horizontal gene transfer, trans-splicing, and simplification of gene structure and gene content that parallel simplification of the Hydra life cycle. We also report the sequence of the genome of a novel bacterium stably associated with H. magnipapillata. Comparisons of the Hydra genome to the genomes of other animals shed light on the evolution of epithelia, contractile tissues, developmentally regulated transcription factors, the Spemann–Mangold organizer, pluripotency genes and the neuromuscular junction.

754 citations


Authors

Showing all 38401 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Gordon H. Guyatt2311620228631
Krzysztof Matyjaszewski1691431128585
Wei Li1581855124748
David Tilman158340149473
Tomas Hökfelt158103395979
Pete Smith1562464138819
Daniel J. Rader1551026107408
Melody A. Swartz1481304103753
Kevin Murphy146728120475
Carlo Rovelli1461502103550
Stephen Sanders1451385105943
Marco Zanetti1451439104610
Andrei Gritsan1431531135398
Gunther Roland1411471100681
Joseph T. Hupp14173182647
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Minnesota
257.9K papers, 11.9M citations

96% related

Yale University
220.6K papers, 12.8M citations

95% related

University of Washington
305.5K papers, 17.7M citations

95% related

Duke University
200.3K papers, 10.7M citations

95% related

University of Michigan
342.3K papers, 17.6M citations

94% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202391
2022358
20214,211
20204,204
20193,766
20183,485