Institution
University of Liverpool
Education•Liverpool, United Kingdom•
About: University of Liverpool is a education organization based out in Liverpool, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 40406 authors who have published 94388 publications receiving 3188970 citations. The organization is also known as: Liverpool University & The University of Liverpool.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
International Agency for Research on Cancer1, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute2, Dartmouth College3, Harvard University4, National Institutes of Health5, University of Cambridge6, Gentofte Hospital7, Copenhagen University Hospital8, University of Copenhagen9, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center10, University of Hawaii11, University of Göttingen12, Vanderbilt University Medical Center13, Case Western Reserve University14, University of Oviedo15, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology16, University of Sheffield17, University of Liverpool18, Radboud University Nijmegen19, Washington State University Spokane20, National Institute of Occupational Health21, BC Cancer Agency22, Nanjing Medical University23, New Generation University College24, University of Pittsburgh25, University of Milan26, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre27, University of Southern California28, Sejong University29, Lund University30, Imperial College London31, Aarhus University32, Prevention Institute33, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center34, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich35, Technische Universität München36, University Hospital Heidelberg37, Umeå University38, University of Kentucky39, Charles University in Prague40, University of Ostrava41, University of Belgrade42, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine43, University of Bergen44, National University of Singapore45, Institute of Cancer Research46, American Cancer Society47, Merck & Co.48, University of British Columbia49, University Medical Center Groningen50, University of Leicester51, National Institute for Health Research52, Amgen53, Research Triangle Park54, Washington University in St. Louis55, Baylor College of Medicine56, Anschutz Medical Campus57, University of Washington58, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health59, University of Toronto60, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute61, Laval University62
TL;DR: 18 susceptibility loci achieving genome-wide significance are identified, including 10 new loci linked with lung cancer overall and six loci associated with lung adenocarcinoma, highlighting the striking heterogeneity in genetic susceptibility across the histological subtypes of lung cancer.
Abstract: Although several lung cancer susceptibility loci have been identified, much of the heritability for lung cancer remains unexplained. Here 14,803 cases and 12,262 controls of European descent were genotyped on the OncoArray and combined with existing data for an aggregated genome-wide association study (GWAS) analysis of lung cancer in 29,266 cases and 56,450 controls. We identified 18 susceptibility loci achieving genome-wide significance, including 10 new loci. The new loci highlight the striking heterogeneity in genetic susceptibility across the histological subtypes of lung cancer, with four loci associated with lung cancer overall and six loci associated with lung adenocarcinoma. Gene expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) analysis in 1,425 normal lung tissue samples highlights RNASET2, SECISBP2L and NRG1 as candidate genes. Other loci include genes such as a cholinergic nicotinic receptor, CHRNA2, and the telomere-related genes OFBC1 and RTEL1. Further exploration of the target genes will continue to provide new insights into the etiology of lung cancer.
405 citations
••
TL;DR: This Perspective discusses recent developments with discrete organic molecules that are porous in the solid state and focuses on the possible advantages of organic molecules over inorganic or hybrid systems in terms of molecular solubility, choice of components and functionalities, and structural mobility and responsiveness in non-covalent extended solids.
Abstract: Most synthetic materials that show molecular-scale porosity consist of one-, two- or three-dimensional networks. Porous metal-organic frameworks in particular have attracted a lot of recent attention. By contrast, discrete molecules tend to pack efficiently in the solid state, leaving as little empty space as possible, which leads to non-porous materials. This Perspective discusses recent developments with discrete organic molecules that are porous in the solid state. Such molecules, which may be either crystalline or amorphous, can be categorized as either intrinsically porous (containing permanent covalent cavities) or extrinsically porous (inefficiently packed). We focus on the possible advantages of organic molecules over inorganic or hybrid systems in terms of molecular solubility, choice of components and functionalities, and structural mobility and responsiveness in non-covalent extended solids. We also highlight the potential for 'undiscovered' porous systems among the large number of cage-like organic molecules that are already known.
405 citations
••
TL;DR: It is found that approximately 19% of patients with cancer harbor Ras mutations, equivalent to approximately 3.4 million new cases per year worldwide.
Abstract: Ras is frequently mutated in cancer, however, there is a lack of consensus in the literature regarding the cancer mutation frequency of Ras, with quoted values varying from 10%–30%. This variability is at least in part due to the selective aggregation of data from different databases and the dominant influence of particular cancer types and particular Ras isoforms within these datasets. To provide a more definitive figure for Ras mutation frequency in cancer, we cross-referenced the data in all major publicly accessible cancer mutation databases to determine reliable mutation frequency values for each Ras isoform in all major cancer types. These percentages were then applied to current U.S. cancer incidence statistics to estimate the number of new patients each year that have Ras-mutant cancers. We find that approximately 19% of patients with cancer harbor Ras mutations, equivalent to approximately 3.4 million new cases per year worldwide. We discuss the Ras isoform and mutation-specific trends evident within the datasets that are relevant to current Ras-targeted therapies.
405 citations
••
TL;DR: There is now compelling evidence that women with high-risk pregnancies, including preeclampsia and suspected intrauterine growth retardation, should have access to Doppler ultrasonographic study of umbilical artery waveforms.
405 citations
••
TL;DR: These reporting standards for realist evaluations have been developed by drawing on a range of sources and it is hoped that these standards will lead to greater consistency and rigour of reporting and make realist evaluation reports more accessible, usable and helpful to different stakeholders.
Abstract: Realist evaluation is increasingly used in health services and other fields of research and evaluation. No previous standards exist for reporting realist evaluations. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES II project. The project’s aim is to produce initial reporting standards for realist evaluations. We purposively recruited a maximum variety sample of an international group of experts in realist evaluation to our online Delphi panel. Panel members came from a variety of disciplines, sectors and policy fields. We prepared the briefing materials for our Delphi panel by summarising the most recent literature on realist evaluations to identify how and why rigour had been demonstrated and where gaps in expertise and rigour were evident. We also drew on our collective experience as realist evaluators, in training and supporting realist evaluations, and on the RAMESES email list to help us develop the briefing materials. Through discussion within the project team, we developed a list of issues related to quality that needed to be addressed when carrying out realist evaluations. These were then shared with the panel members and their feedback was sought. Once the panel members had provided their feedback on our briefing materials, we constructed a set of items for potential inclusion in the reporting standards and circulated these online to panel members. Panel members were asked to rank each potential item twice on a 7-point Likert scale, once for relevance and once for validity. They were also encouraged to provide free text comments. We recruited 35 panel members from 27 organisations across six countries from nine different disciplines. Within three rounds our Delphi panel was able to reach consensus on 20 items that should be included in the reporting standards for realist evaluations. The overall response rates for all items for rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 94 %, 76 % and 80 %, respectively. These reporting standards for realist evaluations have been developed by drawing on a range of sources. We hope that these standards will lead to greater consistency and rigour of reporting and make realist evaluation reports more accessible, usable and helpful to different stakeholders.
405 citations
Authors
Showing all 40921 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Lei Jiang | 170 | 2244 | 135205 |
Gregory Y.H. Lip | 169 | 3159 | 171742 |
Ian J. Deary | 166 | 1795 | 114161 |
Nicholas J. White | 161 | 1352 | 104539 |
Tomas Hökfelt | 158 | 1033 | 95979 |
William J. Sutherland | 148 | 966 | 94423 |
Tommaso Dorigo | 141 | 1806 | 104276 |
Paul Jackson | 141 | 1372 | 93464 |
Andrew Askew | 140 | 1496 | 99635 |
Stephen Wimpenny | 138 | 1489 | 104084 |
Robin Erbacher | 138 | 1721 | 100252 |
Andrew Mehta | 137 | 1444 | 101810 |
Tim Jones | 135 | 1314 | 91422 |
Christophe Delaere | 135 | 1320 | 96742 |
Sinead Farrington | 133 | 1422 | 91099 |