scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Oxford

EducationOxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom
About: University of Oxford is a education organization based out in Oxford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Galaxy. The organization has 99713 authors who have published 258108 publications receiving 12972806 citations. The organization is also known as: Oxford University & Oxon..


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

62,157 citations

Proceedings Article
04 Sep 2014
TL;DR: This work investigates the effect of the convolutional network depth on its accuracy in the large-scale image recognition setting using an architecture with very small convolution filters, which shows that a significant improvement on the prior-art configurations can be achieved by pushing the depth to 16-19 weight layers.
Abstract: In this work we investigate the effect of the convolutional network depth on its accuracy in the large-scale image recognition setting. Our main contribution is a thorough evaluation of networks of increasing depth using an architecture with very small (3x3) convolution filters, which shows that a significant improvement on the prior-art configurations can be achieved by pushing the depth to 16-19 weight layers. These findings were the basis of our ImageNet Challenge 2014 submission, where our team secured the first and the second places in the localisation and classification tracks respectively. We also show that our representations generalise well to other datasets, where they achieve state-of-the-art results. We have made our two best-performing ConvNet models publicly available to facilitate further research on the use of deep visual representations in computer vision.

55,235 citations

Proceedings Article
01 Jan 2015
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigated the effect of the convolutional network depth on its accuracy in the large-scale image recognition setting and showed that a significant improvement on the prior-art configurations can be achieved by pushing the depth to 16-19 layers.
Abstract: In this work we investigate the effect of the convolutional network depth on its accuracy in the large-scale image recognition setting. Our main contribution is a thorough evaluation of networks of increasing depth using an architecture with very small (3x3) convolution filters, which shows that a significant improvement on the prior-art configurations can be achieved by pushing the depth to 16-19 weight layers. These findings were the basis of our ImageNet Challenge 2014 submission, where our team secured the first and the second places in the localisation and classification tracks respectively. We also show that our representations generalise well to other datasets, where they achieve state-of-the-art results. We have made our two best-performing ConvNet models publicly available to facilitate further research on the use of deep visual representations in computer vision.

49,914 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

46,935 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A structured summary is provided including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings.

31,379 citations


Authors

Showing all 101421 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Eric S. Lander301826525976
Albert Hofman2672530321405
Douglas G. Altman2531001680344
Salim Yusuf2311439252912
George Davey Smith2242540248373
Yi Chen2174342293080
David J. Hunter2131836207050
Nicholas J. Wareham2121657204896
Christopher J L Murray209754310329
Cyrus Cooper2041869206782
Mark J. Daly204763304452
David Miller2032573204840
Mark I. McCarthy2001028187898
Raymond J. Dolan196919138540
Frank E. Speizer193636135891
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Cambridge
282.2K papers, 14.4M citations

98% related

University College London
210.6K papers, 9.8M citations

97% related

Imperial College London
209.1K papers, 9.3M citations

96% related

University of Edinburgh
151.6K papers, 6.6M citations

96% related

McGill University
162.5K papers, 6.9M citations

94% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023654
20222,554
202117,606
202017,299
201915,037
201813,724