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 & Context (language use). 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
Proceedings ArticleDOI
01 Jan 2015
TL;DR: It is shown how a very large scale dataset can be assembled by a combination of automation and human in the loop, and the trade off between data purity and time is discussed.
Abstract: The goal of this paper is face recognition – from either a single photograph or from a set of faces tracked in a video. Recent progress in this area has been due to two factors: (i) end to end learning for the task using a convolutional neural network (CNN), and (ii) the availability of very large scale training datasets. We make two contributions: first, we show how a very large scale dataset (2.6M images, over 2.6K people) can be assembled by a combination of automation and human in the loop, and discuss the trade off between data purity and time; second, we traverse through the complexities of deep network training and face recognition to present methods and procedures to achieve comparable state of the art results on the standard LFW and YTF face benchmarks.

5,308 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, it was shown that the confusion principle does not apply, and other factors are more important in promoting glass formation of late transition metal rich multicomponent alloys.
Abstract: Multicomponent alloys containing several components in equal atomic proportions have been manufactured by casting and melt spinning, and their microstructures and properties have been investigated by a combination of optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy, electron probe microanalysis, X-ray diffractrometry and microhardness measurements. Alloys containing 16 and 20 components in equal proportions are multiphase, crystalline and brittle both as-cast and after melt spinning. A five component Fe20Cr20Mn20Ni20Co20 alloy forms a single fcc solid solution which solidifies dendritically. A wide range of other six to nine component late transition metal rich multicomponent alloys exhibit the same majority fcc primary dendritic phase, which can dissolve substantial amounts of other transition metals such as Nb, Ti and V. More electronegative elements such as Cu and Ge are less stable in the fcc dendrites and are rejected into the interdendritic regions. The total number of phases is always well below the maximum equilibrium number allowed by the Gibbs phase rule, and even further below the maximum number allowed under non-equilibrium solidification conditions. Glassy structures are not formed by casting or melt spinning of late transition metal rich multicomponent alloys, indicating that the confusion principle does not apply, and other factors are more important in promoting glass formation.

5,289 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
07 Mar 2014-BMJ
TL;DR: The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.
Abstract: Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

5,237 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Gregory A. Roth1, Gregory A. Roth2, Degu Abate3, Kalkidan Hassen Abate4  +1025 moreInstitutions (333)
TL;DR: Non-communicable diseases comprised the greatest fraction of deaths, contributing to 73·4% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 72·5–74·1) of total deaths in 2017, while communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional causes accounted for 18·6% (17·9–19·6), and injuries 8·0% (7·7–8·2).

5,211 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are 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 monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

5,187 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
202117,608
202017,299
201915,037
201813,726