Institution
University of Paris
Education•Paris, France•
About: University of Paris is a education organization based out in Paris, France. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 102426 authors who have published 174180 publications receiving 5041753 citations. The organization is also known as: Sorbonne.
Topics: Population, Medicine, Context (language use), Transplantation, Gene
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: The adaptive noise smoothing filter is a systematic derivation of Lee's algorithm with some extensions that allow different estimators for the local image variance and its easy extension to deal with various types of signal-dependent noise.
Abstract: In this paper, we consider the restoration of images with signal-dependent noise. The filter is noise smoothing and adapts to local changes in image statistics based on a nonstationary mean, nonstationary variance (NMNV) image model. For images degraded by a class of uncorrelated, signal-dependent noise without blur, the adaptive noise smoothing filter becomes a point processor and is similar to Lee's local statistics algorithm [16]. The filter is able to adapt itself to the nonstationary local image statistics in the presence of different types of signal-dependent noise. For multiplicative noise, the adaptive noise smoothing filter is a systematic derivation of Lee's algorithm with some extensions that allow different estimators for the local image variance. The advantage of the derivation is its easy extension to deal with various types of signal-dependent noise. Film-grain and Poisson signal-dependent restoration problems are also considered as examples. All the nonstationary image statistical parameters needed for the filter can be estimated from the noisy image and no a priori information about the original image is required.
1,475 citations
••
TL;DR: This consensus document advises on the measurement procedures in general and provides arguments for the use of 80% of the direct carotid-femoral distance as the most accurate distance estimate.
Abstract: Stiffness of elastic arteries like the aorta predicts cardiovascular risk. By directly reflecting arterial stiffness, having the best predictive value for cardiovascular outcome and the ease of its measurement, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity is now considered the gold standard for arterial stiffness assessment in daily practice. Many different measurement procedures have been proposed. Therefore, standardization of its measurement is urgently needed, particularly regarding the distance measurement. This consensus document advises on the measurement procedures in general and provides arguments for the use of 80% of the direct carotid-femoral distance as the most accurate distance estimate. It also advises the use of 10 m/s as new cut-off value for carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity.
1,471 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, an infectious strain of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant was isolated from an individual with COVID-19 who had returned to France from India.
Abstract: The SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617 lineage was identified in October 2020 in India1–5. Since then, it has become dominant in some regions of India and in the UK, and has spread to many other countries6. The lineage includes three main subtypes (B1.617.1, B.1.617.2 and B.1.617.3), which contain diverse mutations in the N-terminal domain (NTD) and the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein that may increase the immune evasion potential of these variants. B.1.617.2—also termed the Delta variant—is believed to spread faster than other variants. Here we isolated an infectious strain of the Delta variant from an individual with COVID-19 who had returned to France from India. We examined the sensitivity of this strain to monoclonal antibodies and to antibodies present in sera from individuals who had recovered from COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as convalescent individuals) or who had received a COVID-19 vaccine, and then compared this strain with other strains of SARS-CoV-2. The Delta variant was resistant to neutralization by some anti-NTD and anti-RBD monoclonal antibodies, including bamlanivimab, and these antibodies showed impaired binding to the spike protein. Sera collected from convalescent individuals up to 12 months after the onset of symptoms were fourfold less potent against the Delta variant relative to the Alpha variant (B.1.1.7). Sera from individuals who had received one dose of the Pfizer or the AstraZeneca vaccine had a barely discernible inhibitory effect on the Delta variant. Administration of two doses of the vaccine generated a neutralizing response in 95% of individuals, with titres three- to fivefold lower against the Delta variant than against the Alpha variant. Thus, the spread of the Delta variant is associated with an escape from antibodies that target non-RBD and RBD epitopes of the spike protein. The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant partially evades neutralization by several monoclonal antibodies and by sera from individuals who have had COVID-19, but two doses of anti-COVID-19 vaccines still generate a strong neutralizing response.
1,462 citations
••
TL;DR: Although IMT has been suggested to represent an important risk marker, according to the current evidence it does not fulfill the characteristics of an accepted risk factor and will help to improve the power of randomized clinical trials incorporating IMT measurements and to facilitate the merging of large databases for meta-analyses.
Abstract: Intima-media thickness (IMT) is increasingly used as a surrogate end point of vascular outcomes in clinical trials aimed at determining the success of interventions that lower risk factors for atherosclerosis and associated diseases (stroke, myocardial infarction and peripheral artery diseases). The necessity to promote further criteria to distinguish early atherosclerotic plaque formation from thickening of IMT and to standardize IMT measurements is expressed through this updated consensus. Plaque is defined as a focal structure that encroaches into the arterial lumen of at least 0.5 mm or 50% of the surrounding IMT value or demonstrates a thickness >1.5 mm as measured from the media-adventitia interface to the intima-lumen interface. Standard use of IMT measurements is based on physics, technical and disease-related principles as well as agreements on how to perform, interpret and document study results. Harmonization of carotid image acquisition and analysis is needed for the comparison of the IMT results obtained from epidemiological and interventional studies around the world. The consensus concludes that there is no need to 'treat IMT values' nor to monitor IMT values in individual patients apart from exceptions named, which emphasize that inside randomized clinical trials should be performed. Although IMT has been suggested to represent an important risk marker, according to the current evidence it does not fulfill the characteristics of an accepted risk factor. Standardized methods recommended in this consensus statement will foster homogenous data collection and analysis. This will help to improve the power of randomized clinical trials incorporating IMT measurements and to facilitate the merging of large databases for meta-analyses.
1,459 citations
••
University of East Anglia1, University of Exeter2, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research3, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich4, Max Planck Society5, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation6, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology7, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory8, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies9, École Normale Supérieure10, Centre national de la recherche scientifique11, University of Maryland, College Park12, University of Virginia13, Flanders Marine Institute14, Oak Ridge National Laboratory15, Woods Hole Research Center16, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign17, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen18, Met Office19, University of California, San Diego20, Utrecht University21, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency22, University of Paris23, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research24, Tsinghua University25, National Center for Atmospheric Research26, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research27, National Institute for Environmental Studies28, Cooperative Research Centre29, Hobart Corporation30, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology31, University of Groningen32, Wageningen University and Research Centre33, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research34, Goddard Space Flight Center35, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research36, Princeton University37, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences38, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration39, Auburn University40, Food and Agriculture Organization41, VU University Amsterdam42
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including emissions from land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.
Abstract: . Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide
( CO2 ) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere,
ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is
important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the
development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we
describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of
the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2
emissions ( EFF ) are based on energy statistics and cement
production data, while emissions from land use and land-use change ( ELUC ),
mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and
bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured
directly and its growth rate ( GATM ) is computed from the annual
changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink ( SOCEAN )
and terrestrial CO2 sink ( SLAND ) are estimated with
global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon
budget imbalance ( BIM ), the difference between the estimated
total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and
terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of
the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ . For the last decade available (2008–2017), EFF was
9.4±0.5 GtC yr −1 , ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , GATM 4.7±0.02 GtC yr −1 ,
SOCEAN 2.4±0.5 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND 3.2±0.8 GtC yr −1 , with a budget imbalance BIM of
0.5 GtC yr −1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated
sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in EFF was about 1.6 %
and emissions increased to 9.9±0.5 GtC yr −1 . Also for 2017,
ELUC was 1.4±0.7 GtC yr −1 , GATM was 4.6±0.2 GtC yr −1 , SOCEAN was 2.5±0.5 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND was 3.8±0.8 GtC yr −1 ,
with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric
CO2 concentration reached 405.0±0.1 ppm averaged over 2017.
For 2018, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewed
growth in EFF of + 2.7 % (range of 1.8 % to 3.7 %) based
on national emission projections for China, the US, the EU, and India and
projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the
carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. The analysis
presented here shows that the mean and trend in the five components of the
global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period of 1959–2017,
but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr −1 persist for the representation
of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison
among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of
observations show (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change
emissions, (2) a persistent low agreement among the different methods on
the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics,
and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean
models, originating outside the tropics. This living data update documents
changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget
and the progress in understanding the global carbon cycle compared with
previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et al., 2018, 2016,
2015a, b, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from
https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2018 .
1,458 citations
Authors
Showing all 102613 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Guido Kroemer | 236 | 1404 | 246571 |
David H. Weinberg | 183 | 700 | 171424 |
Paul M. Thompson | 183 | 2271 | 146736 |
Chris Sander | 178 | 713 | 233287 |
Sophie Henrot-Versille | 171 | 957 | 157040 |
Richard H. Friend | 169 | 1182 | 140032 |
George P. Chrousos | 169 | 1612 | 120752 |
Mika Kivimäki | 166 | 1515 | 141468 |
Martin Karplus | 163 | 831 | 138492 |
William J. Sandborn | 162 | 1317 | 108564 |
Darien Wood | 160 | 2174 | 136596 |
Monique M.B. Breteler | 159 | 546 | 93762 |
Paul Emery | 158 | 1314 | 121293 |
Wolfgang Wagner | 156 | 2342 | 123391 |
Joao Seixas | 153 | 1538 | 115070 |