scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Pittsburgh

EducationPittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
About: University of Pittsburgh is a education organization based out in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Transplantation. The organization has 87042 authors who have published 201012 publications receiving 9656783 citations. The organization is also known as: Pitt & Western University of Pennsylvania.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were formulated from a computerized analysis of 262 contemporary, consecutively studied patients with RA and 262 control subjects with rheumatic diseases other than RA (non-RA).
Abstract: The revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were formulated from a computerized analysis of 262 contemporary, consecutively studied patients with RA and 262 control subjects with rheumatic diseases other than RA (non-RA). The new criteria are as follows: 1) morning stiffness in and around joints lasting at least 1 hour before maximal improvement; 2) soft tissue swelling (arthritis) of 3 or more joint areas observed by a physician; 3) swelling (arthritis) of the proximal interphalangeal, metacarpophalangeal, or wrist joints; 4) symmetric swelling (arthritis); 5) rheumatoid nodules; 6) the presence of rheumatoid factor; and 7) radiographic erosions and/or periarticular osteopenia in hand and/or wrist joints. Criteria 1 through 4 must have been present for at least 6 weeks. Rheumatoid arthritis is defined by the presence of 4 or more criteria, and no further qualifications (classic, definite, or probable) or list of exclusions are required. In addition, a "classification tree" schema is presented which performs equally as well as the traditional (4 of 7) format. The new criteria demonstrated 91-94% sensitivity and 89% specificity for RA when compared with non-RA rheumatic disease control subjects.

19,409 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
S. Agostinelli1, John Allison2, K. Amako3, J. Apostolakis4, Henrique Araujo5, P. Arce4, Makoto Asai6, D. Axen4, S. Banerjee7, G. Barrand, F. Behner4, Lorenzo Bellagamba8, J. Boudreau9, L. Broglia10, A. Brunengo8, H. Burkhardt4, Stephane Chauvie, J. Chuma11, R. Chytracek4, Gene Cooperman12, G. Cosmo4, P. V. Degtyarenko13, Andrea Dell'Acqua4, G. Depaola14, D. Dietrich15, R. Enami, A. Feliciello, C. Ferguson16, H. Fesefeldt4, Gunter Folger4, Franca Foppiano, Alessandra Forti2, S. Garelli, S. Gianì4, R. Giannitrapani17, D. Gibin4, J. J. Gomez Y Cadenas4, I. González4, G. Gracia Abril4, G. Greeniaus18, Walter Greiner15, Vladimir Grichine, A. Grossheim4, Susanna Guatelli, P. Gumplinger11, R. Hamatsu19, K. Hashimoto, H. Hasui, A. Heikkinen20, A. S. Howard5, Vladimir Ivanchenko4, A. Johnson6, F.W. Jones11, J. Kallenbach, Naoko Kanaya4, M. Kawabata, Y. Kawabata, M. Kawaguti, S.R. Kelner21, Paul R. C. Kent22, A. Kimura23, T. Kodama24, R. P. Kokoulin21, M. Kossov13, Hisaya Kurashige25, E. Lamanna26, Tapio Lampén20, V. Lara4, Veronique Lefebure4, F. Lei16, M. Liendl4, W. S. Lockman, Francesco Longo27, S. Magni, M. Maire, E. Medernach4, K. Minamimoto24, P. Mora de Freitas, Yoshiyuki Morita3, K. Murakami3, M. Nagamatu24, R. Nartallo28, Petteri Nieminen28, T. Nishimura, K. Ohtsubo, M. Okamura, S. W. O'Neale29, Y. Oohata19, K. Paech15, J Perl6, Andreas Pfeiffer4, Maria Grazia Pia, F. Ranjard4, A.M. Rybin, S.S Sadilov4, E. Di Salvo8, Giovanni Santin27, Takashi Sasaki3, N. Savvas2, Y. Sawada, Stefan Scherer15, S. Sei24, V. Sirotenko4, David J. Smith6, N. Starkov, H. Stoecker15, J. Sulkimo20, M. Takahata23, Satoshi Tanaka30, E. Tcherniaev4, E. Safai Tehrani6, M. Tropeano1, P. Truscott31, H. Uno24, L. Urbán, P. Urban32, M. Verderi, A. Walkden2, W. Wander33, H. Weber15, J.P. Wellisch4, Torre Wenaus34, D.C. Williams, Douglas Wright6, T. Yamada24, H. Yoshida24, D. Zschiesche15 
TL;DR: The Gelfant 4 toolkit as discussed by the authors is a toolkit for simulating the passage of particles through matter, including a complete range of functionality including tracking, geometry, physics models and hits.
Abstract: G eant 4 is a toolkit for simulating the passage of particles through matter. It includes a complete range of functionality including tracking, geometry, physics models and hits. The physics processes offered cover a comprehensive range, including electromagnetic, hadronic and optical processes, a large set of long-lived particles, materials and elements, over a wide energy range starting, in some cases, from 250 eV and extending in others to the TeV energy range. It has been designed and constructed to expose the physics models utilised, to handle complex geometries, and to enable its easy adaptation for optimal use in different sets of applications. The toolkit is the result of a worldwide collaboration of physicists and software engineers. It has been created exploiting software engineering and object-oriented technology and implemented in the C++ programming language. It has been used in applications in particle physics, nuclear physics, accelerator design, space engineering and medical physics.

18,904 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 1985
TL;DR: Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as mentioned in this paper is a systematic procedure for representing the elements of any problem hierarchically, which organizes the basic rationality by breaking down a problem into its smaller constituent parts and then guides decision makers through a series of pairwise comparison judgments to express the relative strength or intensity of impact of the elements in the hierarchy.
Abstract: This chapter provides an overview of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), which is a systematic procedure for representing the elements of any problem hierarchically. It organizes the basic rationality by breaking down a problem into its smaller constituent parts and then guides decision makers through a series of pair-wise comparison judgments to express the relative strength or intensity of impact of the elements in the hierarchy. These judgments are then translated to numbers. The AHP includes procedures and principles used to synthesize the many judgments to derive priorities among criteria and subsequently for alternative solutions. It is useful to note that the numbers thus obtained are ratio scale estimates and correspond to so-called hard numbers. Problem solving is a process of setting priorities in steps. One step decides on the most important elements of a problem, another on how best to repair, replace, test, and evaluate the elements, and another on how to implement the solution and measure performance.

16,547 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
23 Feb 2016-JAMA
TL;DR: The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant and updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsi or at risk of developing sepsic shock.
Abstract: Importance Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination. Objective To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. Process A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). Key Findings From Evidence Synthesis Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. Recommendations Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. Conclusions and Relevance These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.

14,699 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available.
Abstract: The National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer's Association charged a workgroup with the task of revising the 1984 criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia. The workgroup sought to ensure that the revised criteria would be flexible enough to be used by both general healthcare providers without access to neuropsychological testing, advanced imaging, and cerebrospinal fluid measures, and specialized investigators involved in research or in clinical trial studies who would have these tools available. We present criteria for all-cause dementia and for AD dementia. We retained the general framework of probable AD dementia from the 1984 criteria. On the basis of the past 27 years of experience, we made several changes in the clinical criteria for the diagnosis. We also retained the term possible AD dementia, but redefined it in a manner more focused than before. Biomarker evidence was also integrated into the diagnostic formulations for probable and possible AD dementia for use in research settings. The core clinical criteria for AD dementia will continue to be the cornerstone of the diagnosis in clinical practice, but biomarker evidence is expected to enhance the pathophysiological specificity of the diagnosis of AD dementia. Much work lies ahead for validating the biomarker diagnosis of AD dementia.

13,710 citations


Authors

Showing all 87737 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
JoAnn E. Manson2701819258509
Graham A. Colditz2611542256034
Yi Chen2174342293080
David J. Hunter2131836207050
David Miller2032573204840
Rakesh K. Jain2001467177727
Lewis C. Cantley196748169037
Dennis W. Dickson1911243148488
Terrie E. Moffitt182594150609
Dennis S. Charney179802122408
Ronald C. Petersen1781091153067
David L. Kaplan1771944146082
Jasvinder A. Singh1762382223370
Richard K. Wilson173463260000
Deborah J. Cook173907148928
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Pennsylvania
257.6K papers, 14.1M citations

98% related

Johns Hopkins University
249.2K papers, 14M citations

97% related

Yale University
220.6K papers, 12.8M citations

97% related

Columbia University
224K papers, 12.8M citations

97% related

University of Washington
305.5K papers, 17.7M citations

97% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023260
20221,089
202111,151
202010,407
20199,333
20188,577