Institution
University of Pittsburgh
Education•Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States•
About: University of Pittsburgh is a(n) education organization based out in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topic(s): Population & Transplantation. The organization has 87042 authors who have published 201012 publication(s) receiving 9656783 citation(s). The organization is also known as: Pitt & Western University of Pennsylvania.
Topics: Population, Transplantation, Poison control, Cancer, Health care
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
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.
18,828 citations
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.
16,510 citations
University of Genoa1, University of Manchester2, KEK3, CERN4, Imperial College London5, Stanford University6, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research7, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare8, University of Pittsburgh9, Lyon College10, TRIUMF11, Northeastern University12, Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility13, University of Córdoba (Spain)14, Goethe University Frankfurt15, University of Southampton16, University of Udine17, University of Alberta18, Tokyo Metropolitan University19, Helsinki Institute of Physics20, National Research Nuclear University MEPhI21, University of Bath22, Niigata University23, Naruto University of Education24, Kobe University25, University of Calabria26, University of Trieste27, European Space Agency28, University of Birmingham29, Ritsumeikan University30, Qinetiq31, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne32, Massachusetts Institute of Technology33, Brookhaven National Laboratory34
01 Jul 2003-Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research Section A-accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment
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.
16,046 citations
Johns Hopkins University1, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine2, Mayo Clinic3, McGill University4, Harvard University5, University of California, Irvine6, University of Pittsburgh7, Columbia University Medical Center8, Eli Lilly and Company9, Washington University in St. Louis10, UCL Institute of Neurology11, VU University Medical Center12, Alzheimer's Association13, Northwestern University14, National Institutes of Health15
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.
11,067 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a theory of stakeholder identification and saliency based on stakeholders possessing one or more of three relationship attributes (power, legitimacy, and urgency) is proposed, and a typology of stakeholders, propositions concerning their saliency to managers of the firm, and research and management implications.
Abstract: Stakeholder theory has been a popular heuristic for describing the management environment for years, but it has not attained full theoretical status. Our aim in this article is to contribute to a theory of stakeholder identification and salience based on stakeholders possessing one or more of three relationship attributes: power, legitimacy, and urgency. By combining these attributes, we generate a typology of stakeholders, propositions concerning their salience to managers of the firm, and research and management implications.
9,978 citations
Authors
Showing all 87042 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
JoAnn E. Manson | 270 | 1819 | 258509 |
Graham A. Colditz | 261 | 1542 | 256034 |
Yi Chen | 217 | 4342 | 293080 |
David J. Hunter | 213 | 1836 | 207050 |
David Miller | 203 | 2573 | 204840 |
Rakesh K. Jain | 200 | 1467 | 177727 |
Lewis C. Cantley | 196 | 748 | 169037 |
Dennis W. Dickson | 191 | 1243 | 148488 |
Terrie E. Moffitt | 182 | 594 | 150609 |
Dennis S. Charney | 179 | 802 | 122408 |
Ronald C. Petersen | 178 | 1091 | 153067 |
David L. Kaplan | 177 | 1944 | 146082 |
Jasvinder A. Singh | 176 | 2382 | 223370 |
Richard K. Wilson | 173 | 463 | 260000 |
Deborah J. Cook | 173 | 907 | 148928 |