Institution
University of Pittsburgh
Education•Pittsburgh, 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.
Topics: Population, Transplantation, Poison control, Cancer, Health care
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Results from sorting tasks and protocols reveal that experts and novices begin their problem representations with specifiably different problem categories, and completion of the representations depends on the knowledge associated with the categories.
5,091 citations
••
TL;DR: 5'-Noncoding sequences have been compiled from 699 vertebrate mRNAs and GCCA/GCCATGG emerges as the consensus sequence for initiation of translation in vertebrates.
Abstract: 5'-Noncoding sequences have been compiled from 699 vertebrate mRNAs. (GCC) GCCA/GCCATGG emerges as the consensus sequence for initiation of translation in vertebrates. The most highly conserved position in that motif is the purine in position -3 (three nucleotides upstream from the ATG codon); 97% of vertebrate mRNAs have a purine, most often A, in that position. The periodical occurrence of G (in positions -3, -6, -9) is discussed. Upstream ATG codons occur in fewer than 10% of vertebrate mRNAs-at-large; a notable exception are oncogene transcripts, two-thirds of which have ATG codons preceding the start of the major open reading frame. The leader sequences of most vertebrate mRNAs fall in the size range of 20 to 100 nucleotides. The significance of shorter and longer 5'-noncoding sequences is discussed.
5,077 citations
••
TL;DR: This paper decompose the conventional measure of evaluation bias into several components and find that bias due to selection on unobservables, commonly called selection bias in econometrics, is empirically less important than other components, although it is still a sizeable fraction of the estimated programme impact.
Abstract: This paper considers whether it is possible to devise a nonexperimental procedure for evaluating a prototypical job training programme. Using rich nonexperimental data, we examine the performance of a two-stage evaluation methodology that (a) estimates the probability that a person participates in a programme and (b) uses the estimated probability in extensions of the classical method of matching. We decompose the conventional measure of programme evaluation bias into several components and find that bias due to selection on unobservables, commonly called selection bias in econometrics, is empirically less important than other components, although it is still a sizeable fraction of the estimated programme impact. Matching methods applied to comparison groups located in the same labour markets as participants and administered the same questionnaire eliminate much of the bias as conventionally measured, but the remaining bias is a considerable fraction of experimentally-determined programme impact estimates. We test and reject the identifying assumptions that justify the classical method of matching. We present a nonparametric conditional difference-in-differences extension of the method of matching that is consistent with the classical index-sufficient sample selection model and is not rejected by our tests of identifying assumptions. This estimator is effective in eliminating bias, especially when it is due to temporally-invariant omitted variables.
5,069 citations
••
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2015 (GBD 2015) as discussed by the authors was used to estimate the incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for diseases and injuries at the global, regional, and national scale over the period of 1990 to 2015.
5,050 citations
••
Translational Genomics Research Institute1, University of Washington2, Sarah Cannon Research Institute3, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre4, Russian Academy5, Roswell Park Cancer Institute6, Alberta Health Services7, Johns Hopkins University8, University of Pittsburgh9, Autonomous University of Barcelona10, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven11, Celgene12
TL;DR: In patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate, but rates of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression were increased.
Abstract: BACKGROUND In a phase 1–2 trial of albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) plus gemcitabine, substantial clinical activity was noted in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We conducted a phase 3 study of the efficacy and safety of the combination versus gemcitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with a Karnofsky performance-status score of 70 or more (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better performance status) to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg per square meter of body-surface area) followed by gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks or gemcitabine monotherapy (1000 mg per square meter) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks (cycle 1) and then on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks (cycle 2 and subsequent cycles). Patients received the study treatment until disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival and overall response rate. RESULTS A total of 861 patients were randomly assigned to nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (431 patients) or gemcitabine (430). The median overall survival was 8.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine group as compared with 6.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.83; P<0.001). The survival rate was 35% in the nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine group versus 22% in the gemcitabine group at 1 year, and 9% versus 4% at 2 years. The median progression-free survival was 5.5 months in the nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine group, as compared with 3.7 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001); the response rate according to independent review was 23% versus 7% in the two groups (P<0.001). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (38% in the nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine group vs. 27% in the gemcitabine group), fatigue (17% vs. 7%), and neuropathy (17% vs. 1%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3% versus 1% of the patients in the two groups. In the nab-paclitaxel–gemcitabine group, neuropathy of grade 3 or higher improved to grade 1 or lower in a median of 29 days. CONCLUSIONS In patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate, but rates of peripheral neuropathy and myelosuppression were increased. (Funded by Celgene; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00844649.)
4,894 citations
Authors
Showing all 87737 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 |