Institution
University of Rochester
Education•Rochester, New York, United States•
About: University of Rochester is a education organization based out in Rochester, New York, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Laser. The organization has 63915 authors who have published 112762 publications receiving 5484122 citations. The organization is also known as: Rochester University.
Topics: Population, Laser, Poison control, Health care, Large Hadron Collider
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this paper, a meta-analysis of 128 studies examined the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation and found that engagement-contingent, completion-contengent, and performance-contagioning rewards significantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation, as did all rewards, all tangible rewards and all expected rewards.
Abstract: A meta-analysis of 128 studies examined the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. As predicted, engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, and performance-contingent rewards significantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation (d = -0.40, -0.36, and -0.28, respectively), as did all rewards, all tangible rewards, and all expected rewards. Engagement-contingent and completion-contingent rewards also significantly undermined self-reported interest (d = -0.15, and -0.17), as did all tangible rewards and all expected rewards. Positive feedback enhanced both free-choice behavior (d = 0.33) and self-reported interest (d = 0.31). Tangible rewards tended to be more detrimental for children than college students, and verbal rewards tended to be less enhancing for children than college students. The authors review 4 previous meta-analyses of this literature and detail how this study's methods, analyses, and results differed from the previous ones.
5,604 citations
••
TL;DR: A uniform system of classification and nomenclature of the acute leukaemias should permit more accurate recording of the distribution of cases entered into clinical trials, and could provide a reference standard when newly developed cell‐surface markers believed to characterize specific cell types are applied to cases of acuteLeukaemia.
Abstract: A uniform system of classification and nomenclature of the acute leukaemias, at present lacking, should permit more accurate recording of the distribution of cases entered into clinical trials, and could provide a reference standard when newly developed cell-surface markers believed to characterize specific cell types are applied to cases of acute leukaemia. Proposals based on conventional morphological and cytochemical methods are offered following the study of peripheral blood and bone-marrow films from some 200 cases of acute leukaemia by a group of seven French, American and British haematologists. The slides were examined first independently, and then by the group working together. Two groups of acute leukaemia, 'lymphoblastic' and myeloid are further subdivided into three and six groups. Dysmyelopoietic syndromes that may be confused with acute myeloid leukaemia are also considered. Photomicrographs of each of the named conditions are presented.
5,523 citations
••
Gregory A. Roth1, Gregory A. Roth2, Degu Abate3, Kalkidan Hassen Abate4 +1025 more•Institutions (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
••
TL;DR: The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN as mentioned in this paper was designed to study proton-proton (and lead-lead) collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 14 TeV (5.5 TeV nucleon-nucleon) and at luminosities up to 10(34)cm(-2)s(-1)
Abstract: The Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector is described. The detector operates at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. It was conceived to study proton-proton (and lead-lead) collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 14 TeV (5.5 TeV nucleon-nucleon) and at luminosities up to 10(34)cm(-2)s(-1) (10(27)cm(-2)s(-1)). At the core of the CMS detector sits a high-magnetic-field and large-bore superconducting solenoid surrounding an all-silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead-tungstate scintillating-crystals electromagnetic calorimeter, and a brass-scintillator sampling hadron calorimeter. The iron yoke of the flux-return is instrumented with four stations of muon detectors covering most of the 4 pi solid angle. Forward sampling calorimeters extend the pseudo-rapidity coverage to high values (vertical bar eta vertical bar <= 5) assuring very good hermeticity. The overall dimensions of the CMS detector are a length of 21.6 m, a diameter of 14.6 m and a total weight of 12500 t.
5,193 citations
••
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 64186 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Eugene Braunwald | 230 | 1711 | 264576 |
Cyrus Cooper | 204 | 1869 | 206782 |
Eric J. Topol | 193 | 1373 | 151025 |
Dennis W. Dickson | 191 | 1243 | 148488 |
Scott M. Grundy | 187 | 841 | 231821 |
John C. Morris | 183 | 1441 | 168413 |
Ronald C. Petersen | 178 | 1091 | 153067 |
David R. Williams | 178 | 2034 | 138789 |
John Hardy | 177 | 1178 | 171694 |
Russel J. Reiter | 169 | 1646 | 121010 |
Michael Snyder | 169 | 840 | 130225 |
Jiawei Han | 168 | 1233 | 143427 |
Gang Chen | 167 | 3372 | 149819 |
Marc A. Pfeffer | 166 | 765 | 133043 |
Salvador Moncada | 164 | 495 | 138030 |