scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Southern California

EducationLos Angeles, California, United States
About: University of Southern California is a education organization based out in Los Angeles, California, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Cancer. The organization has 73160 authors who have published 169955 publications receiving 7838906 citations. The organization is also known as: USC & University of Southern CA.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide a concise point of departure for researchers and practitioners alike wishing to assess the current state of the art in the control and monitoring of civil engineering structures, and provide a link between structural control and other fields of control theory.
Abstract: This tutorial/survey paper: (1) provides a concise point of departure for researchers and practitioners alike wishing to assess the current state of the art in the control and monitoring of civil engineering structures; and (2) provides a link between structural control and other fields of control theory, pointing out both differences and similarities, and points out where future research and application efforts are likely to prove fruitful. The paper consists of the following sections: section 1 is an introduction; section 2 deals with passive energy dissipation; section 3 deals with active control; section 4 deals with hybrid and semiactive control systems; section 5 discusses sensors for structural control; section 6 deals with smart material systems; section 7 deals with health monitoring and damage detection; and section 8 deals with research needs. An extensive list of references is provided in the references section.

1,883 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Andrew R. Wood1, Tõnu Esko2, Jian Yang3, Sailaja Vedantam4  +441 moreInstitutions (132)
TL;DR: This article identified 697 variants at genome-wide significance that together explained one-fifth of the heritability for adult height, and all common variants together captured 60% of heritability.
Abstract: Using genome-wide data from 253,288 individuals, we identified 697 variants at genome-wide significance that together explained one-fifth of the heritability for adult height. By testing different numbers of variants in independent studies, we show that the most strongly associated ∼2,000, ∼3,700 and ∼9,500 SNPs explained ∼21%, ∼24% and ∼29% of phenotypic variance. Furthermore, all common variants together captured 60% of heritability. The 697 variants clustered in 423 loci were enriched for genes, pathways and tissue types known to be involved in growth and together implicated genes and pathways not highlighted in earlier efforts, such as signaling by fibroblast growth factors, WNT/β-catenin and chondroitin sulfate-related genes. We identified several genes and pathways not previously connected with human skeletal growth, including mTOR, osteoglycin and binding of hyaluronic acid. Our results indicate a genetic architecture for human height that is characterized by a very large but finite number (thousands) of causal variants.

1,872 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Eleftheria Zeggini1, Laura J. Scott2, Richa Saxena, Benjamin F. Voight, Jonathan Marchini3, T Hu2, de Bakker Piw.4, de Bakker Piw.5, de Bakker Piw.6, Gonçalo R. Abecasis2, Peter Almgren7, Gregers S. Andersen8, Kristin Ardlie4, Kristina Bengtsson Boström, Richard N. Bergman9, Lori L. Bonnycastle10, Knut Borch-Johnsen8, Knut Borch-Johnsen11, Noël P. Burtt4, H Chen12, Peter S. Chines10, Mark J. Daly, P Deodhar10, Ding C-J.2, Doney Asf.13, William L. Duren2, Katherine S. Elliott1, Mike Erdos10, Timothy M. Frayling14, Rachel M. Freathy14, Lauren Gianniny4, Harald Grallert, Niels Grarup8, Christopher J. Groves3, Candace Guiducci4, Torben Hansen8, Christian Herder15, Graham A. Hitman16, Thomas Edward Hughes12, Bo Isomaa, Anne U. Jackson2, Torben Jørgensen17, Augustine Kong18, Kari Kubalanza10, Finny G Kuruvilla4, Finny G Kuruvilla5, Johanna Kuusisto19, Claudia Langenberg20, Hana Lango14, Torsten Lauritzen21, Yun Li2, Cecilia M. Lindgren1, Cecilia M. Lindgren3, Valeriya Lyssenko7, Amanda F. Marvelle22, Christine Meisinger, Kristian Midthjell23, Karen L. Mohlke22, Mario A. Morken10, Andrew D. Morris13, Narisu Narisu10, Peter M. Nilsson7, Katharine R. Owen3, Palmer Cna.13, Felicity Payne24, Perry Jrb.14, E Pettersen23, Carl Platou23, Inga Prokopenko1, Inga Prokopenko3, Lu Qi6, Lu Qi5, L Qin22, Nigel W. Rayner3, Nigel W. Rayner1, Matthew G. Rees10, J J Roix12, A Sandbaek11, Beverley M. Shields, Marketa Sjögren7, Valgerdur Steinthorsdottir18, Heather M. Stringham2, Amy J. Swift10, Gudmar Thorleifsson18, Unnur Thorsteinsdottir18, Nicholas J. Timpson25, Nicholas J. Timpson1, Tiinamaija Tuomi26, Jaakko Tuomilehto26, Mark Walker27, Richard M. Watanabe9, Michael N. Weedon14, Cristen J. Willer2, Thomas Illig, Kristian Hveem23, Frank B. Hu6, Frank B. Hu5, Markku Laakso19, Kari Stefansson18, Oluf Pedersen8, Oluf Pedersen11, Nicholas J. Wareham20, Inês Barroso24, Andrew T. Hattersley14, Francis S. Collins10, Leif Groop7, Leif Groop26, Mark I. McCarthy1, Mark I. McCarthy3, Michael Boehnke2, David Altshuler 
TL;DR: The results illustrate the value of large discovery and follow-up samples for gaining further insights into the inherited basis of T2D, and detect at least six previously unknown loci with robust evidence for association.
Abstract: Genome-wide association (GWA) studies have identified multiple loci at which common variants modestly but reproducibly influence risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). Established associations to common and rare variants explain only a small proportion of the heritability of T2D. As previously published analyses had limited power to identify variants with modest effects, we carried out meta-analysis of three T2D GWA scans comprising 10,128 individuals of European descent and approximately 2.2 million SNPs (directly genotyped and imputed), followed by replication testing in an independent sample with an effective sample size of up to 53,975. We detected at least six previously unknown loci with robust evidence for association, including the JAZF1 (P = 5.0 x 10(-14)), CDC123-CAMK1D (P = 1.2 x 10(-10)), TSPAN8-LGR5 (P = 1.1 x 10(-9)), THADA (P = 1.1 x 10(-9)), ADAMTS9 (P = 1.2 x 10(-8)) and NOTCH2 (P = 4.1 x 10(-8)) gene regions. Our results illustrate the value of large discovery and follow-up samples for gaining further insights into the inherited basis of T2D.

1,872 citations

01 Jan 1995
TL;DR: The field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) as discussed by the authors is one of the most popular areas of research in computer science and has been widely recognized as a promising area of research for many years.
Abstract: Humankind has given itself the scientific name homo sapiens--man the wise--because our mental capacities are so important to our everyday lives and our sense of self. The field of artificial intelligence, or AI, attempts to understand intelligent entities. Thus, one reason to study it is to learn more about ourselves. But unlike philosophy and psychology, which are also concerned with AI strives to build intelligent entities as well as understand them. Another reason to study AI is that these constructed intelligent entities are interesting and useful in their own right. AI has produced many significant and impressive products even at this early stage in its development. Although no one can predict the future in detail, it is clear that computers with human-level intelligence (or better) would have a huge impact on our everyday lives and on the future course of civilization. AI addresses one of the ultimate puzzles. How is it possible for a slow, tiny brain{brain}, whether biological or electronic, to perceive, understand, predict, and manipulate a world far larger and more complicated than itself? How do we go about making something with those properties? These are hard questions, but unlike the search for faster-than-light travel or an antigravity device, the researcher in AI has solid evidence that the quest is possible. All the researcher has to do is look in the mirror to see an example of an intelligent system. AI is one of the newest disciplines. It was formally initiated in 1956, when the name was coined, although at that point work had been under way for about five years. Along with modern genetics, it is regularly cited as the ``field I would most like to be in'' by scientists in other disciplines. A student in physics might reasonably feel that all the good ideas have already been taken by Galileo, Newton, Einstein, and the rest, and that it takes many years of study before one can contribute new ideas. AI, on the other hand, still has openings for a full-time Einstein. The study of intelligence is also one of the oldest disciplines. For over 2000 years, philosophers have tried to understand how seeing, learning, remembering, and reasoning could, or should, be done. The advent of usable computers in the early 1950s turned the learned but armchair speculation concerning these mental faculties into a real experimental and theoretical discipline. Many felt that the new ``Electronic Super-Brains'' had unlimited potential for intelligence. ``Faster Than Einstein'' was a typical headline. But as well as providing a vehicle for creating artificially intelligent entities, the computer provides a tool for testing theories of intelligence, and many theories failed to withstand the test--a case of ``out of the armchair, into the fire.'' AI has turned out to be more difficult than many at first imagined, and modern ideas are much richer, more subtle, and more interesting as a result. AI currently encompasses a huge variety of subfields, from general-purpose areas such as perception and logical reasoning, to specific tasks such as playing chess, proving mathematical theorems, writing poetry{poetry}, and diagnosing diseases. Often, scientists in other fields move gradually into artificial intelligence, where they find the tools and vocabulary to systematize and automate the intellectual tasks on which they have been working all their lives. Similarly, workers in AI can choose to apply their methods to any area of human intellectual endeavor. In this sense, it is truly a universal field.

1,864 citations


Authors

Showing all 73925 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Eric S. Lander301826525976
Trevor W. Robbins2311137164437
Edward Witten202602204199
Irving L. Weissman2011141172504
John C. Morris1831441168413
Paul M. Thompson1832271146736
Terrie E. Moffitt182594150609
John R. Yates1771036129029
Michael I. Jordan1761016216204
Russel J. Reiter1691646121010
George P. Chrousos1691612120752
Jiawei Han1681233143427
Zena Werb168473122629
Douglas F. Easton165844113809
Bruce L. Miller1631153115975
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Stanford University
320.3K papers, 21.8M citations

97% related

Columbia University
224K papers, 12.8M citations

97% related

University of Washington
305.5K papers, 17.7M citations

97% related

University of Pennsylvania
257.6K papers, 14.1M citations

97% related

University of Michigan
342.3K papers, 17.6M citations

97% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023245
20221,033
20219,280
20208,674
20197,737
20187,346