Institution
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston
Education•Houston, Texas, United States•
About: University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston is a education organization based out in Houston, Texas, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 27309 authors who have published 42520 publications receiving 2151596 citations. The organization is also known as: UTHealth & The UT Health Science Center at Houston.
Topics: Population, Poison control, Cancer, Stroke, Health care
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital1, University of Insubria2, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston3, Chinese PLA General Hospital4, University of Vermont Medical Center5, Harvard University6, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center7, Loyola University Medical Center8, University of Chicago9, University of Milan10, Auckland City Hospital11, St Thomas' Hospital12, Hofstra University13, University of Michigan14, Hamilton Health Sciences15, Population Health Research Institute16, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute17, Brigham and Women's Hospital18, Vanderbilt University19, Universidad Católica San Antonio de Murcia20, University of Mainz21, McMaster University22, University of Liverpool23, Aalborg University24
TL;DR: The current understanding of the pathogenesis, epidemiology, management and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who develop venous or arterial thrombosis, and of those with preexistingThrombotic disease who develop CO VID-19 are reviewed.
2,222 citations
Boston University1, Saint Louis University2, Northwestern University3, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center4, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill5, Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation6, Columbia University7, University of California, San Francisco8, National Institutes of Health9, Yale Cancer Center10, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston11
TL;DR: The diverse types of feasibility studies conducted in the field of cancer prevention, using a group of recently funded grants from the National Cancer Institute are described.
2,189 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors summarise present global efforts to counteract this problem and point the way forward to address the pandemic of physical inactivity, concluding that, although evidence for the benefits of physical activity for health has been available since the 1950s, promotion to improve the health of populations has lagged in relation to the available evidence.
2,186 citations
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center1, American College of Radiology2, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston3, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center4, Cleveland Clinic5, University of Utah6, Ohio State University7, University of Wisconsin-Madison8, Mayo Clinic9, University of Virginia10, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center11, Thomas Jefferson University12, Emory University13, University of Maryland, Baltimore14
TL;DR: First-line use of bevacizumab did not improve overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, and progression-free survival was prolonged but did not reach the prespecified improvement target.
Abstract: Background Concurrent treatment with temozolomide and radiotherapy followed by maintenance temozolomide is the standard of care for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor A, is currently approved for recurrent glioblastoma. Whether the addition of bevacizumab would improve survival among patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma is not known. Methods In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we treated adults who had centrally confirmed glioblastoma with radiotherapy (60 Gy) and daily temozolomide. Treatment with bevacizumab or placebo began during week 4 of radiotherapy and was continued for up to 12 cycles of maintenance chemotherapy. At disease progression, the assigned treatment was revealed, and bevacizumab therapy could be initiated or continued. The trial was designed to detect a 25% reduction in the risk of death and a 30% reduction in the risk of progression or death, the two coprimary ...
2,181 citations
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai1, Cleveland Clinic2, University of Alabama at Birmingham3, University of Copenhagen4, University College London5, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston6, New York University7, University of Pennsylvania8, VU University Amsterdam9, National Multiple Sclerosis Society10, Johns Hopkins University11, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University12, University of Ottawa13, University of Rochester14, University of Basel15, University of Düsseldorf16, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University17, Autonomous University of Barcelona18, University of Toronto19, University of British Columbia20, Sapienza University of Rome21, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center22, University of California, San Francisco23
TL;DR: Refined descriptors that include consideration of disease activity (based on clinical relapse rate and imaging findings) and disease progression are proposed and strategies for future research to better define phenotypes are outlined.
Abstract: Accurate clinical course descriptions (phenotypes) of multiple sclerosis (MS) are important for communication, prognostication, design and recruitment of clinical trials, and treatment decision-making. Standardized descriptions published in 1996 based on a survey of international MS experts provided purely clinical phenotypes based on data and consensus at that time, but imaging and biological correlates were lacking. Increased understanding of MS and its pathology, coupled with general concern that the original descriptors may not adequately reflect more recently identified clinical aspects of the disease, prompted a re-examination of MS disease phenotypes by the International Advisory Committee on Clinical Trials of MS. While imaging and biological markers that might provide objective criteria for separating clinical phenotypes are lacking, we propose refined descriptors that include consideration of disease activity (based on clinical relapse rate and imaging findings) and disease progression. Strategies for future research to better define phenotypes are also outlined.
2,180 citations
Authors
Showing all 27450 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Paul M. Ridker | 233 | 1242 | 245097 |
| Eugene Braunwald | 230 | 1711 | 264576 |
| Eric N. Olson | 206 | 814 | 144586 |
| Hagop M. Kantarjian | 204 | 3708 | 210208 |
| André G. Uitterlinden | 199 | 1229 | 156747 |
| Gordon B. Mills | 187 | 1273 | 186451 |
| Eric Boerwinkle | 183 | 1321 | 170971 |
| Bruce M. Psaty | 181 | 1205 | 138244 |
| Aaron R. Folsom | 181 | 1118 | 134044 |
| Daniel R. Weinberger | 177 | 879 | 128450 |
| Bharat B. Aggarwal | 175 | 706 | 116213 |
| Richard A. Gibbs | 172 | 889 | 249708 |
| Russel J. Reiter | 169 | 1646 | 121010 |
| James F. Sallis | 169 | 825 | 144836 |
| Steven N. Blair | 165 | 879 | 132929 |