scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Toronto

EducationToronto, Ontario, Canada
About: University of Toronto is a education organization based out in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 126067 authors who have published 294940 publications receiving 13536856 citations. The organization is also known as: UToronto & U of T.


Papers
More filters
Dissertation
01 Jan 2009
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe how to train a multi-layer generative model of natural images, using a dataset of millions of tiny colour images, described in the next section.
Abstract: In this work we describe how to train a multi-layer generative model of natural images. We use a dataset of millions of tiny colour images, described in the next section. This has been attempted by several groups but without success. The models on which we focus are RBMs (Restricted Boltzmann Machines) and DBNs (Deep Belief Networks). These models learn interesting-looking filters, which we show are more useful to a classifier than the raw pixels. We train the classifier on a labeled subset that we have collected and call the CIFAR-10 dataset.

15,005 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A generalization of the sampling method introduced by Metropolis et al. as mentioned in this paper is presented along with an exposition of the relevant theory, techniques of application and methods and difficulties of assessing the error in Monte Carlo estimates.
Abstract: SUMMARY A generalization of the sampling method introduced by Metropolis et al. (1953) is presented along with an exposition of the relevant theory, techniques of application and methods and difficulties of assessing the error in Monte Carlo estimates. Examples of the methods, including the generation of random orthogonal matrices and potential applications of the methods to numerical problems arising in statistics, are discussed. For numerical problems in a large number of dimensions, Monte Carlo methods are often more efficient than conventional numerical methods. However, implementation of the Monte Carlo methods requires sampling from high dimensional probability distributions and this may be very difficult and expensive in analysis and computer time. General methods for sampling from, or estimating expectations with respect to, such distributions are as follows. (i) If possible, factorize the distribution into the product of one-dimensional conditional distributions from which samples may be obtained. (ii) Use importance sampling, which may also be used for variance reduction. That is, in order to evaluate the integral J = X) p(x)dx = Ev(f), where p(x) is a probability density function, instead of obtaining independent samples XI, ..., Xv from p(x) and using the estimate J, = Zf(xi)/N, we instead obtain the sample from a distribution with density q(x) and use the estimate J2 = Y{f(xj)p(x1)}/{q(xj)N}. This may be advantageous if it is easier to sample from q(x) thanp(x), but it is a difficult method to use in a large number of dimensions, since the values of the weights w(xi) = p(x1)/q(xj) for reasonable values of N may all be extremely small, or a few may be extremely large. In estimating the probability of an event A, however, these difficulties may not be as serious since the only values of w(x) which are important are those for which x -A. Since the methods proposed by Trotter & Tukey (1956) for the estimation of conditional expectations require the use of importance sampling, the same difficulties may be encountered in their use. (iii) Use a simulation technique; that is, if it is difficult to sample directly from p(x) or if p(x) is unknown, sample from some distribution q(y) and obtain the sample x values as some function of the corresponding y values. If we want samples from the conditional dis

14,965 citations

Proceedings Article
21 Jun 2010
TL;DR: Restricted Boltzmann machines were developed using binary stochastic hidden units that learn features that are better for object recognition on the NORB dataset and face verification on the Labeled Faces in the Wild dataset.
Abstract: Restricted Boltzmann machines were developed using binary stochastic hidden units. These can be generalized by replacing each binary unit by an infinite number of copies that all have the same weights but have progressively more negative biases. The learning and inference rules for these "Stepped Sigmoid Units" are unchanged. They can be approximated efficiently by noisy, rectified linear units. Compared with binary units, these units learn features that are better for object recognition on the NORB dataset and face verification on the Labeled Faces in the Wild dataset. Unlike binary units, rectified linear units preserve information about relative intensities as information travels through multiple layers of feature detectors.

14,799 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
23 Feb 2016-JAMA
TL;DR: The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant and updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsi or at risk of developing sepsic shock.
Abstract: Importance Definitions of sepsis and septic shock were last revised in 2001. Considerable advances have since been made into the pathobiology (changes in organ function, morphology, cell biology, biochemistry, immunology, and circulation), management, and epidemiology of sepsis, suggesting the need for reexamination. Objective To evaluate and, as needed, update definitions for sepsis and septic shock. Process A task force (n = 19) with expertise in sepsis pathobiology, clinical trials, and epidemiology was convened by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Definitions and clinical criteria were generated through meetings, Delphi processes, analysis of electronic health record databases, and voting, followed by circulation to international professional societies, requesting peer review and endorsement (by 31 societies listed in the Acknowledgment). Key Findings From Evidence Synthesis Limitations of previous definitions included an excessive focus on inflammation, the misleading model that sepsis follows a continuum through severe sepsis to shock, and inadequate specificity and sensitivity of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. Multiple definitions and terminologies are currently in use for sepsis, septic shock, and organ dysfunction, leading to discrepancies in reported incidence and observed mortality. The task force concluded the term severe sepsis was redundant. Recommendations Sepsis should be defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. For clinical operationalization, organ dysfunction can be represented by an increase in the Sequential [Sepsis-related] Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 2 points or more, which is associated with an in-hospital mortality greater than 10%. Septic shock should be defined as a subset of sepsis in which particularly profound circulatory, cellular, and metabolic abnormalities are associated with a greater risk of mortality than with sepsis alone. Patients with septic shock can be clinically identified by a vasopressor requirement to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or greater and serum lactate level greater than 2 mmol/L (>18 mg/dL) in the absence of hypovolemia. This combination is associated with hospital mortality rates greater than 40%. In out-of-hospital, emergency department, or general hospital ward settings, adult patients with suspected infection can be rapidly identified as being more likely to have poor outcomes typical of sepsis if they have at least 2 of the following clinical criteria that together constitute a new bedside clinical score termed quickSOFA (qSOFA): respiratory rate of 22/min or greater, altered mentation, or systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or less. Conclusions and Relevance These updated definitions and clinical criteria should replace previous definitions, offer greater consistency for epidemiologic studies and clinical trials, and facilitate earlier recognition and more timely management of patients with sepsis or at risk of developing sepsis.

14,699 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A PRISMA extension for scoping reviews was needed to provide reporting guidance for this specific type of knowledge synthesis and was developed according to published guidance by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency of health Research) Network for the development of reporting guidelines.
Abstract: Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

11,709 citations


Authors

Showing all 127245 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Gordon H. Guyatt2311620228631
David J. Hunter2131836207050
Rakesh K. Jain2001467177727
Thomas C. Südhof191653118007
Gordon B. Mills1871273186451
George Efstathiou187637156228
John P. A. Ioannidis1851311193612
Paul M. Thompson1832271146736
Yusuke Nakamura1792076160313
Chris Sander178713233287
David R. Williams1782034138789
David L. Kaplan1771944146082
Jasvinder A. Singh1762382223370
Hyun-Chul Kim1764076183227
Deborah J. Cook173907148928
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of California, San Diego
204.5K papers, 12.3M citations

96% related

University of Washington
305.5K papers, 17.7M citations

96% related

Stanford University
320.3K papers, 21.8M citations

96% related

Columbia University
224K papers, 12.8M citations

96% related

University of Michigan
342.3K papers, 17.6M citations

95% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023504
20221,822
202119,077
202017,303
201915,387
201814,130