scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University of Virginia

EducationCharlottesville, Virginia, United States
About: University of Virginia is a education organization based out in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 52543 authors who have published 113268 publications receiving 5220506 citations. The organization is also known as: U of V & UVa.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that peripheral tissues express self-sustained, rather than damped, circadian oscillations and the existence of organ-specific synchronizers of circadian rhythms at the cell and tissue level is suggested.
Abstract: Mammalian circadian rhythms are regulated by the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), and current dogma holds that the SCN is required for the expression of circadian rhythms in peripheral tissues. Using a PERIOD2::LUCIFERASE fusion protein as a real-time reporter of circadian dynamics in mice, we report that, contrary to previous work, peripheral tissues are capable of self-sustained circadian oscillations for >20 cycles in isolation. In addition, peripheral organs expressed tissue-specific differences in circadian period and phase. Surprisingly, lesions of the SCN in mPer2Luciferase knockin mice did not abolish circadian rhythms in peripheral tissues, but instead caused phase desynchrony among the tissues of individual animals and from animal to animal. These results demonstrate that peripheral tissues express self-sustained, rather than damped, circadian oscillations and suggest the existence of organ-specific synchronizers of circadian rhythms at the cell and tissue level.

2,010 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Six cycles of docetaxel at the beginning of ADT for metastatic prostate cancer resulted in significantly longer overall survival than that with ADT alone.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has been the backbone of treatment for metastatic prostate cancer since the 1940s. We assessed whether concomitant treatment with ADT plus docetaxel would result in longer overall survival than that with ADT alone. METHODS We assigned men with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer to receive either ADT plus docetaxel (at a dose of 75 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks for six cycles) or ADT alone. The primary objective was to test the hypothesis that the median overall survival would be 33.3% longer among patients receiving docetaxel added to ADT early during therapy than among patients receiving ADT alone. RESULTS A total of 790 patients (median age, 63 years) underwent randomization. After a median follow-up of 28.9 months, the median overall survival was 13.6 months longer with ADT plus docetaxel (combination therapy) than with ADT alone (57.6 months vs. 44.0 months; hazard ratio for death in the combination group, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001). The median time to biochemical, symptomatic, or radiographic progression was 20.2 months in the combination group, as compared with 11.7 months in the ADT-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.72; P<0.001). The rate of a prostate-specific antigen level of less than 0.2 ng per milliliter at 12 months was 27.7% in the combination group versus 16.8% in the ADT-alone group (P<0.001). In the combination group, the rate of grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia was 6.2%, the rate of grade 3 or 4 infection with neutropenia was 2.3%, and the rate of grade 3 sensory neuropathy and of grade 3 motor neuropathy was 0.5%. CONCLUSIONS Six cycles of docetaxel at the beginning of ADT for metastatic prostate cancer resulted in significantly longer overall survival than that with ADT alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00309985.)

2,009 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present evidence from a survey of 872 employees of four firms that ethical cork climates are both multidimensional and multidetermined, and that there is variance in the ethical within organizations by position, tenure, and workgroup membership.
Abstract: Using a modification of a recently developed measure of ethical climates, this paper presents evidence from a survey of 872 employees of four firms that ethical cork climates are both multidimensional and multidetermined. The study demonstrates that organizations have distinct types of ethical climates and that there is variance in the ethical within organizations by position, tenure, and workgroup membership. Five empirically derived dimensions of ethical climate are described: law and code, caring, instrumentalism, independence, and rules. Analyses of variance reveal significant differences in ethical climates both across and within firms. A theory of ethical climates is developed from organizational and economic theory to describe the determinants of ethical climates in organizations. In particular, the sociocultural environment, organizational form, and organization-specific history are identified as determinants of ethical climates in organizations. The implications of ethical climate for organizational theory are also discussed.

2,000 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This monograph discusses 10 learning techniques that benefit learners of different ages and abilities and have been shown to boost students’ performance across many criterion tasks and even in educational contexts.
Abstract: Many students are being left behind by an educational system that some people believe is in crisis. Improving educational outcomes will require efforts on many fronts, but a central premise of this monograph is that one part of a solution involves helping students to better regulate their learning through the use of effective learning techniques. Fortunately, cognitive and educational psychologists have been developing and evaluating easy-to-use learning techniques that could help students achieve their learning goals. In this monograph, we discuss 10 learning techniques in detail and offer recommendations about their relative utility. We selected techniques that were expected to be relatively easy to use and hence could be adopted by many students. Also, some techniques (e.g., highlighting and rereading) were selected because students report relying heavily on them, which makes it especially important to examine how well they work. The techniques include elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, summarization, highlighting (or underlining), the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, rereading, practice testing, distributed practice, and interleaved practice. To offer recommendations about the relative utility of these techniques, we evaluated whether their benefits generalize across four categories of variables: learning conditions, student characteristics, materials, and criterion tasks. Learning conditions include aspects of the learning environment in which the technique is implemented, such as whether a student studies alone or with a group. Student characteristics include variables such as age, ability, and level of prior knowledge. Materials vary from simple concepts to mathematical problems to complicated science texts. Criterion tasks include different outcome measures that are relevant to student achievement, such as those tapping memory, problem solving, and comprehension. We attempted to provide thorough reviews for each technique, so this monograph is rather lengthy. However, we also wrote the monograph in a modular fashion, so it is easy to use. In particular, each review is divided into the following sections: General description of the technique and why it should work How general are the effects of this technique? 2a. Learning conditions 2b. Student characteristics 2c. Materials 2d. Criterion tasks Effects in representative educational contexts Issues for implementation Overall assessment The review for each technique can be read independently of the others, and particular variables of interest can be easily compared across techniques. To foreshadow our final recommendations, the techniques vary widely with respect to their generalizability and promise for improving student learning. Practice testing and distributed practice received high utility assessments because they benefit learners of different ages and abilities and have been shown to boost students' performance across many criterion tasks and even in educational contexts. Elaborative interrogation, self-explanation, and interleaved practice received moderate utility assessments. The benefits of these techniques do generalize across some variables, yet despite their promise, they fell short of a high utility assessment because the evidence for their efficacy is limited. For instance, elaborative interrogation and self-explanation have not been adequately evaluated in educational contexts, and the benefits of interleaving have just begun to be systematically explored, so the ultimate effectiveness of these techniques is currently unknown. Nevertheless, the techniques that received moderate-utility ratings show enough promise for us to recommend their use in appropriate situations, which we describe in detail within the review of each technique. Five techniques received a low utility assessment: summarization, highlighting, the keyword mnemonic, imagery use for text learning, and rereading. These techniques were rated as low utility for numerous reasons. Summarization and imagery use for text learning have been shown to help some students on some criterion tasks, yet the conditions under which these techniques produce benefits are limited, and much research is still needed to fully explore their overall effectiveness. The keyword mnemonic is difficult to implement in some contexts, and it appears to benefit students for a limited number of materials and for short retention intervals. Most students report rereading and highlighting, yet these techniques do not consistently boost students' performance, so other techniques should be used in their place (e.g., practice testing instead of rereading). Our hope is that this monograph will foster improvements in student learning, not only by showcasing which learning techniques are likely to have the most generalizable effects but also by encouraging researchers to continue investigating the most promising techniques. Accordingly, in our closing remarks, we discuss some issues for how these techniques could be implemented by teachers and students, and we highlight directions for future research.

1,989 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
18 Sep 1996-JAMA
TL;DR: RHC was associated with increased mortality and increased utilization of resources, and these findings justify reconsideration of a randomized controlled trial of RHC and may guide patient selection for such a study.
Abstract: Objective —To examine the association between the use of right heart catheterization (RHC) during the first 24 hours of care in the intensive care unit (ICU) and subsequent survival, length of stay, intensity of care, and cost of care Design —Prospective cohort study Setting —Five US teaching hospitals between 1989 and 1994 Subjects —A total of 5735 critically ill adult patients receiving care in an ICU for 1 of 9 prespecified disease categories Main Outcome Measures —Survival time, cost of care, intensity of care, and length of stay in the ICU and hospital, determined from the clinical record and from the National Death Index A propensity score for RHC was constructed using multivariable logistic regression Case-matching and multivariable regression modeling techniques were used to estimate the association of RHC with specific outcomes after adjusting for treatment selection using the propensity score Sensitivity analysis was used to estimate the potential effect of an unidentified or missing covariate on the results Results —By case-matching analysis, patients with RHC had an increased 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 124; 95% confidence interval, 103-149) The mean cost (25th, 50th, 75th percentiles) per hospital stay was $49300 ($17000, $30500, $56600) with RHC and $35700 ($11 300, $20600, $39200) without RHC Mean length of stay in the ICU was 148 (5,9, 17) days with RHC and 130 (4,7, 14) days without RHC These findings were all confirmed by multivariable modeling techniques Subgroup analysis did not reveal any patient group or site for which RHC was associated with improved outcomes Patients with higher baseline probability of surviving 2 months had the highest relative risk of death following RHC Sensitivity analysis suggested that a missing covariate would have to increase the risk of death 6-fold and the risk of RHC 6-fold for a true beneficial effect of RHC to be misrepresented as harmful Conclusion —In this observational study of critically ill patients, after adjustment for treatment selection bias, RHC was associated with increased mortality and increased utilization of resources The cause of this apparent lack of benefit is unclear The results of this analysis should be confirmed in other observational studies These findings justify reconsideration of a randomized controlled trial of RHC and may guide patient selection for such a study

1,986 citations


Authors

Showing all 53083 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Joan Massagué189408149951
Michael Rutter188676151592
Gordon B. Mills1871273186451
Ralph Weissleder1841160142508
Gonçalo R. Abecasis179595230323
Jie Zhang1784857221720
John R. Yates1771036129029
John A. Rogers1771341127390
Bradley Cox1692150156200
Mika Kivimäki1661515141468
Hongfang Liu1662356156290
Carl W. Cotman165809105323
Ralph A. DeFronzo160759132993
Elio Riboli1581136110499
Dan R. Littman157426107164
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Columbia University
224K papers, 12.8M citations

96% related

University of Pennsylvania
257.6K papers, 14.1M citations

96% related

University of Michigan
342.3K papers, 17.6M citations

96% related

University of Washington
305.5K papers, 17.7M citations

96% related

Stanford University
320.3K papers, 21.8M citations

96% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023189
2022783
20215,566
20205,600
20195,001
20184,586