Institution
Utrecht University
Education•Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands•
About: Utrecht University is a education organization based out in Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 58176 authors who have published 139351 publications receiving 6214282 citations. The organization is also known as: UU & Universiteit Utrecht.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of East Anglia1, University of Exeter2, Max Planck Society3, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation4, Stanford University5, Oak Ridge National Laboratory6, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration7, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory8, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies9, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research10, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen11, Met Office12, École Normale Supérieure13, Centre national de la recherche scientifique14, University of Maryland, College Park15, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research16, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis17, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research18, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution19, University of New Hampshire20, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign21, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology22, University of California, San Diego23, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency24, Utrecht University25, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences26, University of Paris27, Cooperative Research Centre28, Hobart Corporation29, University of Bern30, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research31, National Center for Atmospheric Research32, University of Miami33, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research34, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research35, National Institute for Environmental Studies36, Spanish National Research Council37, Montana State University38, Goddard Space Flight Center39, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research40, University of Delaware41, Auburn University42, Food and Agriculture Organization43, Wageningen University and Research Centre44, VU University Amsterdam45, University of Groningen46
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, and the resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM) is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle.
Abstract: Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the "global carbon budget" – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and industry (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, respectively, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land-cover change data and bookkeeping models. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its rate of growth (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2007–2016), EFF was 9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.3 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.7 ± 0.1 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.0 ± 0.8 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.6 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For year 2016 alone, the growth in EFF was approximately zero and emissions remained at 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1. Also for 2016, ELUC was 1.3 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM was 6.1 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 2.7 ± 1.0 GtC yr−1, with a small BIM of −0.3 GtC. GATM continued to be higher in 2016 compared to the past decade (2007–2016), reflecting in part the high fossil emissions and the small SLAND consistent with El Nino conditions. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 402.8 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2016. For 2017, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewed growth in EFF of +2.0 % (range of 0.8 to 3.0 %) based on national emissions projections for China, USA, and India, and projections of gross domestic product (GDP) corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et al., 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). All results presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-2017 (GCP, 2017).
884 citations
••
TL;DR: Updates of the meta-analysis command metan and options that have been added since the command's original publication are described, including version 9 graphics with flexible display options, the ability to meta-analyze precalculated effect estimates, and theAbility to analyze subgroups by using the by() option.
Abstract: This article describes updates of the meta-analysis command metan and options that have been added since the command's original publication (Bradburn, Deeks, and Altman, metan – an alternative meta...
884 citations
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the latter association by reviewing the literature and conducting a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies on this topic, concluding that depression may occur as a consequence of having diabetes, but may also be a risk factor for the onset of type 2 diabetes.
Abstract: Aims/hypothesis
Evidence strongly suggests that depression and type 2 diabetes are associated, but the direction of the association is still unclear. Depression may occur as a consequence of having diabetes, but may also be a risk factor for the onset of type 2 diabetes. This study examined the latter association by reviewing the literature and conducting a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies on this topic.
882 citations
••
University of Ottawa1, World Health Organization2, University of Pittsburgh3, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences4, University of Edinburgh5, University of Jena6, Utrecht University7, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation8, Monash University9, Public Health England10, University of Liverpool11, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine12, University of Oxford13, The Chinese University of Hong Kong14, Imperial College London15, Sungkyunkwan University16, Trinity College, Dublin17, Queen's University Belfast18, Johns Hopkins University19, University of Bonn20, Radboud University Nijmegen21, Seoul National University22, University of Brescia23, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine24, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention25, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine26
TL;DR: A minimum set of common outcome measures for studies of COVID-19, which includes a measure of viral burden, patient survival, and patient progression through the health-care system by use of the WHO Clinical Progression Scale are urged.
Abstract: Summary Clinical research is necessary for an effective response to an emerging infectious disease outbreak. However, research efforts are often hastily organised and done using various research tools, with the result that pooling data across studies is challenging. In response to the needs of the rapidly evolving COVID-19 outbreak, the Clinical Characterisation and Management Working Group of the WHO Research and Development Blueprint programme, the International Forum for Acute Care Trialists, and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium have developed a minimum set of common outcome measures for studies of COVID-19. This set includes three elements: a measure of viral burden (quantitative PCR or cycle threshold), a measure of patient survival (mortality at hospital discharge or at 60 days), and a measure of patient progression through the health-care system by use of the WHO Clinical Progression Scale, which reflects patient trajectory and resource use over the course of clinical illness. We urge investigators to include these key data elements in ongoing and future studies to expedite the pooling of data during this immediate threat, and to hone a tool for future needs.
882 citations
••
880 citations
Authors
Showing all 58756 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Ronald C. Kessler | 274 | 1332 | 328983 |
Albert Hofman | 267 | 2530 | 321405 |
Douglas G. Altman | 253 | 1001 | 680344 |
Hans Clevers | 199 | 793 | 169673 |
Craig B. Thompson | 195 | 557 | 173172 |
Patrick W. Serruys | 186 | 2427 | 173210 |
Ruedi Aebersold | 182 | 879 | 141881 |
Dennis S. Charney | 179 | 802 | 122408 |
Kenneth S. Kendler | 177 | 1327 | 142251 |
Jean Louis Vincent | 161 | 1667 | 163721 |
Vilmundur Gudnason | 159 | 837 | 123802 |
Monique M.B. Breteler | 159 | 546 | 93762 |
Lex M. Bouter | 158 | 767 | 103034 |
Elio Riboli | 158 | 1136 | 110499 |
Roy F. Baumeister | 157 | 650 | 132987 |