scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Utrecht University

EducationUtrecht, 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 & Poison control. The organization has 58176 authors who have published 139351 publications receiving 6214282 citations. The organization is also known as: UU & Universiteit Utrecht.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Morbidity and mortality differences persisted in almost all subgroup analyses, and D2 dissection should not be used as standard treatment for western patients.

984 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Pierre Friedlingstein1, Pierre Friedlingstein2, Matthew W. Jones3, Michael O'Sullivan2, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck4, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters5, Wouter Peters6, Julia Pongratz7, Julia Pongratz8, Stephen Sitch2, Corinne Le Quéré3, Dorothee C. E. Bakker3, Josep G. Canadell9, Philippe Ciais10, Robert B. Jackson11, Peter Anthoni12, Leticia Barbero13, Leticia Barbero14, Ana Bastos8, Vladislav Bastrikov10, Meike Becker15, Meike Becker16, Laurent Bopp1, Erik T. Buitenhuis3, Naveen Chandra17, Frédéric Chevallier10, Louise Chini18, Kim I. Currie19, Richard A. Feely20, Marion Gehlen10, Dennis Gilfillan21, Thanos Gkritzalis22, Daniel S. Goll23, Nicolas Gruber24, Sören B. Gutekunst25, Ian Harris26, Vanessa Haverd9, Richard A. Houghton27, George C. Hurtt18, Tatiana Ilyina7, Atul K. Jain28, Emilie Joetzjer10, Jed O. Kaplan29, Etsushi Kato, Kees Klein Goldewijk30, Kees Klein Goldewijk31, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer7, Siv K. Lauvset16, Nathalie Lefèvre32, Andrew Lenton33, Andrew Lenton34, Sebastian Lienert35, Danica Lombardozzi36, Gregg Marland21, Patrick C. McGuire37, Joe R. Melton, Nicolas Metzl32, David R. Munro38, Julia E. M. S. Nabel7, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka39, Craig Neill33, Abdirahman M Omar16, Abdirahman M Omar33, Tsuneo Ono, Anna Peregon40, Anna Peregon10, Denis Pierrot14, Denis Pierrot13, Benjamin Poulter41, Gregor Rehder42, Laure Resplandy43, Eddy Robertson44, Christian Rödenbeck7, Roland Séférian10, Jörg Schwinger16, Jörg Schwinger31, Naomi E. Smith45, Naomi E. Smith6, Pieter P. Tans20, Hanqin Tian46, Bronte Tilbrook33, Bronte Tilbrook34, Francesco N. Tubiello47, Guido R. van der Werf48, Andy Wiltshire44, Sönke Zaehle7 
École Normale Supérieure1, University of Exeter2, Norwich Research Park3, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research4, University of Groningen5, Wageningen University and Research Centre6, Max Planck Society7, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich8, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation9, Centre national de la recherche scientifique10, Stanford University11, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology12, Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies13, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory14, Geophysical Institute, University of Bergen15, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research16, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology17, University of Maryland, College Park18, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research19, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration20, Appalachian State University21, Flanders Marine Institute22, Augsburg College23, ETH Zurich24, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences25, University of East Anglia26, Woods Hole Research Center27, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign28, University of Hong Kong29, Utrecht University30, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency31, University of Paris32, Hobart Corporation33, University of Tasmania34, University of Bern35, National Center for Atmospheric Research36, University of Reading37, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences38, National Institute for Environmental Studies39, Russian Academy of Sciences40, Goddard Space Flight Center41, Leibniz Institute for Baltic Sea Research42, Princeton University43, Met Office44, Lund University45, Auburn University46, Food and Agriculture Organization47, VU University Amsterdam48
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including emissions from land use and land use change, and show that 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.
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. Fossil CO2 emissions ( EFF ) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change ( ELUC ), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate ( 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 (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr −1 , ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr −1 ( 2.3±0.01 ppm yr −1 ), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr −1 , with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr −1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr −1 , reaching 10 GtC yr −1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr −1 ( 42.5±3.3 GtCO2 ). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr −1 ( 2.4±0.1 ppm yr −1 ), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr −1 , and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr −1 , with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr −1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quere et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019).

981 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This study examined both the functional and structural connections of the human brain in a group of 26 healthy subjects, combining 3 Tesla resting‐state functional magnetic resonance imaging time‐series with diffusion tensor imaging scans to suggest the existence of direct neuroanatomical connections between these functionally linked brain regions to facilitate the ongoing interregional neuronal communication.
Abstract: During rest, multiple cortical brain regions are functionally linked forming resting-state networks. This high level of functional connectivity within resting-state networks suggests the existence of direct neuroanatomical connections between these functionally linked brain regions to facilitate the ongoing interregional neuronal communication. White matter tracts are the structural highways of our brain, enabling information to travel quickly from one brain region to another region. In this study, we examined both the functional and structural connections of the human brain in a group of 26 healthy subjects, combining 3 Tesla resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging time-series with diffusion tensor imaging scans. Nine consistently found functionally linked resting-state networks were retrieved from the resting-state data. The diffusion tensor imaging scans were used to reconstruct the white matter pathways between the functionally linked brain areas of these resting-state networks. Our results show that well-known anatomical white matter tracts interconnect at least eight of the nine commonly found resting-state networks, including the default mode network, the core network, primary motor and visual network, and two lateralized parietal-frontal networks. Our results suggest that the functionally linked resting-state networks reflect the underlying structural connectivity architecture of the human brain.

981 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In the literature at the interface of rural livelihood improvement and conservation of natural forests, two overarching issues stand out: (1) how and to what extent use of forest resources do and can contribute to poverty alleviation and (2) How and to how extent poverty mitigation and forest conservation are and can be made convergent rather than divergent goals as discussed by the authors.

981 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Current models are reviewed to identify priority issues for future land use change modelling research and six concepts important to land use modelling are discussed, based on level of analysis, cross-scale dynamics, driving forces, spatial interaction and neighbourhood effects, temporal dynamics, and level of integration.
Abstract: Land use change models are tools to support the analysis of the causes and consequences of land use dynamics. Scenario analysis with land use models can support land use planning and policy. Numerous land use models are available, developed from different disciplinary backgrounds. This paper reviews current models to identify priority issues for future land use change modelling research. This discussion is based on six concepts important to land use modelling: (1) Level of analysis; (2) Cross-scale dynamics; (3) Driving forces; (4) Spatial interaction and neighbourhood effects; (5) Temporal dynamics; and (6) Level of integration. For each of these concepts an overview is given of the variety of methods used to implement these concepts in operational models. It is concluded that a lot of progress has been made in building land use change models. However, in order to incorporate more aspects important to land use modelling it is needed to develop a new generation of land use models that better address the multi-scale characteristics of the land use system, implement new techniques to quantify neighbourhood effects, explicitly deal with temporal dynamics and achieve a higher level of integration between disciplinary approaches and between models studying urban and rural land use changes. If these requirements are fulfilled models will better support the analysis of land use dynamics and land use policy formulation.

978 citations


Authors

Showing all 58756 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Ronald C. Kessler2741332328983
Albert Hofman2672530321405
Douglas G. Altman2531001680344
Hans Clevers199793169673
Craig B. Thompson195557173172
Patrick W. Serruys1862427173210
Ruedi Aebersold182879141881
Dennis S. Charney179802122408
Kenneth S. Kendler1771327142251
Jean Louis Vincent1611667163721
Vilmundur Gudnason159837123802
Monique M.B. Breteler15954693762
Lex M. Bouter158767103034
Elio Riboli1581136110499
Roy F. Baumeister157650132987
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University College London
210.6K papers, 9.8M citations

94% related

University of Washington
305.5K papers, 17.7M citations

94% related

University of Minnesota
257.9K papers, 11.9M citations

94% related

University of British Columbia
209.6K papers, 9.2M citations

94% related

University of California, Davis
180K papers, 8M citations

94% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
2023429
20221,014
20218,992
20208,578
20197,862
20187,020