scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Zhejiang University

EducationHangzhou, Zhejiang, China
About: Zhejiang University is a education organization based out in Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Catalysis. The organization has 161257 authors who have published 183264 publications receiving 3417592 citations. The organization is also known as: Chekiang University & Zheda.

More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Marie Ng1, Tom P Fleming1, Margaret Robinson1, Blake Thomson1, Nicholas Graetz1, Christopher Margono1, Erin C Mullany1, Stan Biryukov1, Cristiana Abbafati2, Semaw Ferede Abera3, Jerry Abraham4, Niveen M E Abu-Rmeileh, Tom Achoki1, Fadia AlBuhairan5, Zewdie Aderaw Alemu6, Rafael Alfonso1, Mohammed K. Ali7, Raghib Ali8, Nelson Alvis Guzmán9, Walid Ammar, Palwasha Anwari10, Amitava Banerjee11, Simón Barquera, Sanjay Basu12, Derrick A Bennett8, Zulfiqar A Bhutta13, Jed D. Blore14, N Cabral, Ismael Ricardo Campos Nonato, Jung-Chen Chang15, Rajiv Chowdhury16, Karen J. Courville, Michael H. Criqui17, David K. Cundiff, Kaustubh Dabhadkar7, Lalit Dandona1, Lalit Dandona18, Adrian Davis19, Anand Dayama7, Samath D Dharmaratne20, Eric L. Ding21, Adnan M. Durrani22, Alireza Esteghamati23, Farshad Farzadfar23, Derek F J Fay19, Valery L. Feigin24, Abraham D. Flaxman1, Mohammad H. Forouzanfar1, Atsushi Goto, Mark A. Green25, Rajeev Gupta, Nima Hafezi-Nejad23, Graeme J. Hankey26, Heather Harewood, Rasmus Havmoeller27, Simon I. Hay8, Lucia Hernandez, Abdullatif Husseini28, Bulat Idrisov29, Nayu Ikeda, Farhad Islami30, Eiman Jahangir31, Simerjot K. Jassal17, Sun Ha Jee32, Mona Jeffreys33, Jost B. Jonas34, Edmond K. Kabagambe35, Shams Eldin Ali Hassan Khalifa, Andre Pascal Kengne36, Yousef Khader37, Young-Ho Khang38, Daniel Kim39, Ruth W Kimokoti40, Jonas Minet Kinge41, Yoshihiro Kokubo, Soewarta Kosen, Gene F. Kwan42, Taavi Lai, Mall Leinsalu22, Yichong Li, Xiaofeng Liang43, Shiwei Liu43, Giancarlo Logroscino44, Paulo A. Lotufo45, Yuan Qiang Lu21, Jixiang Ma43, Nana Kwaku Mainoo, George A. Mensah22, Tony R. Merriman46, Ali H. Mokdad1, Joanna Moschandreas47, Mohsen Naghavi1, Aliya Naheed48, Devina Nand, K.M. Venkat Narayan7, Erica Leigh Nelson1, Marian L. Neuhouser49, Muhammad Imran Nisar13, Takayoshi Ohkubo50, Samuel Oti, Andrea Pedroza, Dorairaj Prabhakaran, Nobhojit Roy51, Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson35, Hyeyoung Seo, Sadaf G. Sepanlou23, Kenji Shibuya52, Rahman Shiri53, Ivy Shiue54, Gitanjali M Singh21, Jasvinder A. Singh55, Vegard Skirbekk41, Nicolas J. C. Stapelberg56, Lela Sturua57, Bryan L. Sykes58, Martin Tobias1, Bach Xuan Tran59, Leonardo Trasande60, Hideaki Toyoshima, Steven van de Vijver, Tommi Vasankari, J. Lennert Veerman61, Gustavo Velasquez-Melendez62, Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov63, Stein Emil Vollset41, Stein Emil Vollset64, Theo Vos1, Claire L. Wang65, Xiao Rong Wang66, Elisabete Weiderpass, Andrea Werdecker, Jonathan L. Wright1, Y Claire Yang67, Hiroshi Yatsuya68, Jihyun Yoon, Seok Jun Yoon69, Yong Zhao70, Maigeng Zhou, Shankuan Zhu71, Alan D. Lopez14, Christopher J L Murray1, Emmanuela Gakidou1 
University of Washington1, Sapienza University of Rome2, Mekelle University3, University of Texas at San Antonio4, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences5, Debre markos University6, Emory University7, University of Oxford8, University of Cartagena9, United Nations Population Fund10, University of Birmingham11, Stanford University12, Aga Khan University13, University of Melbourne14, National Taiwan University15, University of Cambridge16, University of California, San Diego17, Public Health Foundation of India18, Public Health England19, University of Peradeniya20, Harvard University21, National Institutes of Health22, Tehran University of Medical Sciences23, Auckland University of Technology24, University of Sheffield25, University of Western Australia26, Karolinska Institutet27, Birzeit University28, Brandeis University29, American Cancer Society30, Ochsner Medical Center31, Yonsei University32, University of Bristol33, Heidelberg University34, Vanderbilt University35, South African Medical Research Council36, Jordan University of Science and Technology37, New Generation University College38, Northeastern University39, Simmons College40, Norwegian Institute of Public Health41, Boston University42, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention43, University of Bari44, University of São Paulo45, University of Otago46, University of Crete47, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh48, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center49, Teikyo University50, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre51, University of Tokyo52, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health53, Heriot-Watt University54, University of Alabama at Birmingham55, Griffith University56, National Center for Disease Control and Public Health57, University of California, Irvine58, Johns Hopkins University59, New York University60, University of Queensland61, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais62, National Research University – Higher School of Economics63, University of Bergen64, Columbia University65, Shandong University66, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill67, Fujita Health University68, Korea University69, Chongqing Medical University70, Zhejiang University71
TL;DR: The global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-2013 is estimated using a spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression model to estimate prevalence with 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs).

9,180 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Mohsen Naghavi1, Haidong Wang1, Rafael Lozano1, Adrian Davis2  +728 moreInstitutions (294)
TL;DR: In the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 (GBD 2013) as discussed by the authors, the authors used the GBD 2010 methods with some refinements to improve accuracy applied to an updated database of vital registration, survey, and census data.

5,792 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factor study 2013 (GBD 2013) as discussed by the authors provides a timely opportunity to update the comparative risk assessment with new data for exposure, relative risks, and evidence on the appropriate counterfactual risk distribution.

5,668 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

5,187 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
02 Mar 2020
TL;DR: Among Chinese health care workers exposed to COVID-19, women, nurses, those in Wuhan, and front-line health care Workers have a high risk of developing unfavorable mental health outcomes and may need psychological support or interventions.
Abstract: Importance Health care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) could be psychologically stressed. Objective To assess the magnitude of mental health outcomes and associated factors among health care workers treating patients exposed to COVID-19 in China. Design, Settings, and Participants This cross-sectional, survey-based, region-stratified study collected demographic data and mental health measurements from 1257 health care workers in 34 hospitals from January 29, 2020, to February 3, 2020, in China. Health care workers in hospitals equipped with fever clinics or wards for patients with COVID-19 were eligible. Main Outcomes and Measures The degree of symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and distress was assessed by the Chinese versions of the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire, the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, the 7-item Insomnia Severity Index, and the 22-item Impact of Event Scale–Revised, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with mental health outcomes. Results A total of 1257 of 1830 contacted individuals completed the survey, with a participation rate of 68.7%. A total of 813 (64.7%) were aged 26 to 40 years, and 964 (76.7%) were women. Of all participants, 764 (60.8%) were nurses, and 493 (39.2%) were physicians; 760 (60.5%) worked in hospitals in Wuhan, and 522 (41.5%) were frontline health care workers. A considerable proportion of participants reported symptoms of depression (634 [50.4%]), anxiety (560 [44.6%]), insomnia (427 [34.0%]), and distress (899 [71.5%]). Nurses, women, frontline health care workers, and those working in Wuhan, China, reported more severe degrees of all measurements of mental health symptoms than other health care workers (eg, median [IQR] Patient Health Questionnaire scores among physicians vs nurses: 4.0 [1.0-7.0] vs 5.0 [2.0-8.0];P = .007; median [interquartile range {IQR}] Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale scores among men vs women: 2.0 [0-6.0] vs 4.0 [1.0-7.0];P Conclusions and Relevance In this survey of heath care workers in hospitals equipped with fever clinics or wards for patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan and other regions in China, participants reported experiencing psychological burden, especially nurses, women, those in Wuhan, and frontline health care workers directly engaged in the diagnosis, treatment, and care for patients with COVID-19.

5,157 citations


Showing all 162389 results

Stuart H. Orkin186715112182
H. S. Chen1792401178529
Markus Antonietti1761068127235
Yang Yang1712644153049
Gang Chen1673372149819
Jun Wang1661093141621
Hua Zhang1631503116769
Rui Zhang1512625107917
Ben Zhong Tang1492007116294
J. Fraser Stoddart147123996083
Yi Yang143245692268
Jian Yang1421818111166
Liming Dai14178182937
Joseph Lau140104899305
Wei Huang139241793522
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
184.6K papers, 3.4M citations

97% related

Fudan University
117.9K papers, 2.6M citations

95% related

Peking University
181K papers, 4.1M citations

95% related

Tsinghua University
200.5K papers, 4.5M citations

94% related

National University of Singapore
165.4K papers, 5.4M citations

94% related

No. of papers from the Institution in previous years