SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Utökad sökning

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Kontoyiannis D. P.) "

Sökning: WFRF:(Kontoyiannis D. P.)

  • Resultat 1-4 av 4
Sortera/gruppera träfflistan
   
NumreringReferensOmslagsbildHitta
1.
  • Carmona-Gutierrez, D., et al. (författare)
  • Guidelines and recommendations on yeast cell death nomenclature
  • 2018
  • Ingår i: Microbial Cell. - : Shared Science Publishers OG. - 2311-2638. ; 5:1, s. 4-31
  • Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Elucidating the biology of yeast in its full complexity has major implications for science, medicine and industry. One of the most critical processes determining yeast life and physiology is cellular demise. However, the investigation of yeast cell death is a relatively young field, and a widely accepted set of concepts and terms is still missing. Here, we propose unified criteria for the definition of accidental, regulated, and programmed forms of cell death in yeast based on a series of morphological and biochemical criteria. Specifically, we provide consensus guidelines on the differential definition of terms including apoptosis, regulated necrosis, and autophagic cell death, as we refer to additional cell death routines that are relevant for the biology of (at least some species of) yeast. As this area of investigation advances rapidly, changes and extensions to this set of recommendations will be implemented in the years to come. Nonetheless, we strongly encourage the authors, reviewers and editors of scientific articles to adopt these collective standards in order to establish an accurate framework for yeast cell death research and, ultimately, to accelerate the progress of this vibrant field of research.
  •  
2.
  •  
3.
  • Kepp, Kasper P., et al. (författare)
  • Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity
  • 2024
  • Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Elsevier. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 173
  • Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
    • Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members toward one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but nonfinancial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analyzing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated toward COVID-19 elimination (Zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases toward advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided.
  •  
4.
  • Fernandez, J, et al. (författare)
  • EMMA: The European mouse mutant archive
  • 2010
  • Ingår i: TRANSGENIC RESEARCH. - 0962-8819. ; 19:2, s. 327-328
  • Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Resultat 1-4 av 4

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Stäng

Kopiera och spara länken för att återkomma till aktuell vy