University of Southern California

Artificial intelligence: a modern approach

The long-anticipated revision of this #1 selling book offers the most comprehensive, state of the art introduction to the theory and practice of artificial intelligence for modern applications. Intelligent Agents. Solving Problems by Searching. Informed Search Methods. Game Playing. Agents that Reason Logically. First-order Logic. Building a Knowledge Base. Inference in First-Order Logic. Logical Reasoning Systems. Practical Planning. Planning and Acting. Uncertainty. Probabilistic Reasoning Systems. Making Simple Decisions. Making Complex Decisions. Learning from Observations. Learning with Neural Networks. Reinforcement Learning. Knowledge in Learning. Agents that Communicate. Practical Communication in English. Perception. Robotics. For computer professionals, linguists, and cognitive scientists interested in artificial intelligence.

Dementia prevention, intervention, and care: 2020 report of the Lancet Commission

Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-Nested Hypotheses

In this paper, we develop a classical approach to model selection. Using the Kullback-Leibler Information Criterion to measure the closeness of a model to the truth, we propose simple likelihood-ratio based statistics for testing the null hypothesis that the competing models are equally close to the true data generating process against the alternative hypothesis that one model is closer. The tests are directional and are derived successively for the cases where the competing models are non-nested, overlapping, or nested and whether both, one, or neither is misspecified. As a prerequisite, we fully characterize the asymptotic distribution of the likelihood ratio statistic under the most general conditions. We show that it is a weighted sum of chi-square distribution or a normal distribution depending on whether the distributions in the competing models closest to the truth are observationally identical. We also propose a test of this latter condition.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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 thatthere 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 completeprocess 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 increasedautophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 manycases, 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 forreviewers 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 multipleassays 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 autophagyrelated 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.

A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity

Our growing awareness of the microbial world's importance and diversity contrasts starkly with our limited understanding of its fundamental structure. Despite recent advances in DNA sequencing, a lack of standardized protocols and common analytical frameworks impedes comparisons among studies, hindering the development of global inferences about microbial life on Earth. Here we present a meta-analysis of microbial community samples collected by hundreds of researchers for the Earth Microbiome Project. Coordinated protocols and new analytical methods, particularly the use of exact sequences instead of clustered operational taxonomic units, enable bacterial and archaeal ribosomal RNA gene sequences to be followed across multiple studies and allow us to explore patterns of diversity at an unprecedented scale. The result is both a reference database giving global context to DNA sequence data and a framework for incorporating data from future studies, fostering increasingly complete characterization of Earth's microbial diversity.

Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups From 2010 to 2019

IMPORTANCE: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden. OBJECTIVE: To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). FINDINGS: In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.

Global guideline for the diagnosis and management of mucormycosis: an initiative of the European Confederation of Medical Mycology in cooperation with the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium

Global Burden of Cardiovascular Diseases and Risks, 1990-2022

The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017

STUDY QUESTION: What updates of the International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care are required, to reflect contemporary scientific knowledge, social needs, and inclusive definitions, while harmonizing international communication across clinical, research, policy, and public domains? SUMMARY ANSWER: This 4th edition presents 348 consensus-based terms and definitions, including numerous revisions from the previous edition and 79 newly introduced definitions reflecting advances in reproductive science, technology, and evolving social contexts. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous glossary editions (2006, 2009, 2017) established internationally recognized definitions related to clinical practice, research, and policy. The 2017 edition comprised 283 terms and, among many others, expanded the concept of infertility to include not only its recognition as a disease, but also as an impairment of function generating disability. The glossary has been extensively used worldwide and has contributed to international standardization of data collection, appropriate comparison of outcome measures, and provided a reference for all stakeholders including policy makers. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Under guidance of the organizing committee, 21 professionals from across the world, and representing expertise in different sub-specialties, formed five working groups: clinical definitions; outcome measures; embryology laboratory; clinical and laboratory andrology; and epidemiology, public health and gender related definitions. The definitions from the previous glossary were evaluated and new terms identified. All definitions were then reviewed by an international advisory panel of nine experts that evaluated the glossary from scientific, ethical, cultural, and policy perspectives. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Between November 2024 and October 2025, periodical virtual meetings were held within and between working groups and the organizing committee. Following circulation of the first consensually agreed draft, a one-day in-person meeting with representatives of all working groups and members of the international advisory panel was held at ESHRE, June 2025. Most terms and definitions were discussed and agreed. In the absence of agreement, further discussions were held between the organizing committee, working group chairs and members of the advisory panel. It had been determined at the outset that final disagreement would be resolved via a two-third majority vote. All terms and definitions were, however, reached by consensus and adopted following a final round of review and approval by all authors. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The glossary now includes 348 terms. Compared to the previous edition, 14 terms were deleted, numerous terms modified and 79 new terms were added. Modifications reflect current scientific knowledge, technological advancements, and inclusivity related to gender and family structures. Chance does not play a role, as all definitions are consensus-based. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Some terms may require future refinement as scientific knowledge evolves and societal contexts change. The glossary reflects consensus rather than empirical testing of all definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This glossary provides a global reference for standardized terminology, supporting clinical care, research, international comparisons, policy making, patient communication, and reproductive health literacy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Neither ICMART, responsible for conducting this project, nor any of the participants received specific financial support for their activities in this project. Ferring provided ICMART with a fixed amount to cover venue costs and a one-day hotel accommodation for participants attending the in-person meeting held prior to the ESHRE Congress in June 2025. Disclosures were provided by all authors, and none reported any conflict of interest related to this manuscript. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

A survey of trust in computer science and the Semantic Web