Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Philip C. Prorok is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Philip C. Prorok.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2009

Mortality Results from a Randomized Prostate-Cancer Screening Trial

Gerald L. Andriole; E. David Crawford; Robert L. Grubb; Saundra S. Buys; David Chia; Timothy R. Church; Mona N. Fouad; Edward P. Gelmann; Paul A. Kvale; Douglas J. Reding; Joel L. Weissfeld; Lance A. Yokochi; Jonathan D. Clapp; Joshua M. Rathmell; Thomas L. Riley; Richard B. Hayes; Barnett S. Kramer; Anthony B. Miller; Paul F. Pinsky; Philip C. Prorok; John K. Gohagan; Christine D. Berg

BACKGROUND The effect of screening with prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination on the rate of death from prostate cancer is unknown. This is the first report from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial on prostate-cancer mortality. METHODS From 1993 through 2001, we randomly assigned 76,693 men at 10 U.S. study centers to receive either annual screening (38,343 subjects) or usual care as the control (38,350 subjects). Men in the screening group were offered annual PSA testing for 6 years and digital rectal examination for 4 years. The subjects and health care providers received the results and decided on the type of follow-up evaluation. Usual care sometimes included screening, as some organizations have recommended. The numbers of all cancers and deaths and causes of death were ascertained. RESULTS In the screening group, rates of compliance were 85% for PSA testing and 86% for digital rectal examination. Rates of screening in the control group increased from 40% in the first year to 52% in the sixth year for PSA testing and ranged from 41 to 46% for digital rectal examination. After 7 years of follow-up, the incidence of prostate cancer per 10,000 person-years was 116 (2820 cancers) in the screening group and 95 (2322 cancers) in the control group (rate ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 1.29). The incidence of death per 10,000 person-years was 2.0 (50 deaths) in the screening group and 1.7 (44 deaths) in the control group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.70). The data at 10 years were 67% complete and consistent with these overall findings. CONCLUSIONS After 7 to 10 years of follow-up, the rate of death from prostate cancer was very low and did not differ significantly between the two study groups. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002540.)


Journal of the National Cancer Institute | 2012

Prostate Cancer Screening in the Randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: Mortality Results after 13 Years of Follow-up

Gerald L. Andriole; E. David Crawford; Robert L. Grubb; Saundra S. Buys; David Chia; Timothy R. Church; Mona N. Fouad; Claudine Isaacs; Paul A. Kvale; Douglas J. Reding; Joel L. Weissfeld; Lance A. Yokochi; Barbara O’Brien; Lawrence R. Ragard; Jonathan D. Clapp; Joshua M. Rathmell; Thomas L. Riley; Ann W. Hsing; Grant Izmirlian; Paul F. Pinsky; Barnett S. Kramer; Anthony B. Miller; John K. Gohagan; Philip C. Prorok

BACKGROUND The prostate component of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial was undertaken to determine whether there is a reduction in prostate cancer mortality from screening using serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and digital rectal examination (DRE). Mortality after 7-10 years of follow-up has been reported previously. We report extended follow-up to 13 years after the trial. METHODS A total of 76 685 men, aged 55-74 years, were enrolled at 10 screening centers between November 1993 and July 2001 and randomly assigned to the intervention (organized screening of annual PSA testing for 6 years and annual DRE for 4 years; 38 340 men) and control (usual care, which sometimes included opportunistic screening; 38 345 men) arms. Screening was completed in October 2006. All incident prostate cancers and deaths from prostate cancer through 13 years of follow-up or through December 31, 2009, were ascertained. Relative risks (RRs) were estimated as the ratio of observed rates in the intervention and control arms, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated assuming a Poisson distribution for the number of events. Poisson regression modeling was used to examine the interactions with respect to prostate cancer mortality between trial arm and age, comorbidity status, and pretrial PSA testing. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS Approximately 92% of the study participants were followed to 10 years and 57% to 13 years. At 13 years, 4250 participants had been diagnosed with prostate cancer in the intervention arm compared with 3815 in the control arm. Cumulative incidence rates for prostate cancer in the intervention and control arms were 108.4 and 97.1 per 10 000 person-years, respectively, resulting in a relative increase of 12% in the intervention arm (RR = 1.12, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.17). After 13 years of follow-up, the cumulative mortality rates from prostate cancer in the intervention and control arms were 3.7 and 3.4 deaths per 10 000 person-years, respectively, resulting in a non-statistically significant difference between the two arms (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.36). No statistically significant interactions with respect to prostate cancer mortality were observed between trial arm and age (P(interaction) = .81), pretrial PSA testing (P(interaction) = .52), and comorbidity (P(interaction) = .68). CONCLUSIONS After 13 years of follow-up, there was no evidence of a mortality benefit for organized annual screening in the PLCO trial compared with opportunistic screening, which forms part of usual care, and there was no apparent interaction with age, baseline comorbidity, or pretrial PSA testing.


Controlled Clinical Trials | 2000

Design of the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening trial

Philip C. Prorok; G. L. Andriole; R. S. Bresalier; S. S. Buys; David Chia; E. D. Crawford; R. Fogel; Edward P. Gelmann; F. Gilbert; Richard B. Hayes; C. C. Johnson; J. S. Mandel; A. Oberman; B. O'Brien; M. M. Oken; S. Rafla; Douglas J. Reding; W. Rutt; Joel L. Weissfeld; Lance A. Yokochi; John K. Gohagan

The objectives of the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial are to determine in screenees ages 55-74 at entry whether screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy (60-cm sigmoidoscope) can reduce mortality from colorectal cancer, whether screening with chest X-ray can reduce mortality from lung cancer, whether screening men with digital rectal examination (DRE) plus serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) can reduce mortality from prostate cancer, and whether screening women with CA125 and transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) can reduce mortality from ovarian cancer. Secondary objectives are to assess screening variables other than mortality for each of the interventions including sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value; to assess incidence, stage, and survival of cancer cases; and to investigate biologic and/or prognostic characterizations of tumor tissue and biochemical products as intermediate endpoints. The design is a multicenter, two-armed, randomized trial with 37,000 females and 37,000 males in each of the two arms. In the intervention arm, the PSA and CA125 tests are performed at entry, then annually for 5 years. The DRE, TVU, and chest X-ray exams are performed at entry and then annually for 3 years. Sigmoidoscopy is performed at entry and then at the 5-year point. Participants in the control arm follow their usual medical care practices. Participants will be followed for at least 13 years from randomization to ascertain all cancers of the prostate, lung, colorectum, and ovary, as well as deaths from all causes. A pilot phase was undertaken to assess the randomization, screening, and data collection procedures of the trial and to estimate design parameters such as compliance and contamination levels. This paper describes eligibility, consent, and other design features of the trial, randomization and screening procedures, and an outline of the follow-up procedures. Sample-size calculations are reported, and a data analysis plan is presented.


JAMA | 2011

Effect of Screening on Ovarian Cancer Mortality: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial

Saundra S. Buys; Edward E. Partridge; Amanda Black; Christine Cole Johnson; Lois Lamerato; Claudine Isaacs; Douglas J. Reding; Robert T. Greenlee; Lance A. Yokochi; Bruce Kessel; E. David Crawford; Timothy R. Church; Gerald L. Andriole; Joel L. Weissfeld; Mona N. Fouad; David Chia; Barbara O'Brien; Lawrence R. Ragard; Jonathan D. Clapp; Joshua M. Rathmell; Thomas L. Riley; Patricia Hartge; Paul F. Pinsky; Claire Zhu; Grant Izmirlian; Barnett S. Kramer; Anthony B. Miller; Jian Lun Xu; Philip C. Prorok; John K. Gohagan

CONTEXT Screening for ovarian cancer with cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) and transvaginal ultrasound has an unknown effect on mortality. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of screening for ovarian cancer on mortality in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized controlled trial of 78,216 women aged 55 to 74 years assigned to undergo either annual screening (n = 39,105) or usual care (n = 39,111) at 10 screening centers across the United States between November 1993 and July 2001. Intervention The intervention group was offered annual screening with CA-125 for 6 years and transvaginal ultrasound for 4 years. Participants and their health care practitioners received the screening test results and managed evaluation of abnormal results. The usual care group was not offered annual screening with CA-125 for 6 years or transvaginal ultrasound but received their usual medical care. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 13 years (median [range], 12.4 years [10.9-13.0 years]) for cancer diagnoses and death until February 28, 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Mortality from ovarian cancer, including primary peritoneal and fallopian tube cancers. Secondary outcomes included ovarian cancer incidence and complications associated with screening examinations and diagnostic procedures. RESULTS Ovarian cancer was diagnosed in 212 women (5.7 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 176 (4.7 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual care group (rate ratio [RR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99-1.48). There were 118 deaths caused by ovarian cancer (3.1 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 100 deaths (2.6 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual care group (mortality RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.82-1.71). Of 3285 women with false-positive results, 1080 underwent surgical follow-up; of whom, 163 women experienced at least 1 serious complication (15%). There were 2924 deaths due to other causes (excluding ovarian, colorectal, and lung cancer) (76.6 per 10,000 person-years) in the intervention group and 2914 deaths (76.2 per 10,000 person-years) in the usual care group (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06). CONCLUSIONS Among women in the general US population, simultaneous screening with CA-125 and transvaginal ultrasound compared with usual care did not reduce ovarian cancer mortality. Diagnostic evaluation following a false-positive screening test result was associated with complications. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00002540.


The New England Journal of Medicine | 2012

Colorectal-Cancer Incidence and Mortality with Screening Flexible Sigmoidoscopy

Robert E. Schoen; Paul F. Pinsky; Joel L. Weissfeld; Lance A. Yokochi; Timothy R. Church; Adeyinka O. Laiyemo; Robert S. Bresalier; Gerald L. Andriole; Saundra S. Buys; E. David Crawford; Mona N. Fouad; Claudine Isaacs; Christine Cole Johnson; Douglas J. Reding; Barbara O'Brien; Danielle M. Carrick; Patrick Wright; Thomas L. Riley; Mark P. Purdue; Grant Izmirlian; Barnett S. Kramer; Anthony B. Miller; John K. Gohagan; Philip C. Prorok; Christine D. Berg

BACKGROUND The benefits of endoscopic testing for colorectal-cancer screening are uncertain. We evaluated the effect of screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy on colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS From 1993 through 2001, we randomly assigned 154,900 men and women 55 to 74 years of age either to screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy, with a repeat screening at 3 or 5 years, or to usual care. Cases of colorectal cancer and deaths from the disease were ascertained. RESULTS Of the 77,445 participants randomly assigned to screening (intervention group), 83.5% underwent baseline flexible sigmoidoscopy and 54.0% were screened at 3 or 5 years. The incidence of colorectal cancer after a median follow-up of 11.9 years was 11.9 cases per 10,000 person-years in the intervention group (1012 cases), as compared with 15.2 cases per 10,000 person-years in the usual-care group (1287 cases), which represents a 21% reduction (relative risk, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.85; P<0.001). Significant reductions were observed in the incidence of both distal colorectal cancer (479 cases in the intervention group vs. 669 cases in the usual-care group; relative risk, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.80; P<0.001) and proximal colorectal cancer (512 cases vs. 595 cases; relative risk, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.97; P=0.01). There were 2.9 deaths from colorectal cancer per 10,000 person-years in the intervention group (252 deaths), as compared with 3.9 per 10,000 person-years in the usual-care group (341 deaths), which represents a 26% reduction (relative risk, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.87; P<0.001). Mortality from distal colorectal cancer was reduced by 50% (87 deaths in the intervention group vs. 175 in the usual-care group; relative risk, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.64; P<0.001); mortality from proximal colorectal cancer was unaffected (143 and 147 deaths, respectively; relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.22; P=0.81). CONCLUSIONS Screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy was associated with a significant decrease in colorectal-cancer incidence (in both the distal and proximal colon) and mortality (distal colon only). (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; PLCO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002540.).


Controlled Clinical Trials | 2000

The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial of the National Cancer Institute: history, organization, and status.

John K. Gohagan; Philip C. Prorok; Richard B. Hayes; Barnett S. Kramer

The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial is enrolling 148,000 men and women ages 55-74 at ten screening centers nationwide with balanced randomization to intervention and control arms. For prostate cancer, men receive a digital rectal examination and a blood test for prostate-specific antigen. For lung cancer, men and women receive a posteroanterior view chest X-ray. For colorectal cancer, men and women undergo a 60-cm flexible sigmoidoscopy. For ovarian cancer, women receive a blood test for the CA125 tumor marker and transvaginal ultrasound. Members of the control arm continue with their usual care. Follow-up in both groups will continue for at least 13 years from randomization to assess health status and cause of death. The primary endpoint is mortality from the four PLCO cancers, which accounts for about 53% of all cancer deaths in men and 41% of cancer deaths in women in the United States each year. Blood specimens are collected from screened participants, buccal cell DNA from controls, and histology slides from cases; these are maintained in a biorepository. Participants complete a baseline questionnaire (covering health status and risk factors) and a dietary questionnaire. More than 12,000 participants were enrolled in the pilot phase (concluded in September 1994). Changes in the eligibility criteria followed. As of April 2000, enrollment exceeded 144,500. Data are scanned into designated on-site computers for uploading by participant identification number to the coordinating center for quality checks, archival storage, and preparation of analysis datasets for use by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Scientific direction is provided by NCI scientists, trial investigators, external consultants, and an independent data safety and monitoring board. Performance and data quality are monitored via data edits, site visits, random record audits, and teleconferences. The PLCO trial is formally endorsed by the American Cancer Society and has been ranked by the American Urological Association as one of the most important prostate cancer studies being conducted. Special efforts to enroll black participants are cosponsored by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


JAMA | 2011

Screening by chest radiograph and lung cancer mortality: The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) randomized trial

Martin M. Oken; Willam G. Hocking; Paul A. Kvale; Gerald L. Andriole; Saundra S. Buys; Timothy R. Church; E. David Crawford; Mona N. Fouad; Claudine Isaacs; Douglas J. Reding; Joel L. Weissfeld; Lance A. Yokochi; Barbara O’Brien; Lawrence R. Ragard; Joshua M. Rathmell; Thomas L. Riley; Patrick Wright; Neil Caparaso; Ping Hu; Grant Izmirlian; Paul F. Pinsky; Philip C. Prorok; Barnett S. Kramer; Anthony B. Miller; John K. Gohagan; Christine D. Berg

CONTEXT The effect on mortality of screening for lung cancer with modern chest radiographs is unknown. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect on mortality of screening for lung cancer using radiographs in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized controlled trial that involved 154,901 participants aged 55 through 74 years, 77,445 of whom were assigned to annual screenings and 77,456 to usual care at 1 of 10 screening centers across the United States between November 1993 and July 2001. The data from a subset of eligible participants for the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), which compared chest radiograph with spiral computed tomographic (CT) screening, were analyzed. INTERVENTION Participants in the intervention group were offered annual posteroanterior view chest radiograph for 4 years. Diagnostic follow-up of positive screening results was determined by participants and their health care practitioners. Participants in the usual care group were offered no interventions and received their usual medical care. All diagnosed cancers, deaths, and causes of death were ascertained through the earlier of 13 years of follow-up or until December 31, 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Mortality from lung cancer. Secondary outcomes included lung cancer incidence, complications associated with diagnostic procedures, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS Screening adherence was 86.6% at baseline and 79% to 84% at years 1 through 3; the rate of screening use in the usual care group was 11%. Cumulative lung cancer incidence rates through 13 years of follow-up were 20.1 per 10,000 person-years in the intervention group and 19.2 per 10,000 person-years in the usual care group (rate ratio [RR]; 1.05, 95% CI, 0.98-1.12). A total of 1213 lung cancer deaths were observed in the intervention group compared with 1230 in usual care group through 13 years (mortality RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87-1.22). Stage and histology were similar between the 2 groups. The RR of mortality for the subset of participants eligible for the NLST, over the same 6-year follow-up period, was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.81-1.10). CONCLUSION Annual screening with chest radiograph did not reduce lung cancer mortality compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00002540.


International Journal of Cancer | 2002

Large-scale randomized prostate cancer screening trials: Program performances in the European randomized screening for prostate cancer trial and the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovary cancer trial

Harry J. de Koning; Anssi Auvinen; Antonio Berenguer Sanchez; Fernando Calais da Silva; Stefano Ciatto; Louis Denis; John K. Gohagan; Matti Hakama; Jonas Hugosson; Ries Kranse; Vera Nelen; Philip C. Prorok; Fritz H. Schröder

Two large‐scale randomized screening trials, the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovary (PLCO) cancer trial in the USA and the European Randomized Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) trial in Europe are currently under way, aimed at assessing whether screening reduces prostate cancer mortality. Up to the end of 1998, 102,691 men have been randomized to the intervention arm and 115,322 to the control arm (which represents 83% of the target sample size) from 7 European countries and 10 screening centers in the USA. The principal screening method at all centers is determination of serum prostate‐specific antigen (PSA). The PLCO trial and some European centers use also digital rectal examination (DRE) as an ancillary screening test. In the core age group (55–69 years), 3,362 of 32,486 men screened (10%) had a serum PSA concentration of 4 ng/ml or greater, which is 1 cut‐off for biopsy (performed in 84%). An additional 6% was referred for further assessment based on other criteria, with much less efficiency. Differences in PSA by country are largely attributable to the age structure of the study population. The mean age‐specific PSA levels are lower in the PLCO trial (1.64 ng/ml [in the age group 55–59 years], 1.80 [60–64 years] and 2.18 [65–69 years) than in the ERSPC trial (1.28–1.71 [55–59], 1.75–2.87 [60–64] and 2.48–3.06 [65–69 years]). Detection rates at the first screen in the ERSPC trial range from 11 to 42/1,000 men screened and reflect underlying differences in incidence rates and screening procedures. In centers with consent to randomization design, adherence in the screening arm is 91%, but less than half of the men in the target population are enrolled in the trial. In population‐based centers in which men were randomized prior to consent, all eligible subjects are enrolled, but only about two‐thirds of the men in the intervention arm undergo screening. Considerable progress has been made in both trials. Enrollment will be completed in 2001. A substantial number of early prostate cancers have been detected. The differences between countries seem to reflect both underlying prostate cancer incidence and screening policy. The trials have the power to show definitive results in 2005–2008.


The Journal of Urology | 1994

Prostate cancer screening in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer screening trial of the National Cancer Institute.

John K. Gohagan; Philip C. Prorok; Barnett S. Kramer; Joyce E. Cornett

Screening for prostate cancer and subsequent treatment is of unknown benefit but carries known treatment related morbidity and mortality risks. The recent enthusiasm for screening in the United States contrasts sharply with the more cautious attitudes of the European and Canadian medical communities. Current data from screening series without randomization and controls are inadequate to determine screening benefit. The prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian cancer (randomized, controlled) screening trial of the National Cancer Institute, to include 74,000 men (and 74,000 women) 60 to 74 years old, has a design power of 90% to determine a 20% reduction of prostate cancer mortality from a baseline and 3 subsequent annual screens using prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Randomization of participants into this trial began on November 16, 1993. Ten screening centers nationwide, a coordinating center, a laboratory and a biorepository are participating under contract.


Journal of the National Cancer Institute | 2011

Lung Cancer Risk Prediction: Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial Models and Validation

C. Martin Tammemagi; Paul F. Pinsky; Neil E. Caporaso; Paul A. Kvale; William G. Hocking; Timothy R. Church; Thomas L. Riley; John Commins; Martin M. Oken; Christine D. Berg; Philip C. Prorok

INTRODUCTION Identification of individuals at high risk for lung cancer should be of value to individuals, patients, clinicians, and researchers. Existing prediction models have only modest capabilities to classify persons at risk accurately. METHODS Prospective data from 70 962 control subjects in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO) were used in models for the general population (model 1) and for a subcohort of ever-smokers (N = 38 254) (model 2). Both models included age, socioeconomic status (education), body mass index, family history of lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, recent chest x-ray, smoking status (never, former, or current), pack-years smoked, and smoking duration. Model 2 also included smoking quit-time (time in years since ever-smokers permanently quit smoking). External validation was performed with 44 223 PLCO intervention arm participants who completed a supplemental questionnaire and were subsequently followed. Known available risk factors were included in logistic regression models. Bootstrap optimism-corrected estimates of predictive performance were calculated (internal validation). Nonlinear relationships for age, pack-years smoked, smoking duration, and quit-time were modeled using restricted cubic splines. All reported P values are two-sided. RESULTS During follow-up (median 9.2 years) of the control arm subjects, 1040 lung cancers occurred. During follow-up of the external validation sample (median 3.0 years), 213 lung cancers occurred. For models 1 and 2, bootstrap optimism-corrected receiver operator characteristic area under the curves were 0.857 and 0.805, and calibration slopes (model-predicted probabilities vs observed probabilities) were 0.987 and 0.979, respectively. In the external validation sample, models 1 and 2 had area under the curves of 0.841 and 0.784, respectively. These models had high discrimination in women, men, whites, and nonwhites. CONCLUSION The PLCO lung cancer risk models demonstrate high discrimination and calibration.

Collaboration


Dive into the Philip C. Prorok's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Paul F. Pinsky

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Barnett S. Kramer

American College of Radiology

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

John K. Gohagan

Washington University in St. Louis

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Gerald L. Andriole

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Thomas L. Riley

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Grant Izmirlian

National Institutes of Health

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge