@article{RychlikHumpfMarkoetal.2014,
  author    = {Rychlik, Michael and Humpf, Hans-Ulrich and Marko, Doris and D{\"a}nicke, Sven and Mally, Angela and Berthiller, Franz and Klaffke, Horst and Lorenz, Nicole},
  title     = {Proposal of a comprehensive definition of modified and other forms of mycotoxins including "masked" mycotoxins},
  series = {Mycotoxin Research},
  volume    = {30},
  journal   = {Mycotoxin Research},
  number    = {4},
  doi       = {10.1007/s12550-014-0203-5},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-121240},
  pages     = {197-205},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {As the term "masked mycotoxins" encompasses only conjugated mycotoxins generated by plants and no other possible forms of mycotoxins and their modifications, we hereby propose for all these forms a systematic definition consisting of four hierarchic levels. The highest level differentiates the free and unmodified forms of mycotoxins from those being matrix-associated and from those being modified in their chemical structure. The following lower levels further differentiate, in particular, "modified mycotoxins" into "biologically modified" and "chemically modified" with all variations of metabolites of the former and dividing the latter into "thermally formed" and "non-thermally formed" ones. To harmonize future scientific wording and subsequent legislation, we suggest that the term "modified mycotoxins" should be used in the future and the term "masked mycotoxins" to be kept for the fraction of biologically modified mycotoxins that were conjugated by plants.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MatthesDiersSchlegeletal.2020,
  author    = {Matthes, Niels and Diers, Johannes and Schlegel, Nicolas and Hankir, Mohammed and Haubitz, Imme and Germer, Christoph-Thomas and Wiegering, Armin},
  title     = {Validation of MTL30 as a quality indicator for colorectal surgery},
  series = {PLoS One},
  volume    = {15},
  journal   = {PLoS One},
  number    = {8},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0238473},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-230530},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Background Valid indicators are required to measure surgical quality. These ideally should be sensitive and selective while being easy to understand and adjust. We propose here the MTL30 quality indicator which takes into account 30-day mortality, transfer within 30 days, and a length of stay of 30 days as composite markers of an uneventful operative/postoperative course. Methods Patients documented in the StuDoQ|Colon and StuDoQ|Rectal carcinoma register of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery (DGAV) were analyzed with regard to the effects of patient and tumor-related risk factors as well as postoperative complications on the MTL30. Results In univariate analysis, the MTL30 correlated significantly with patient and tumor-related risk factors such as ASA score (p<0.001), age (p<0.001), or UICC stage (p<0.001). There was a high sensitivity for the postoperative occurrence of complications such as re-operations (p<0.001) or subsequent bleeding (p<0.001), as well as a significant correlation with the CDC classification (p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, patient-related risk factors and postoperative complications significantly increased the odds ratio for a positive MTL30. A negative MTL30 showed a high specify for an uneventful operative and postoperative course. Conclusion The MTL30 is a valid indicator of colorectal surgical quality.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GrollBurdickChoetal.2019,
  author    = {Groll, J and Burdick, J A and Cho, D-W and Derby, B and Gelinsky, M and Heilshorn, S C and J{\"u}ngst, T and Malda, J and Mironov, V A and Nakayama, K and Ovsianikov, A and Sun, W and Takeuchi, S and Yoo, J J and Woodfield, T B F},
  title     = {A definition of bioinks and their distinction from biomaterial inks},
  series = {Biofabrication},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Biofabrication},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.1088/1758-5090/aaec52},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-253993},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Biofabrication aims to fabricate biologically functional products through bioprinting or bioassembly (Groll et al 2016 Biofabrication 8 013001). In biofabrication processes, cells are positioned at defined coordinates in three-dimensional space using automated and computer controlled techniques (Moroni et al 2018 Trends Biotechnol. 36 384-402), usually with the aid of biomaterials that are either (i) directly processed with the cells as suspensions/dispersions, (ii) deposited simultaneously in a separate printing process, or (iii) used as a transient support material. Materials that are suited for biofabrication are often referred to as bioinks and have become an important area of research within the field. In view of this special issue on bioinks, we aim herein to briefly summarize the historic evolution of this term within the field of biofabrication. Furthermore, we propose a simple but general definition of bioinks, and clarify its distinction from biomaterial inks.},
  language  = {en}
}