ライフサイエンスコーパス: Hamilton

1 Hamilton Academy of Health Science Research Organization

2 Hamilton, an evolutionary biologist.

3 ition decreases inclusive fitness among kin, Hamilton and May predicted that the presence of nearby k

4 remission rates were 12.3% and 8.0% per the Hamilton and QIDS-SR(16) scores, respectively.

5 or Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale, Hamilton Anxiety and Depression Scale), and autonomic fu

6 Secondary effectiveness measures were the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and the Hamilton D

7 The Hamilton Anxiety Rating scale (HAM-A) and Visual Analog

8 ton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A).

9 Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), and mean reaction

10 milton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) 17 and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) were recorded 10 da

11 enn State Worry Questionnaire but not on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale compared with escitalopram

12 was defined as exceeding a 50% reduction in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale scores.

13 was defined as a reduction exceeding 50% in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale scores.

14 included interviewer-rated anxiety severity (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale) and self-reported worry s

15 amilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, and the Beck Depression I

16 Secondary outcomes included anxiety ratings (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory),

17 Secondary effectiveness measures included Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Hamilton Depression Ratin

18 eated items, Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Screen for Child Anxiety

19 omery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale.

20 d using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression and Hamilton Anxiety Rating scales, and distribution volume

21 citalopram had greater improvements in total Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) scores at each week (P <

22 Secondary endpoints included the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), Hamilton Depression Rati

23 Index (PSQI), Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) and Hamilton Depression Sc

24 mery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Clinical Global Impressio

25 The outcome of interest was Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA).

26 efficacy (mean difference [MD] in change in Hamilton Anxiety Scale Score) and acceptability (study d

27 (defined as at least 50% improvement on the Hamilton Anxiety Scale) compared with placebo.

28 milton Depression Scale: r = -0.64, P = .02; Hamilton Anxiety Scale: r = -0.56, P = .046), suggesting

29 Our study is set in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area in Ontario, Canada.

30 William Hamilton argued that even species inhabiting the farthes

31 The Hamilton Chapter of the Canadian Intensive Care Foundati

32 is a consequence of natural selection, W.D. Hamilton concluded that human postmenopausal longevity r

33 000 children and adolescents with asthma in Hamilton County (approximately 13 000 of whom are Medica

34 itis and pneumonia hospitalization rates for Hamilton County and for each of 222 in-county census tra

35 dolescents aged 2 to 17 years who resided in Hamilton County, had a diagnosis of asthma, and were Med

36 n <13 years of age with ARI and residence in Hamilton County, Ohio were enrolled from the inpatient a

37 c, stand-alone pediatric facility located in Hamilton County, Ohio.

38 icaid-insured pediatric patients residing in Hamilton County, Ohio.

39 large, urban academic pediatric hospital in Hamilton County, Ohio.

40 scale and 14 items from the clinician-rated Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) rating scale.

41 Mean Hamilton depression and anxiety scores were highest in A

42 ssion was defined as a posttreatment 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale <10 and >/= 50% reducti

43 educed depressive symptoms by 2.6 pps on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (95% CI, -4.6 to -0.4 p

44 ion Inventory II (self-reported, P=0.03) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (clinician-reported, P<

45 iologic Studies-Depression Scale and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (completed by raters bl

46 The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D 17-item version

47 ned as an exit score of <or=7 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) (primary outcom

48 masked interviewer-rated depression with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (Ham-D) and self-report

49 tcome measures were the score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and the proport

50 ividual pre- and posttreatment scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and/or Beck Dep

51 ore from baseline to endpoint on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) between the CP-

52 he primary outcome was change in the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score after the

53 eek placebo period, those subjects who had a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score of 18 or

54 teria for a major depressive episode and had Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores >/=14 we

55 xed-effects models assessed group effects on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores over tim

56 unction erectile function domain and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores.

57 The 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) total score was

58 y/somatization factor score from the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) was 7 or higher

59 he primary outcome was change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), administered b

60 ve disorder, had a score >=18 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and did not re

61 for severity of Illness and improvement, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and the Hamilt

62 acy outcome measure was score on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and the second

63 function measure predicted the score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), but HAM-D scor

64 Outcome measures included the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), the Hamilton A

65 e end of 4 weeks of treatment on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), the Montgomery

66 ure was remission, assessed with the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), which was admi

67 tion of at least 50% in score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

68 Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

69 the response rates according to the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

70 an independent clinician, using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

71 amilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

72 ed as a score < or =7 at exit on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

73 ssive symptoms were assessed via the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

74 4th Edition (DSM-IV) MDD, a baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) score 15 and

75 the investigator-rated score of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) was the main

76 sion severity was measured using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17), Montgomery-

77 he primary outcome measure was change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-24) score.

78 seline to day 15 in the score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D; scores range fr

79 to ketamine infusion with an average 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score of 9.47 +/

80 Our primary outcome was difference in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score using data

81 ose-related ketamine effect on scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD).

82 group showed a 13.6% decrease in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) scores compar

83 elf-reported Olfactory Scale (SROS), 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), Hamilton Anx

84 included the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)), and the Cli

85 specificity: 0.88; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) (sensitivity: 0.

86 Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) 17 and Hamilton

87 f depression (low < 20 vs high > =20) on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and on sex (male

88 The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and Young Mania

89 tion (plasma IL-6), and depressive symptoms (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score).

90 ge in symptoms was measured with the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS).

91 a placebo washout period, and they used the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS).

92 eline and weekly intervals using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) and Montgomer

93 utcome measure was the change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) score (range,

94 ing a visual analog scale (VAS), the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17), and the Posi

95 imary endpoint was the change on the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-21) 24 hours afte

96 5 years with treatment-resistant depression (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17-item score of >/=18

97 the 122 participants, 58 achieved remission (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score </=7 at w

98 sberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] or the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D]) and self-repor

99 encoding task [SRET]) and clinical ratings (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D], Symptom Checkl

100 current major depressive episode, a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS17] score of >/=16

101 depressive symptoms assessed on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and SERT binding as ima

102 uropsychiatric status was assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Neuropsychiatri

103 sing the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Structured Clin

104 patients remitted (50% reduction in 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and total score 10) wit

105 y test of efficacy was noninferiority on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 16.

106 Brain stimulation and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale changes in the first we

107 significantly increased depression symptoms (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale HAM-D) at 4 weeks (p <

108 Suicidality was measured with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale item 3, Montgomery- ang

109 k to predict treatment response (% change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale pre- to post-treatment)

110 ctional connectivity and its relationship to Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ratings of depression s

111 ose with an illness duration >10 years and a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score >/=21, the drug-p

112 is was conducted to predict reduction of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score by pretreatment g

113 c medication use, and had a baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score of 16 or greater.

114 Remission, defined as a 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale score of 7 or less at b

115 The secondary outcome was modified 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score subtracting the s

116 cant prediction of relative reduction in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score.

117 ing Scale-Revised scores (youth population), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (adult and geria

118 improvements in measures of depression (mean Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores 19.40 [SD 6.76]

119 ctive WBH group showed significantly reduced Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores across the 6-wee

120 t were used to predict per cent reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores after treatment.

121 eased chance of achieving a 50% reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores by 1 week (relat

122 group showed a 17.5% decrease in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores compared with a

123 The final Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores were 3.50+/-2.08

124 The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores were correlated

125 etween-group differences in postintervention Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores.

126 - SE change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score was -7.1 +/

127 d points were change in depression severity (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score) and compos

128 provement in symptoms of depression (24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) and pain symptom sever

129 On the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, a drug difference was

130 using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and Hamilton Rating Sc

131 s of depression symptoms, as measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and higher levels of f

132 f Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and the Young Mania Ra

133 ratings with the Beck Depression Inventory, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and Young Mania Rating

134 w for DSM-IV mood module for depression, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Beck Depression In

135 were collected by using the following tools: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the depressive disorde

136 e Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Gilles de la Toure

137 outcome measures were the 17-item CAPS, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Patient Health Que

138 iologic Studies-Depression Scale and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, with mean (SD) scores

139 ures included Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, World Health Organizat

140 t-resistant depressed unipolar patients with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HDRS-17) score >/=

141 e change from baseline to week 8 in the GRID-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 item total score, al

142 Thirty-one healthy controls (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-24 item [HDRS-24] = 1.7

143 us on the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-Seasonal Affective Diso

144 with the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-Seasonal Affective Diso

145 n was defined as a score of 6 or less on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

146 ed by 50% symptom improvement on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

147 e to depression severity, as rated using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

148 ical morbidity as assessed by Y-BOCS and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

149 tcome measures were also used, including the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

150 on Rating Scale <10 and >/= 50% reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

151 ar assessments of symptom severity using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

152 reatment symptom severity was rated with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

153 edication, and baseline score on the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

154 ersion, a sexual activity event log, and the Hamilton Depression Rating scale.

155 ment response and remission according to the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

156 on the primary efficacy measure, the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

157 as defined as a score < or =7 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

158 esponse and remission were defined using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

159 omery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

160 (SCL-90), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) and Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) before and after the tr

161 d-in period were associated with lower final Hamilton depression scale scores in subjects randomly as

162 with the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Scale With Atypical Depression Suppl

163 e magnitude of initial psychiatric symptoms (Hamilton Depression Scale: r = -0.64, P = .02; Hamilton

164 Mean adjusted 1-year Hamilton depression score was 10.9 (95% CI, 9.6 to 12.2)

165 assessments of depressive symptoms using the Hamilton Depresssion Rating Scale (HAMD17).

166 a major problem in evolutionary theory until Hamilton developed a method called inclusive fitness.

167 rsued a PhD in nutritional biochemistry with Hamilton Eaton at the University of Connecticut followed

168 Now in Cell Stem Cell,Hamilton et al. (2015) find that lipid accumulation obse

169 In this issue of Neuron, Hamilton et al. stimulate identified inhibitory interneu

170 Hamilton explained that when interacting individuals are

171 The Upper Carboniferous Hamilton Formation (300 Myr) in Kansas, USA, yields exce

172 SETTING: Hamilton Glaucoma Center, University of California San D

173 Total PFPIAs in cormorants from Hamilton Harbour (5.02 +/- 2.80 ng/g ww) were statistica

174 ax auritus) from three wild colonies, two in Hamilton Harbour and one in cleaner northeastern Lake Er

175 dentified by LC-MS/MS in bile and liver from Hamilton Harbour cormorant chicks suggests that these co

176 jority of mutations found in chicks from the Hamilton Harbour site closest to industrial sources of P

177 ite mutation rates were 6-fold higher at the Hamilton Harbour site closest to the industrial sources

178 sources of PAH contamination than the other Hamilton Harbour site, and both were higher than the ref

179 Hamilton Harbour, Ontario, Canada is one of the most pol

180 gh concentrations in the air and sediment of Hamilton Harbour.

181 gional Medical Associates, AO International, Hamilton Health Sciences Trauma Fund.

182 Hamilton helped to solve the puzzle when he showed that

183 When treatment was applied at Hamburger Hamilton (HH) stage 10, there was no optic cup formation

184 ocities of embryonic chicks at Hamburger and Hamilton (HH) stages 17, 21, and 25 were quantified usin

185 classical statistical mechanics based on the Hamilton-Jacobi equation.

186 on of the problem and enforce the underlying Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation that is derived f

187 C., Li, R., Adams, N., Winuthayanon, W., Hamilton, K.

188 timized doubly anthracene-terminated acyclic Hamilton-like receptor (2b), leads to an interlocked arc

189 Cardiac output was calculated by the Stewart-Hamilton method, in which cardiac output is total inject

190 ing sample preparation was automated using a Hamilton MicroLab Star Robotic workstation, which includ

191 sample lysis and PCR setup performed on the Hamilton MICROLAB STAR(let) (Auto-MRSA), gave results co

192 e setting was a regional perinatal center in Hamilton, New Zealand.

193 Hamilton noted that the spread of "selfish" sex ratio-di

194 We report our continuing experience in Hamilton, ON, Canada, since January 1, 2015 (when we com

195 ritish Columbia (BC); Calgary, Alberta (AB); Hamilton, Ontario (ON); Montreal, Quebec (QC); and Halif

196 d children from Montreal, Quebec, Canada and Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

197 patients with GI symptoms at 2 hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

198 plastics recycling facility in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

199 gastrointestinal symptoms at 2 hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario; the subjects then underwent colonosco

200 , or recurrent thrombosis occurred in all 10 Hamilton patients with acute HIT treated with rivaroxaba

201 01, d = 2.08) and anhedonic symptoms (Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale score change: -6.1 +/- 5.3, p <

202 State-of-the-art crystal orbital Hamilton population analysis allows a detailed molecular

203 analyses demonstrate that ~81% of the total Hamilton populations originate from heteroatomic polar Y

204 n using anion exchange chromatography with a Hamilton PRP-X100 column as the stationary phase.

205 -17), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAMA).

206 ressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (IDS-SR), Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HRSA), and Young Mani

207 Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety; and 24-hour urinary c

208 sive symptoms decreased significantly on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (effect size = -0.3

209 sing the standardized mean difference on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(1)(7)) score

210 Seventeen-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and Beck De

211 illness therapy fatigue (FACIT-F) scale, the Hamilton rating scale for depression (Ham-D), the Beck d

212 2 weeks and assessed weekly with the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17).

213 d in the actigraphy, as well as applying the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17), Self-Rat

214 to treatment was measured using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17).

215 nical symptoms, as assessed with the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HDRS), improved si

216 Outcome measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), Inventory o

217 fined as a score of 7 or less on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) at the en

218 Symptoms were measured by using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17).

219 observer ratings) as assessed by the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-24).

220 =202) based on DSM-IV criteria and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD17) score 16 u

221 sertraline versus placebo, assessed with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HSRD) over 8 weeks

222 partum) with severe post-partum depression (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] total score

223 overy with a modified version of the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Longitudina

224 en treatments was found in the change on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression of 0.86 (7.73) scal

225 f 9 or more, eight or more flushes per week, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression of 19 or more, or F

226 l, either achieving remission (i.e., 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score <10 and a rel

227 xhibited substantial depression improvement (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score, -1.2 SD, P <

228 riod and clinical outcome (the final 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores) were examin

229 r 16 weeks, all groups showed improvement on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores.

230 Depression severity was measured using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and electroencepha

231 The 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Patient Health Que

232 Mood was assessed with the Hamilton rating scale for depression, quick inventory of

233 es on the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-SAD Version (SIGH-S

234 e Symptomatology (QIDS-SR16) and the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

235 n, including a psychiatric interview and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

236 ned as a score of less than 7 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

237 Depression severity was measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

238 as a total exit score of </=7 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

239 atment, and remission was assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

240 Expert blind evaluations with the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

241 Analyses were carried out on a Hamilton RCX-30 column with a gradient elution of NaOH 5

242 yl] isophthalamide (often referred to as the Hamilton receptor or Wedge) and 2,7-diamido-1,8-naphthyr

243 orthogonality of the two recognition pairs, Hamilton receptor-CA and DAN-UG.

244 erization (ROMP) through the employment of a Hamilton receptor-functionalized ruthenium initiator and

245 with a metalloporphyrin (2) by means of the Hamilton receptor/cyanuric acid hydrogen bonding motif i

246 ng, we prepared a series of 12 deconstructed Hamilton receptors with varying degrees of steric bulk a

247 cts impact barbiturate binding in bifurcated Hamilton receptors, a library of receptors with differin

248 nities of a suite of fluorescent arylethynyl Hamilton receptors.

249 According to Hamilton's 'haplodiploidy hypothesis', this diversity re

250 is the product of age-specific fertility and Hamilton's age-specific force of selection for fertility

251 , bisporphyrin-trinitrofluorenone (TNF), and Hamilton's bis(acetamidopyridinyl)isophthalamide-barbitu

252 W. D. Hamilton's celebrated formula for the age-specific force

253 theoretical perspective by combining William Hamilton's evolutionary model for aging with a quantitat

254 However, it has been argued that Hamilton's hypothesis does not work [4-9] and that the s

255 le for kith and kind selection, generalizing Hamilton's insight that we can model social selection th

256 tion in spider mites with those predicted by Hamilton's Local Mate Competition Theory clearly demonst

257 athematical form, the equation is similar to Hamilton's original rule in the case of inbreeding, alth

258 ations (PDEs) are derived using the extended Hamilton's principle and Galerkin decomposition is imple

259 rning equations are derived via the extended Hamilton's principle.

260 governing equation of motion is derived from Hamilton's principle.

261 Thus, contrary to the authors' claims, Hamilton's relatedness drives the evolution to altruism

262 ur any social trait - i.e. a time-average of Hamilton's rule - remains the same as under particulate

263 he possible importance of different terms in Hamilton's rule [2, 11], with a comparative study across

264 We derived a generalization of Hamilton's rule and measured its parameters in Myxococcu

265 Hamilton's rule asserts that a trait is favored by natur

266 alled "exact and general" by its proponents, Hamilton's rule can "predict" only the data that have al

267 We show that, in this formulation, Hamilton's rule does not make predictions and cannot be

268 I derive expanded versions of Hamilton's rule for kith and kind selection, generalizin

269 d noncooperation depending on whether or not Hamilton's rule is met.

270 I find that, whilst Hamilton's rule of kin selection can be readily derived

271 Whereas many feel that Hamilton's rule provides valuable intuition, there is di

272 Hamilton's rule states that cooperation will evolve if t

273 t to self, [Formula: see text] Specifically, Hamilton's rule states that the change in average trait

274 f selection are in conflict (as described by Hamilton's rule) are not frequency dependent.

275 peratively breeding birds is consistent with Hamilton's rule, indicating a key role for kin selection

276 ortant aspects of these two theories such as Hamilton's rule, Simpson's paradox, and the Price covari

277 Inclusive fitness models, following from Hamilton's rule, successfully predict major life history

278 investigate a widely endorsed formulation of Hamilton's rule, which is said to be as general as natur

279 atives, and satisfies the condition known as Hamilton's rule.

280 e implications of heterozygote advantage for Hamilton's rule.

281 Applying to Hamilton's setting the full nonlinear demographic model

282 olved three key debates, helping clarify how Hamilton's theoretical overview links to real-world exam

283 Hamilton's theory of inclusive fitness showed how natura

284 ce can evolve through the same process as in Hamilton's theory of the evolution of age-related senesc

285 ns of the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale, Hamilton Scale for Anxiety, and Beck Depression Inventor

286 the proportion of patients with remissions (Hamilton score, <or=8) at the end of treatment.

287 The mean (SD) Hamilton scores for depression remained consistent with

288 Covariate-adjusted Hamilton scores were lower in the cognitive behavior the

289 the Empress Eugenie (France), the Duchess of Hamilton (Scotland), the Empress of Austria, and other r

290 d on a self-ordered spatial memory task, the Hamilton Search Task.

291 cification at the periphery by Hamburger and Hamilton stage 13.

292 orebrain of chicken embryos during Hamburger-Hamilton stages 17-21.

293 arch growth in the chick embryo at Hamburger-Hamilton stages 18 and 24.

294 Nonlinear interactions cause the collapse of Hamilton-style predictions in the most commonly studied

295 Hamilton suggested that this difference owes to the hapl

296 Yet Hamilton was aware of its limitations, and saw that, whi

297 W.D. Hamilton was the first to derive an equivalence result o

298 Moreover, Hamilton-Zabolotskaya model showed the highest discrimin

299 ical behavior that was best described by the Hamilton-Zabolotskaya model, obtaining the highest coeff

300 Three non-linear hyperelastic models (i.e. Hamilton-Zabolotskaya model, Ogden model and Mooney-Rivl