ライフサイエンスコーパス: choking

1 hat explicit monitoring of behavior leads to choking.

2 xposure, recurrent infection, aspiration, or choking.

3 he blood agent hydrogen cyanide (AC) and the choking agent chlorine (CL).

4 ress responses that have been linked to both choking and thriving are well-conserved in primates, but

5 phagus symptoms included narrowing, burning, choking, and pressure in the esophagus appearing within

6 ay interact with long-term stress to produce choking behavior in early sessions of a task.

7 Choking cancer via inhibition of metabolic enzymes essen

8 cluded vomiting (78%), growth failure (62%), choking-coughing-gagging (38%), and pneumonia (25%).

9 Although problems with choking declined to levels comparable with patients with

10 ion pathways and is linked to swallowing and choking difficulties, which can lead to aspiration pneum

11 with approximately 35% reporting swallowing/choking difficulties.

12 o chest infections, episodes of coughing and choking during meals, and prognosis.

13 igated the influence of incentive framing on choking effects in humans: in one condition, participant

14 effect on an individual's susceptibility to choking effects, which is contingent on their loss avers

15 was correlated with their susceptibility to choking effects.

16 d not predict chest infections, coughing and choking episodes during meals or survival.

17 ith higher loss aversion were susceptible to choking for large prospective gains and not susceptible

18 rge prospective gains and not susceptible to choking for large prospective losses, whereas individual

19 larify the evolution and proximate causes of choking in humans.

20 However, it could be that choking is a uniquely human occurrence.

21 Nocturnal gasping or choking is the most reliable indicator of obstructive sl

22 nt is unlikely to be a consequence of direct choking of proteasomes by protein aggregates.

23 s that govern the central deflection and the choking of the cell, respectively.

24 , unintentional social transgressions (e.g., choking on food at a party and coughing it up), or inten

25 s with obstructive sleep apnea was nocturnal choking or gasping (summary likelihood ratio [LR], 3.3;

26 Among adults 65 years of age or older, choking or pill-induced dysphagia or globus caused 37.6%

27 entry (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 3.5-6.5), witnessed choking (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.0-9.6), wheezing (OR, 2.5; 9

28 Swallowing/choking problems are common in FXTAS, particularly in la

29 ad a significantly higher risk of swallowing/choking problems compared to those without FXTAS (adjust

30 PM carriers with swallowing/choking problems showed a significantly increased associ

31 pe-Phenotype cohort data examined swallowing/choking problems, FXTAS stage, neuroimaging, and psychol

32 f the cell blocks the outflow, interrupting (choking) the flow.

33 Our results demonstrate that choking under pressure is not unique to humans, and thus

34 wn performance, colloquially referred to as "choking under pressure." Physiological stress responses

35 s exhibit a frustrating phenomenon known as "choking under pressure." Usually, we perform better when

36 What neural processes might lead to choking under pressure?

37 re parkinsonism, near mutism, dysphagia with choking, vertical supranuclear gaze palsy or slowing, ba

38 tensively documented (e.g., entanglement and choking), very little is known about effects on assembla

39 eases in performance, a phenomenon known as "choking." We investigated the influence of incentive fra

40 , -12.2 [95% CI, -19.6 to -4.7]; problems of choking when swallowing, -10.3 [95% CI, -16.4 to 4.2]; t

41 An animal model of choking would facilitate the investigation of its neural

42 causing pulmonary aspiration, dysphagia, and choking, yet relevant sensory pathways remain poorly und