戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 ; 95% CI 39.4-42.2) did so within the 1-year deadline.
2 week deadline; (8) planning tool plus 4-week deadline.
3 4, only 24.3% were completed by the original deadline.
4 th the vaccination policy 1 month before its deadline.
5 s reduced, while maintaining reliability and deadline.
6  overall adherence by the time of the policy deadline.
7 hey had not made a decision by a provisional deadline.
8 ieved greater discriminability at the longer deadlines.
9  made in the weeks immediately preceding the deadlines.
10 ed with key Vietnamese decision and planning deadlines.
11  invitation; (2) 1-week suggested FIT return deadline; (3) 2-week deadline; (4) 4-week deadline; (5)
12 n when the planning tool was given without a deadline (3134 [63.2%] of 4958; difference vs control of
13 ek suggested FIT return deadline; (3) 2-week deadline; (4) 4-week deadline; (5) problem-solving plann
14 rn deadline; (3) 2-week deadline; (4) 4-week deadline; (5) problem-solving planning tool (no deadline
15 dline; (5) problem-solving planning tool (no deadline); (6) planning tool plus 1-week deadline; (7) p
16 (no deadline); (6) planning tool plus 1-week deadline; (7) planning tool plus 2-week deadline; (8) pl
17 week deadline; (7) planning tool plus 2-week deadline; (8) planning tool plus 4-week deadline.
18 uggested a clear positive effect of giving a deadline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.13 [1.08 to 1.19];
19 D) model that delineates a location-specific deadline after which it is not possible to complete an a
20 jectives, under the constraints of priority, deadline and reliability.
21 ender policy changes that included extending deadlines and factoring sex and gender into COVID-19 gra
22  bundle measures within 1-hour of completion deadlines and generated reminder pages.
23 e assessed the association between the PDUFA deadlines and the timing of FDA drug approval by constru
24 4 weeks, particularly around the time of the deadline), and reduced the need to issue a reminder lett
25                        The control group (no deadline, and no planning tool) had a 3-month FIT return
26 21; P = .02), and those with near-regulatory deadline approval (IRR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.19-3.05; P = .0
27 peutics, and accelerated and near-regulatory deadline approval were statistically significantly assoc
28 ted approval, orphan status, near-regulatory deadline approval, and regulatory review time.
29 secondary analyses indicated that the use of deadlines boosted earlier return rates (within 1, 2, and
30 eld experiment (n = 7711), we tested whether deadlines-both with and without monetary incentives tied
31 re still faced with offers having very short deadlines, compelling them to accept or reject offers wi
32  (9.7%) as those whose invitation included a deadline coupled with either a small (9.1%) or large dec
33 ite a Prefatory Chapter, but as the delivery deadline draws closer one begins to think, "Oh my God!
34   These results suggest that merely imposing deadlines-especially short ones-can significantly increa
35                      3 years before the 2015 deadline, Ethiopia achieved Millennium Development Goal
36 ed average response times by up to 26.3% and deadline exceptions by 41.7%.
37 ntervention: formal processes for requesting deadline extensions reduce gender differences in asking
38 Unfair Semi-Greedy (USG) algorithm, Earliest Deadline First (EDF), and Enhanced Deadline Zero-Laxity
39                                  As the 2030 deadline for "zero dog-mediated human rabies deaths" app
40 tal Task Force recently extended to 2035 the deadline for achieving the goal of a 5,000-km(2) 5-y ave
41 ndent rise in firing rates that may impose a deadline for deciding.
42 des, defined as losing SNAP benefits after a deadline for eligibility recertification followed by rec
43        Adding a single sentence suggesting a deadline for FIT return in the invitation letter to FIT
44 ed as inpatients at the 30-day postoperative deadline for readmission.
45 nterphase that otherwise appears to impose a deadline for the completion of cytokinesis.
46                        They have not given a deadline for the moratorium or solicited comments.
47                                   Setting of deadlines for compliance and legislation to penalize the
48 culty of the task by imposing five different deadlines for recognition response.
49 escription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) imposes deadlines for the completion of drug reviews by the Food
50 7 to 1.07]; p=0.53), but in the absence of a deadline, giving the planning tool appeared detrimental
51 r of shapes on each trial and, under a timed deadline, guessed which one concealed a smiling face.
52  there was little evidence that the use of a deadline had any effect on return rates at 3 months.
53                          The recertification deadline has recently been extended to 2027 or 2028, dep
54                                        PDUFA deadlines have appreciably changed the approval decision
55 at all screening invitations with an imposed deadline increased completion, ranging from 2.5% to 7.3%
56                            When faced with a deadline, individuals' behavior suggests that they repre
57 e is around 60% of the 2000 figure, with the deadline looming a year away.
58 e progress, around 60% is remaining with the deadline looming a year away.
59            Critics have suggested that these deadlines may result in rushed approvals and the emergen
60 e faces and judgments made within a response deadline of 2 s (Experiment 2).
61 bmission of appropriate modifications with a deadline of January 3, 2024.
62                                        Tight deadlines often make it difficult for reporters to thoro
63 A generally met the standard 12-month review deadlines or stopped the review clock when serious defic
64 lt two-alternative perceptual decision under deadline pressure in humans.
65 esent study, we examined late responses in a deadline reaction time task, in which the subject become
66 e whose expression increased as the response deadline shortened and the task became more difficult.
67 hat were annotated after the CAFA submission deadline showed that overall MS-kNN accuracy was higher
68  for more time when working under adjustable deadlines (studies 1 to 4a).
69 kely for drugs approved immediately before a deadline than for those approved at other times.
70 ction)=0.0041); among those who were given a deadline, there was no evidence that receiving a plannin
71 omfort in asking for more time on adjustable deadlines uniquely predicts time stress and burnout, con
72 al machine (VM) issues, response delays, and deadline violations, real-time task scheduling is challe
73    It was absent, however, when the response deadline was relaxed and the strategic need for biasing
74                     Prior to CAFA submission deadline, we evaluated our algorithm on 1,302 human test
75 hether drugs approved immediately before the deadlines were associated with a higher rate of postmark
76                     To determine whether the deadlines were associated with postmarketing safety prob
77 drugs submitted since January 1993, when the deadlines were first imposed.
78  approved in the 2 months before their PDUFA deadlines were more likely to be withdrawn for safety re
79  greater degree by the old group at the long deadlines, when the task was easiest.
80 ter degree by the younger group at the short deadlines, when the task was hardest.
81 mportantly, individuals who received a short deadline with no incentive were as likely to complete sc
82 y submitted to the FDA within the regulatory deadline, with most late reports being submitted more th
83 isk-based safety standards under enforceable deadlines, with an explicit mandate to identify and asse
84 e highest return rate was seen with a 2-week deadline without the planning tool (3376 [68.0%] of 4964
85  Earliest Deadline First (EDF), and Enhanced Deadline Zero-Laxity (EDZL) algorithm.