ライフサイエンスコーパス: ejection

1 as combined with a modified acoustic droplet ejection (ADE) system.

2 iral nucleocapsid protein NCp7, causing zinc ejection and preventing RNA encapsidation.

3 g edge injection, including subsonic coolant ejection and the appearance of Coanda effects.

4 Manipulation of the dynamic ejection, deformation and assembly of charged droplets b

5 -wave greater than 8 (for a left ventricular ejection fraction >= 45%) or an E/A ratio less than or e

6 diac magnetic resonance with a decline in LV ejection fraction >=10% and absolute LV ejection fractio

7 in the Americas region) with symptomatic HF, ejection fraction >=45%, and elevated natriuretic peptid

8 (ModAS) (n=13), SevAS, left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction >=55% (SevAS-preserved ejection fracti

9 with Duchenne muscular dystrophy with an LV ejection fraction >=55% on >=1 cardiac magnetic resonanc

10 than or equal to 1.5 (for a left ventricular ejection fraction < 45%).

11 This were consistent for left ventricular ejection fraction < 50% or >= 50%.

12 Ejection fraction < 53% was not associated with exercise

13 2.6 [95% CI, 1.7-3.5]), and left ventricular ejection fraction <35% (HR, 2.0 [95% CI, 1.3-2.8]).

14 ients with HFrEF defined by left ventricular ejection fraction <40% prospectively referred for vasodi

15 heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction <40%) referred for stress cardiovascul

16 An ejection fraction <50% was considered HFrEF.

17 To identify an ejection fraction <50%, the area under the receiver oper

18 reserved ejection fraction, n=37), SevAS, LV ejection fraction <55% (SevAS-reduced ejection fraction,

19 Left ventricle ejection fraction <55% was strongly associated with seve

20 ardiomyopathy patients with left ventricular ejection fraction <=35% without prior history of VAs und

21 or the identification of LVSD (defined as LV ejection fraction <=35%) to a cohort of patients aged >=

22 ecent history of NYHA functional class III); ejection fraction <=35%; stable medical management for >

23 class II or greater with a left ventricular ejection fraction <=40% and a modest elevation of NT-pro

24 class II to IV with a left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction <=40% and type 2 diabetes or prediabet

25 functional class II to IV, left ventricular ejection fraction <=40%, and elevated natriuretic peptid

26 linical trial enrolling 881 patients with an ejection fraction <=40%.

27 n LV ejection fraction >=10% and absolute LV ejection fraction <=50%.

28 1) and LV sphericity, and improvements in LV ejection fraction (6.0 +/- 4.2 vs. -0.1 +/- 3.9; p < 0.0

29 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.28), and left ventricular ejection fraction (aOR, 1.07 per 5% increase; 95% CI, 1.

30 liably classifies heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (area under the curve of 0.97).

31 Ejection fraction (EF) and shortening fraction (SF) were

32 urvivors of African ancestry, first based on ejection fraction (EF) as a continuous outcome, followed

33 The preserved LV ejection fraction (EF) group in MIS-C showed diastolic d

34 Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) is an indicator of cardiac functi

35 Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) recovery is associated with bette

36 dary mitral regurgitation (MR) when using LV ejection fraction (EF).

37 ith myocarditis, 61 cases (60%) had a normal ejection fraction (EF).

38 stolic volume (EDV: r = 0.97, P < .001), and ejection fraction (EF: r = 0.94, P < .001).

39 p with risk of overall HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction (EF; EF >=50%), HF with reduced EF (EF

40 A state of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HF-rEF) was then produced by altering

41 on fraction (HFrEF) 48.1%; HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) 51.9%] who underwent noncardia

42 common to both heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced

43 ce is common in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and is associated with impaire

44 Patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are at high risk of mortality,

45 inflammation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are of interest due to the obe

46 Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) constitutes half of all HF but

47 shing models that resemble HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) from those with reduced ejecti

48 tion (HFrEF) or heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) justify the search for novel t

49 (HF) subtypes: heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) or heart failure with reduced

50 ients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) typically develop dyspnea and

51 idrange LVEF (HFmrEF), and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), as well as to identify molecu

52 Background In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), echocardiographic studies sug

53 development of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

54 g patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

55 c mechanism for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

56 for HF among patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

57 ure/function in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

58 ulting in reduced filling but with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

59 trial design in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

60 pathogenesis of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

61 a rat model of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

62 genesis of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

63 e patients with heart failure with recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF).

64 eighted 296,057 HF patients [HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) 48.1%; HF with preserved eject

65 ion among 3775 patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and advanced CKD.

66 in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) beyond conventional therapy co

67 Heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) exhibit severe limitations in

68 Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is characterized by blunting o

69 y associated with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) or heart failure with preserve

70 patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), but the mechanism by which th

71 signatures for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HF with a midrange LVEF (HFmr

72 ction (HFpEF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), there has been limited attent

73 ise limitation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), we investigated the influence

74 ion fraction (HFpEF) from those with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

75 diabetes and with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

76 proximately 50% of cases are HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

77 h in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

78 istry from 2006 to 2018 with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; all HFrEF with ADHF).

79 Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; heart failure with reduced lef

80 ischarge in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >= 40%.

81 n functional class II/III), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >=55%, and N-terminal pro-B-typ

82 nificant improvement in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (45.8 increasing to 50.9; P < .

83 Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) alone has not been proven a rel

84 We evaluated the utility of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography for a selec

85 cardiomyopathy and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) face a high risk for ventricula

86 HFrEF occurs when the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is 40% or less and is accompani

87 tenosis (AS) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) may have poorer prognosis than

88 Age, symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), LV end-systolic diameter-index

89 logy, functional class, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

90 F) in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

91 Analyses included LV ejection fraction (LVEF); global longitudinal strain (GL

92 rence (n=109, 89%), reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (n=104, 85%), coronary allograft vascu

93 ey injury were preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.05];

94 rs, but significantly lower left ventricular ejection fraction (p < 0.001) and lower rates of guideli

95 Improvements in ejection fraction (P = 0.08) and surrogate measures of l

96 CI, 1.04-3.44]; P=0.04) and left ventricular ejection fraction (per 10% decrement from left ventricul

97 , 1.19-1.46]; P<0.001), and left ventricular ejection fraction (per 10%: HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.80-0.97]

98 The (18)F-FDG signal correlated with ejection fraction (r = -0.75, P = 0.01) and ventricular

99 Heart failure with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (respectively, HFrEF and HFpEF) is the

100 measures used in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (VE/VCO2(overall-slope)).

101 xty patients with HF (age 65.2+/-12.1 years; ejection fraction 30.4+/-6.7%, peakVO(2) 14.2+/-4.0 mL/[

102 diabetes and 23 (21.9%) prediabetes, mean LV ejection fraction 32.5% (9.8%), and 81 (77.1%) New York

103 male, 66+/-9 years old with left ventricular ejection fraction 34+/-6% were included.

104 edian [interquartile range] left ventricular ejection fraction 38.7% [37.2-39.0]), 1018 (97%) complet

105 ents with chronic HFpEF and left ventricular ejection fraction 45% or higher with New York Heart Asso

106 males, age 44 +/- 15 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 49 +/- 14%) with myocarditis and VA at

107 e 51 +/- 14 years, 91% men, left ventricular ejection fraction 52% +/- 9%) had history of myocarditis

108 e 56+/-15 years, 61% women, left ventricular ejection fraction 64+/-8%), higher VE/VCO2(nadir) was as

109 15-4.13]) and not heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [1.06 (0.63-1.79)].

110 duced ejection fraction [HFrEF] vs preserved ejection fraction [HFpEF]), and being on guideline-direc

111 action phenotype (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction [HFrEF] vs preserved ejection fraction

112 t HF and HF phenotype (left ventricular [LV] ejection fraction [LVEF] >= or < 50%) independent of LV

113 3 L/min per m(2) or less or left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 35% or less) and severe haemody

114 ith ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

115 and women and patients with left ventricular ejection fraction above or below the median of 57%.

116 t performance to detect low left ventricular ejection fraction across a range of racial/ethnic subgro

117 spitals with >=11 heart failure with reduced ejection fraction admissions in 2014 and 2015.

118 d not significantly improve left ventricular ejection fraction after 52 weeks.

119 served ejection fraction, or HF with reduced ejection fraction after adjustment for CRF and tradition

120 ed, except for a lower proportion of reduced ejection fraction after MI (7% versus 12%), previous hea

121 spitalization for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and (2) a cohort of 1079 hospitals wit

122 ymptomatic HF with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction and 97 participants without HF symptom

123 of segmenting the left ventricle, estimating ejection fraction and assessing cardiomyopathy.

124 ents with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and elevated natriuretic peptides enro

125 eneficiaries with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and existing quality metrics to explor

126 d circumferential strains and declines in LV ejection fraction and fractional shortening were observe

127 ificant positive correlation between cardiac ejection fraction and GMD across the whole frontal and p

128 phy compared with those with HF with reduced ejection fraction and HC.

129 isease patients have shown an improvement in ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms.

130 gs in both patients who have HF with reduced ejection fraction and HF with preserved ejection fractio

131 ed viscoelasticity in both HF with preserved ejection fraction and HF with reduced ejection fraction

132 rm outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction and instead was associated with advers

133 Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block may respo

134 cture and markers of heart failure including ejection fraction and NT-proBNP.

135 hospitalization in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction and often presents without classical s

136 (including both heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and reduced ejection fraction), as wel

137 oth heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction and was replicated in the Washington U

138 T-proBNP to BNP in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction appears to be greater than generally a

139 istinguished from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction as well as other aetiologies that have

140 primary outcome measure was left ventricular ejection fraction at 52 weeks, assessed by magnetic reso

141 The mean left ventricular ejection fraction at baseline and at 52 weeks was 51.3%

142 Nicotinic Acid 400 mg lowered ejection fraction by 4% (64 +/- 8% to 60 +/- 7%, P = .03

143 LG AS groups with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction compared with the HG group.

144 fied as acute decompensated HF had available ejection fraction data (53% female, 68% white, 53% HFrEF

145 ing, there was a subsequent left ventricular ejection fraction decrement.

146 heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction deserves future investigation.

147 eart failure with both preserved and reduced ejection fraction display reductions in energetic status

148 20 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from 2 medical centers to elicit their

149 h chronic HF with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction from 34 Dutch outpatient HF clinics we

150 zed patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from a diverse health system to usual

151 ural network to predict low left ventricular ejection fraction from the ECG.

152 x was not different from the SevAS-preserved ejection fraction group (P>0.99).

153 Although lowest in the SevAS-reduced ejection fraction group, CK flux was not different from

154 ve heart failure or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction had a higher risk of nonarrhythmic dea

155 Left ventricular ejection fraction has conventionally been used as a risk

156 Patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction have worse muscle function and predomi

157 tion in the context of preserved vs. reduced ejection fraction HF.

158 Sacubitril/valsartan across the spectrum of ejection fraction in heart failure.

159 ricular reverse remodeling (left ventricular ejection fraction increase by >=10% or normalization to

160 Left ventricular ejection fraction increased >=10% in 46.5% of the patien

161 , defined as occurring when left ventricular ejection fraction is <50%.

162 observation that heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is associated with elevated circulatin

163 patients who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may be an important part of shared dec

164 in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction may improve survival and other cardiov

165 elated plasma proteins with left ventricular ejection fraction measured at 4 months post-MI and ident

166 f these, 96 correlated with left ventricular ejection fraction measured at 4 months post-MI.

167 ulated in human heart failure with preserved ejection fraction myocardium and chronic administration

168 served ejection fraction and HF with reduced ejection fraction myocardium.

169 I-IIIC breast cancer, and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 55% or more were randomly assigned

170 in(-1).1.73 m(-2), a median left ventricular ejection fraction of 62%, and a median CFR of 1.8.

171 olled 196 patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of at least 40%, impaired peak rate of

172 art Association class II, III, or IV) and an ejection fraction of less than 45% to receive vericiguat

173 nts with iron deficiency, a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%, and who were stabili

174 r standard chemotherapy because of a cardiac ejection fraction of less than 50%, pulmonary diffusion

175 saturation <20%), and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%.

176 d a cohort with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction only (TOPCAT).

177 dent HF and subcategorized HF with preserved ejection fraction or reduced ejection fraction.

178 of valvular heart disease, left ventricular ejection fraction phenotype (heart failure with reduced

179 ve, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction provide an ideal population to underst

180 of 711 people with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction recruited from 4 specialist HF clinics

181 in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction remain lower than guideline recommende

182 osis (AS) despite preserved left ventricular ejection fraction remains challenging.

183 creased pyruvate dehydrogenase flux and poor ejection fraction reserve.

184 pe 2 diabetes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction taking regular loop diuretic who were

185 atients who had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to receive sacubitril/valsartan (n=241

186 ative benefits of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treatment will be largely unrealized.

187 Left ventricular ejection fraction was <30% in one-third; 80% required in

188 Ejection fraction was <52% in 11.7% of male participants

189 years, 86% were men, median left ventricular ejection fraction was 20%, 81% had ischemic cardiomyopat

190 heart failure, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 26.4+/-5.8%.

191 ess was 22.9 +/- 8.7 mm and left ventricular ejection fraction was 53.4 +/- 6.6%.

192 ckness was 18 +/- 8 mm, and left ventricular ejection fraction was 61 +/- 12%.

193 diameter, systolic BP, and left ventricular ejection fraction was fairly predictive of unassisted ma

194 with a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were excluded.

195 to 70 years, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were recruited from outpatient heart f

196 rtic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction who underwent AVR.

197 ice similarity coefficient of 0.92, predicts ejection fraction with a mean absolute error of 4.1% and

198 ed outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction with or without T2DM.

199 uced ejection fraction and HF with preserved ejection fraction with T2DM to assess their efficacy, sa

200 d left ventricular fractional shortening and ejection fraction) even if increased cardiac mass and pr

201 ailure of the heart to pump (HF with reduced ejection fraction) or by the failure of the heart to rel

202 Participants With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial on the sGC stimulator vericigua

203 tions for Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial randomized patients with heart

204 Dysfunction in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), 248 unique circulating proteins were

205 with preserved ejection fraction and reduced ejection fraction), as well as echocardiographic indicat

206 measures (LV end-diastolic volume index, LV ejection fraction), diuretic intensification, symptoms (

207 ents With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), empagliflozin significantly improved

208 ients experienced a DLT (grade 3 decrease in ejection fraction).

209 n in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction)demonstrating the benefit of dapaglifl

210 rse aortic constriction/MI (left ventricular ejection fraction+/-SD, 36+/-8 in vehicle versus 45+/-11

211 iversity Hospital Jena (17 HF with preserved ejection fraction, 18 HF with reduced ejection fraction,

212 mean age of 57 years, mean left-ventricular ejection fraction, 26%, and 12 (17%) with type 2 diabete

213 e, 27 (age, 62+/-11 years; 22 men; 20 white; ejection fraction, 26+/-8%) had 24-hour urine sodium >=3

214 ion fraction, 34+/-11%) and 59% of women (LV ejection fraction, 28+/-13%).

215 ction was reported in 40% of men (who had LV ejection fraction, 34+/-11%) and 59% of women (LV ejecti

216 ion and remodeling post-MI (left ventricular ejection fraction, 41+/-11 in MI-vehicle versus 61+/-7 i

217 ion (per 10% decrement from left ventricular ejection fraction, 50%; hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.30

218 ean ancestry with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, a PRP distinguished patients who deri

219 served ejection fraction, 18 HF with reduced ejection fraction, and 20 HC).

220 cs such as contractile amplitude, frequency, ejection fraction, and fractional pump flow are sensitiv

221 disease, left atrial size, left ventricular ejection fraction, and year of ablation.

222 in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but additional information is needed

223 comes in advanced heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but its prognostic significance for a

224 Contractile function was similarly impaired (ejection fraction, day 2: 40.9% +/- 9.7% vs. 59.2% +/- 4

225 In patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, empagliflozin reduced the risk and to

226 eptides compare in heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, especially with contemporary assays.

227 are elevated in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, favorably altered by sacubitril/valsa

228 tflow tract obstruction at baseline, reduced ejection fraction, HCM patients with a sarcomere mutatio

229 in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, independent of baseline diabetes stat

230 ation, AS-related symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction, indexed left ventricular ventricular

231 model can rapidly identify subtle changes in ejection fraction, is more reproducible than human evalu

232 P<0.0001) associated with improvements in LV ejection fraction, LV end-diastolic volume index, and LV

233 n functional class, aortic valve surgery, LV ejection fraction, LV end-systolic dimension and volume

234 AS, LV ejection fraction <55% (SevAS-reduced ejection fraction, n=15), healthy volunteers with nonhyp

235 LV) ejection fraction >=55% (SevAS-preserved ejection fraction, n=37), SevAS, LV ejection fraction <5

236 roup analyses revealed that left ventricular ejection fraction, not the extent of left ventricular tr

237 ation (absolute increase in left ventricular ejection fraction, obese +16+/-7% versus control +21+/-4

238 with risk of incident HF, HF with preserved ejection fraction, or HF with reduced ejection fraction

239 rotic syndrome; heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, particularly if restrictive features

240 Left ventricular volumes, ejection fraction, risk area (before treatment), myocard

241 were consistent across subgroups defined by ejection fraction, sex, race, cause of cardiomyopathy, p

242 disc and modestly decreased left ventricular ejection fraction, suggesting ZO-1 is differentially req

243 e no significant changes in left ventricular ejection fraction, the diastolic function and longitudin

244 hite patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, treatment with S/V was associated wit

245 Age, sex, body mass index, left ventricular ejection fraction, type 2 diabetes mellitus, history of

246 ent in people with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, yet is often not primarily due to dec

247 hophysiology of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

248 ody mass index but not with left ventricular ejection fraction.

249 T-wave inversion, left and right ventricular ejection fraction.

250 ery territory, and baseline left ventricular ejection fraction.

251 al HF, HFpEF, and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

252 diabetes who have heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

253 t in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

254 ivabradine in 6505 HF patients with reduced ejection fraction.

255 h in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

256 e in patients with chronic HF with preserved ejection fraction.

257 ting of reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction.

258 nstay therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

259 ession is decreased in patients with reduced ejection fraction.

260 ing the safety in those with HF with reduced ejection fraction.

261 nfarction, heart attack, and reduced cardiac ejection fraction.

262 hysiology of heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction.

263 patients (2%) had abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction.

264 ptoms and HRQL in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

265 action (HFpEF) or heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

266 The rats develop heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

267 ure, especially heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

268 tings were associated with a reduction in LV ejection fraction.

269 left atrium and left ventricle with a normal ejection fraction.

270 heart failure with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction.

271 with preserved ejection fraction or reduced ejection fraction.

272 tor or cardiac resynchronization therapy and ejection fraction.

273 ging covariates, including right ventricular ejection fraction.

274 ut not with mitral regurgitation severity or ejection fraction.

275 yocytes from patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction.

276 focus on subgroups defined by sex, race, and ejection fraction.

277 ocker withdrawal in patients with normalized ejection fractions after cardiac resynchronization thera

278 ith heart failure who demonstrate normalized ejection fractions after cardiac resynchronization thera

279 f polar compounds using a prototype acoustic ejection mass spectrometer (AEMS) platform.

280 We present an acoustic ejection mass spectrometry (AEMS) setup for contactless

281 Acoustic ejection mass spectrometry is a recently developed conce

282 e ESI droplets-the charged residue and chain ejection models can possibly coexist.

283 accomplished here with mass-selective axial ejection (MSAE) from one linear ion trap to another.

284 Patients with severe malaria have rapid ejection of a normal stroke volume.

285 Simulating the ejection of a representative set of 122 E. coli proteins

286 due to impairment of ventricular filling or ejection of blood or both.

287 horylation, and both the recruitment and the ejection of chromatin regulators.

288 f physiological signals that orchestrate the ejection of milk from alveolar units and its passage alo

289 to produce the desired size and frequency of ejection of monodisperse droplets by manipulating the el

290 The ejection of nascent proteins out of the ribosome exit tu

291 port a detailed protocol that enables direct ejection of protein complexes from membranes for analysi

292 r droplets (5.5 nm radius) culminated in IEM ejection of ubiquitin, as long as the protein carried a

293 CR mass spectrometer to perform selected ion ejection prior to the ion accumulation region.

294 ore time at stop codons, indicating that the ejection process might delay ribosome recycling.

295 On infection, a DNA ejection signal is passed from the tip, along the tube t

296 sulting product ions are identified by their ejection time within a repeating orthogonally applied no

297 fect of flow rate (ratio of stroke volume to ejection time) on prognostic value of AVA <=1.0 cm(2) fo

298 Thus, nascent chain ejection times from the ribosome can vary greatly betwee

299 e find a greater than 1000-fold variation in ejection times.

300 rsatile method to generate complex isolation/ejection waveforms for precursor isolation prior to tand