ライフサイエンスコーパス: for-profit

1 t is not a procedure that has been developed for profit.

2 Among the top 5% of MCCs, 14 of 18 were for-profit.

3 0.6%] vs 2592 [61.7%]) and more likely to be for profit (1342 [74.3%] vs 2877 [68.5%]), be located in

4 rVentional Advances Physicians (VIVA), a not-for-profit 501c(3) organization, convened the Vascular L

5 ns favoring newer treatments were 39.5%, not-for-profit; 54.4%, jointly funded; and 65.5%, for-profit

6 to have recently engaged in illegal activity for profit (64.0% versus 38.5%), and to have been incarc

7 ns favoring newer treatments were 50.0%, not-for-profit; 69.2%, jointly funded; and 82.4%, for-profit

8 per discharge ($8,115) than did private not-for-profit ($7,490) or public ($6,507) hospitals.

9 Most facilities were for-profit (95; 71.4%), and 1973 (26.3%) of residents we

10 f the 13 229 nursing homes in the study were for profit (9561 [72.3%]) and were part of a chain (7775

11 o 2022, including 1-year follow-up, at a not-for-profit academic health system serving more than 2 mi

12 Working Group with representatives from not-for-profit, academic, government, industry and regulator

13 rs, residents living in facilities that were for profit (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confiden

14 discontinuers were less likely to be private for-profit (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.68)

15 the area were in for-profit hospitals), not-for-profit (all beds were in not-for-profit hospitals),

16 death was 82.8 (2.3) years, similar for not-for-profit and for-profit hospices.

17 Trials jointly funded by not-for-profit and for-profit organizations appear to report

18 wer relative risks of initiating dialysis at for-profit and non-profit chain-owned facilities, and we

19 o compare practices between nephrologists at for-profit and nonprofit centers.

20 of medical care differ between enrollees in for-profit and nonprofit health maintenance organization

21 ssments of medical care between enrollees in for-profit and nonprofit HMOs, for-profit HMOs are rated

22 For-profit and nonprofit hospices may respond differentl

23 fit areas, P=0.03 for the comparison between for-profit and not-for-profit areas) and home health car

24 capita Medicare spending in areas served by for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals.

25 in 254 health plans during 1997, we compared for-profit and not-for-profit plans with respect to rate

26 Burton funds, the closings or mergers of not-for-profit and public hospitals, the dominance of compet

27 er sites, representing at least 20 academic, for-profit, and non-profit career paths in the life scie

28 tive markets and facilities that were large, for-profit, and nonsafety net.

29 hospital ownership (private not-for-profit, for-profit, and public) on administrative costs, control

30 OR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.68) or private not-for-profit (aOR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.48) after adjustme

31 ospital services (a mean increase of $395 in for-profit areas and $283 in not-for-profit areas, P=0.0

32 and home health care (an increase of $457 in for-profit areas and $324 in not-for-profit areas, P<0.0

33 in for-profit areas was greater than in not-for-profit areas in each category of service examined: h

34 Spending in for-profit areas was greater than in not-for-profit area

35 or the comparison between for-profit and not-for-profit areas) and home health care (an increase of $

36 of $457 in for-profit areas and $324 in not-for-profit areas, P<0.001).

37 of $395 in for-profit areas and $283 in not-for-profit areas, P=0.03 for the comparison between for-

38 ch Institute (IDRI), which operates as a not-for-profit biotech company, may start to pay off during

39 ted against misleading marketing by a single for-profit cancer center.

40 transplant was lower for patients treated at for-profit centers (adjusted relative hazard, 0.74; 95 p

41 ilities and 17.1 for patients treated in not-for-profit centers (adjusted relative hazard, 1.20; 95 p

42 Disparities in quality of education at for-profit centers might partially explain previously do

43 nephrologists who spent </=20 min, those at for-profit centers more often cited lack of reimbursemen

44 uninsured, Medicaid-insured and patients at for-profit centers were more likely to be unassessed.

45 Providers at for-profit centers were significantly less likely to spe

46 United States each year, about two thirds in for-profit centers.

47 483 988 (32.7%) at 2239 facilities of large for-profit chain 1; 482 689 (32.6%) at 2082 facilities o

48 482 689 (32.6%) at 2082 facilities of large for-profit chain 2; 225 890 (15.3%) at 997 for-profit sm

49 t epoetin dosing patterns suggest that large for-profit chain facilities used larger dose adjustments

50 Patients from for-profit chain facilities, compared to nonprofit chain

51 get of 33% to 36%, especially in the largest for-profit chain facilities.

52 Nursing home ownership (for-profit or not-for-profit), chain affiliation, size, Centers for Medica

53 4%; 73% of such patients started dialysis at for-profit/chain-owned facilities compared to 76% of all

54 who were safety-net reliant received care at for-profit/chain-owned facilities, they were disproporti

55 ial care services in England are operated by for-profit companies, but the implications of this devel

56 National Health Service (NHS) organisations, for-profit companies, or charities.

57 % CI, 0.42 to 0.67) higher star ratings than for-profit contracts (P < 0.001) after controls were set

58 eived significantly higher star ratings than for-profit contracts.

59 The interaction between medical research and for-profit corporations is not new, but it has expanded

60 What is the effect of for-profit versus not-for-profit delivery of care on patient outcomes?

61 s facilities (n = 28,199), patients in large for-profit dialysis chain facilities (n = 106,116) were

62 The proliferation of multi-unit for-profit dialysis chains in the ESRD industry has rais

63 seven percent of patients received care at a for-profit dialysis facility.

64 ties operated by Dialysis Clinic Inc., a not-for-profit dialysis provider, between January 1, 1998, a

65 of a randomised controlled trial in private for-profit dispensaries and health centres and in faith-

66 l academic medical centers have been sold to for-profit entities, and many cardiology divisions have

67 me 120 leaders from private, public, and not-for-profit entities, including cancer researchers and cl

68 ractice but appears to be biased in favor of for-profit entities.

69 ings and engage in more green signaling than for-profit entities.

70 radiologists higher in not-for-profit versus for-profit facilities (60% vs 28% reported).

71 Compared with nonprofit facilities, for-profit facilities administered, on average, an addit

72 nal disease was 21.2 for patients treated in for-profit facilities and 17.1 for patients treated in n

73 -stage kidney disease, receiving dialysis at for-profit facilities compared with nonprofit facilities

74 For-profit facilities had lower 5-year cumulative incide

75 average, compared with nonprofit facilities, for-profit facilities increased epoetin doses 3-fold for

76 It is unknown whether for-profit facilities respond more aggressively than not

77 acilities respond more aggressively than not-for-profit facilities to these financial pressures.

78 For-profit facilities were associated with higher risk (

79 t level of 34.6%) to 24,986 U/wk at chain 2 (for-profit facilities with a mean hematocrit level of 36

80 venty-nine percent of matched BPCI SNFs were for-profit facilities, 85% were located in an urban area

81 were included in this study, with 9476 (71%) for-profit facilities.

82 partment ownership status (for-profit vs not-for-profit, filgrastim: adjusted difference, -17.4 [95%

83 he effect of hospital ownership (private not-for-profit, for-profit, and public) on administrative co

84 n hospital characteristics (type of control [for profit, government, church, or other nonprofit], hos

85 vard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC), a large not-for-profit health plan.

86 I, -6 to 2 points; P < .001), or enrolled in for-profit health plans (-4 points; 95% CI, -7 to 0 poin

87 It is widely believed that for-profit health plans are more likely than not-for-pro

88 re not lower among beneficiaries enrolled in for-profit health plans than among those enrolled in not

89 ommon high-cost procedures would be lower in for-profit health plans than in not-for-profit plans.

90 sluminal coronary angioplasty were higher in for-profit health plans than they were in not-for-profit

91 profit health plans are more likely than not-for-profit health plans to respond to financial incentiv

92 ealth plans than among those enrolled in not-for-profit health plans.

93 or-profit health plans than they were in not-for-profit health plans; the rates of use of other commo

94 rease affected for-profit HHAs more than not-for-profit HHAs (111-55 days [51% decrease, P =.002] vs

95 The decrease affected for-profit HHAs more than not-for-profit HHAs (111-55 da

96 particularly among those receiving care from for-profit HHAs.

97 enrollees in for-profit and nonprofit HMOs, for-profit HMOs are rated less favorably than nonprofit

98 Compared with not-for-profit HMOs, investor-owned plans had lower rates fo

99 Among enrollees in for-profit HMOs, sick enrollees were more likely than he

100 the quality of these plans compared with not-for-profit HMOs.

101 All for-profit homes disproportionately located in areas of

102 R, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.53-1.90), and care from a for-profit hospice (type 1: aOR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.62-1.96

103 Compared with nonprofit hospice agencies, for-profit hospice agencies had a higher percentage of p

104 by PEs, 250 acquired by PTCs, and 1559 other for-profit hospice agencies were included.

105 red with changes for patients in nonacquired for-profit hospice agencies.

106 However, for-profit hospice performance varied, with 548 of 1761

107 For-profit hospices (1087 discharges from 145 agencies),

108 For-profit hospices compared with nonprofit hospices had

109 periences at for-profit hospices than at not-for-profit hospices for all measures.

110 In contrast, only 113 of 906 (12.5%) not-for-profit hospices scored 3 or more points below the av

111 performance varied, with 548 of 1761 (31.1%) for-profit hospices scoring 3 or more points below the n

112 aregivers reported worse care experiences at for-profit hospices than at not-for-profit hospices for

113 driven almost exclusively by an increase in for-profit hospices.

114 (2.3) years, similar for not-for-profit and for-profit hospices.

115 e care experiences in for-profit than in not-for-profit hospices; however, there was variation in rep

116 re likely to have their index operation at a for-profit hospital (34.6% vs 22.0%; P < .001).

117 0.97) and were higher after discharge from a for-profit hospital (IRR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.56).

118 extent to which this practice is related to for-profit hospital status and affects payments and mort

119 kely among those initially hospitalized at a for-profit hospital, and are related to increased overal

120 in the Northeast or Midwest, and being a not-for-profit hospital.

121 spitals had a lower adjusted mean score than for-profit hospitals (-0.03 [95% CI, -0.04 to -0.02] poi

122 e more often large (77.5% vs 66.6%), private for-profit hospitals (19.0% vs 1.3%), and were less like

123 pitals were more likely to be penalized than for-profit hospitals (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.23-2.14]), as

124 over an 18-year study interval (1990-2007), for-profit hospitals and those with low profit margins w

125 In addition, for-profit hospitals charged more than other types of ho

126 sease and for patients initially admitted to for-profit hospitals for the treatment of congestive hea

127 For-profit hospitals had greater increases than nonprofi

128 For-profit hospitals had higher scores than not-for-prof

129 ng all households and public and private not-for-profit hospitals in Ghana.

130 it status and markup, with higher markups in for-profit hospitals in moderately concentrated and conc

131 While for-profit hospitals potentially have financial incentiv

132 We found no evidence that for-profit hospitals selectively treat less sick patient

133 ending rates were greater in areas served by for-profit hospitals than in areas served by not-for-pro

134 For-profit hospitals were less likely to use discharge b

135 Patients (n = 11,658) treated at 58 for-profit hospitals were of similar age and gender, but

136 ts at psychiatric hospitals (44.4 percent at for-profit hospitals) and 33.0 percent of total costs at

137 t (meaning that all beds in the area were in for-profit hospitals), not-for-profit (all beds were in

138 itals), not-for-profit (all beds were in not-for-profit hospitals), or mixed in 1989, 1992, and 1995.

139 at rehabilitation hospitals (37.7 percent at for-profit hospitals).

140 - 15.9% vs 65.3% +/- 21.3% for community not-for-profit hospitals, p < 0.001).

141 As compared with payments to for-profit hospitals, payments to major teaching hospita

142 ared with nonteaching, government-owned, and for-profit hospitals, teaching and nonprofit hospitals w

143 profit hospitals than in areas served by not-for-profit hospitals.

144 rofit, government (i.e., public), or private for-profit hospitals.

145 ending in areas served by for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals.

146 Overall costs of care were also higher at for-profit hospitals.

147 igh costs, especially for administration, at for-profit hospitals.

148 ative) increase as compared with private not-for-profit hospitals.

149 1990 and 1994 and were particularly high at for-profit hospitals.

150 1.46; 95% CI,1.38-1.54; P < .001) in private for-profit hospitals.

151 -profit hospitals had higher scores than not-for-profit hospitals.

152 zard ratio for death, 0.75, as compared with for-profit hospitals; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.

153 ctures (hazard ratio, 0.54, as compared with for-profit hospitals; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.

154 age points, to 24.5 percent, for private not-for-profit hospitals; and by 0.6 percentage point, to 22

155 2.2 percentage points, to 34.0 percent, for for-profit hospitals; by 1.2 percentage points, to 24.5

156 -profit small chains (<1000 facilities), and for-profit independent facilities.

157 l chain facilities; and 98 680 (6.7%) at 434 for-profit independent facilities.

158 ysis at nonprofit/independently owned versus for-profit/independently owned facilities (odds ratio, 1

159 partnership with Project Data Sphere, a not-for-profit initiative allowing data from cancer clinical

160 If you are a For-Profit Institution, please contact the corresponding

161 pitals (7.5% vs. 4.5%) and less likely to be for-profit institutions (8.8% vs. 19.9%) (all P values <

162 Among acute care hospitals, for-profit institutions had higher adjusted costs per di

163 onsoring institutions, those affiliated with for-profit institutions were 3.50 (95% CI, 2.32-5.28) ti

164 investigators from academic, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions with relatively few and containe

165 1, 2020, at 18 primary care clinics in a not-for-profit integrated health care delivery system.

166 ffect on acceptance levels for projects with for-profit investors and a positive effect when the sugg

167 raised questions about the increasing use of for-profit IRBs to review research proposals (as opposed

168 rivate equity ownership and consolidation of for-profit IRBs.

169 into high-throughput, centralized (and often for-profit) laboratories.

170 ll chains, nonprofit independent facilities, for-profit large chains (>1000 facilities), for-profit s

171 were categorized as academic, public, large for-profit, large nonprofit, or other private systems.

172 Patients at for-profit, larger, outpatient, or newer hospices lived

173 nce with alcohol and tobacco suggests that a for-profit legal cannabis industry will increase use by

174 For-Profit: Submit request for for-profit license from the web-site.

175 hospital included index hospitalization at a for-profit, major medical school-affiliated, or low-volu

176 rtain whether these models can be adapted to for-profit managed care settings.

177 For-profit MCCs received 77% of funds (208 of 363).

178 to categorize U.S. hospital service areas as for-profit (meaning that all beds in the area were in fo

179 ea, hospital teaching status, and ownership (for-profit, non-profit, government).

180 s facility ownership categories according to for-profit/nonprofit status and ownership (chain versus

181 tter SEP-1 performance tended to be smaller, for-profit, nonteaching, and with intermediate-sized ICU

182 (NQF) has been established as a private, not-for-profit, open membership, public benefit corporation

183 by enrollment size, Medicaid proportion, and for-profit or not-for-profit status.

184 Nursing home ownership (for-profit or not-for-profit), chain affiliation, size,

185 In addition, patients at for-profit (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81) and rural (OR,

186 Facilities with nongovernment, nonprofit (vs for-profit: OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-10.8; P = .03) and gove

187 5% CI, 1.1-10.8; P = .03) and government (vs for-profit: OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.6-27.2; P = .01) ownershi

188 vioural intervention designed by Ugandan not-for-profit organisation Raising Voices-could reduce phys

189 The intervention was implemented by two not-for-profit organisations from September, 2013, to May, 2

190 CHDI is a not-for-profit organization focused solely on HD.

191 ami and Project Medishare, an affiliated not-for-profit organization, provided a large-scale relief e

192 y for-profit organizations compared with not-for-profit organizations (33 versus 41; P=0.048).

193 ns compared with 25 for trials funded by not-for-profit organizations (P=0.0006).

194 ntly funded, and 29 for trials funded by not-for-profit organizations (P=0.0007).

195 Trials jointly funded by not-for-profit and for-profit organizations appear to report positive findi

196 ble prior to 2000, clinical trials funded by for-profit organizations appeared more likely to report

197 Recent cardiovascular trials funded by for-profit organizations are more likely to report posit

198 indicates that therapeutic trials funded by for-profit organizations are more likely to report posit

199 ication per year was 52 for trials funded by for-profit organizations compared with 25 for trials fun

200 er publication per year for trials funded by for-profit organizations compared with not-for-profit or

201 t, 92 (67.2%) of 137 trials funded solely by for-profit organizations favored newer treatments over s

202 Higher citation rates for trials funded by for-profit organizations were consistently observed in a

203 year was 46 for trials funded exclusively by for-profit organizations, 37 for trials jointly funded,

204 Of the 104 trials funded solely by not-for-profit organizations, 51 (49%) reported evidence sig

205 positive findings than trials funded by not-for-profit organizations, as are trials using surrogate

206 cademia, the pharmaceutical industry and non-for-profit organizations, the drug candidate pipeline is

207 linical trial results that are funded by not-for-profit organizations.

208 t positive findings than those funded by not-for-profit organizations.

209 positive findings than trials funded by not-for-profit organizations.

210 1041 incident dialysis patients at 81 US not-for-profit outpatient dialysis clinics from October 1995

211 Changes to for-profit outsourcing since 2014 were associated with a

212 negatively correlated with the percentage of for-profit outsourcing, suggesting that poorly performin

213 areas where all hospitals remained under not-for-profit ownership ($1,295 vs. $866, P=0.03).

214 areas where all hospitals remained under not-for-profit ownership ($4,006 vs. $3,554 in 1989, $4,243

215 in rural locations (OR: 0.660.790.95), with for-profit ownership (OR: 0.640.770.91), and with more p

216 NH facility characteristics for-profit ownership and low health inspection ratings w

217 208 areas where all hospitals remained under for-profit ownership during the study years was greater

218 l hospitals converted from not-for-profit to for-profit ownership grew more rapidly than in the 2860

219 For-profit ownership of dialysis chain facilities appear

220 Therefore, we examined the effect of for-profit ownership of dialysis facilities on patients'

221 In the United States, for-profit ownership of dialysis facilities, as compared

222 The rate of conversion to for-profit ownership of hospitals has recently increased

223 ciated with the following hospital features: for-profit ownership vs government owned (8.5 vs 5.5 ins

224 In a multivariate analysis, for-profit ownership was associated with a 7.9 percent a

225 Poorer quality was associated with for-profit ownership, a larger number of radiologists at

226 of dialysis facilities, as compared with not-for-profit ownership, is associated with increased morta

227 impairment admitted to acute care hospitals, for-profit ownership, larger hospital size, and greater

228 EDs in nonrural areas declined by 27%, with for-profit ownership, location in a competitive market,

229 iation between nursing home care quality and for-profit ownership.

230 overnment research institutions, reliance on for-profit pharmaceutical companies for subsequent devel

231 ed with their overall care than enrollees in for-profit plans (adjusted means, 64.0 percent and 58.1

232 had significantly higher rates than the not-for-profit plans for 2 of the 12 procedures we studied a

233 itus in investor-owned plans vs 47.9% in not-for-profit plans had annual eye examinations (P<.001).

234 and other characteristics of the plans, the for-profit plans had significantly higher rates than the

235 nvestor-owned plans had lower rates than not-for-profit plans of immunization (63.9% vs 72.3%; P<.001

236 mbers in investor-owned HMOs vs 70.6% in not-for-profit plans received a beta-blocker (P<.001); 35.1%

237 the CMS should give increasing attention to for-profit plans with lower quality ratings and consider

238 during 1997, we compared for-profit and not-for-profit plans with respect to rates of cardiac cathet

239 lower in for-profit health plans than in not-for-profit plans.

240 HMOs deliver lower quality of care than not-for-profit plans.

241 Any decision to further expand the for-profit private hospital market should not be made wi

242 ing the sector going forward, as the role of for-profit providers cannot be replaced without substant

243 For example, for-profit providers have 33.7% lower odds (odds ratio [

244 at serves poor people in many countries; not-for-profit providers that operate on a range of scales;

245 were subsequently made available to the not-for-profit research community by Monsanto.

246 t willing to donate when the recipient was a for-profit researcher.

247 s that operate 11% of the clinics, and 3 are for-profit retail chains that operate 73% of the clinics

248 ult equivalent dose were seen in the private for-profit sector in six pilots, ranging from US$1.28 to

249 The private for-profit sector's prominence in health-care delivery,

250 share of QAACTs, particularly in the private for-profit sector.

251 ts), driven mainly by changes in the private for-profit sector.

252 , or hospitals in the faith-based or private for-profit sectors in Tanzania.

253 ing health, education, food service, and not-for-profit sectors.

254 For-profit services also violate more legal requirements

255 m 381 clinical research sites in the US (219 for-profit sites [57.5%] and 162 nonprofit or government

256 f adoption of these strategies; for example, for-profit sites were more likely to provide after-hours

257 de programs that provide research funding to for-profit small businesses for the development of innov

258 e for-profit chain 2; 225 890 (15.3%) at 997 for-profit small chain facilities; and 98 680 (6.7%) at

259 for-profit large chains (>1000 facilities), for-profit small chains (<1000 facilities), and for-prof

260 Not-for-profit small-scale production and distribution syste

261 Compared with for-profit SNFs, nonprofit and government SNFs had lower

262 5.1%) were predominantly investor owned (ie, for profit; standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.47), w

263 on modified the association between hospital for-profit status and markup, with higher markups in for

264 We sought to determine whether for-profit status influenced hospitals' care or outcomes

265 delines) Initiative, we investigated whether for-profit status influenced hospitals' patient case mix

266 Impact of for-profit status on care and outcomes was analyzed over

267 % confidence interval [CI], 1.19-1.61]), and for-profit status was associated with a longer length of

268 Hospital conversion to for-profit status was associated with improvements in fi

269 Hospitals that converted to for-profit status were more often small or medium in siz

270 Conversion to for-profit status, 2003-2010.

271 .e., a high ratio of nurses to patient-days, for-profit status, and nonacademic status) were associat

272 NH characteristics included for-profit status, census region, and facility quality r

273 le regression models included index hospital for-profit status, discharge counts, geographic region,

274 easing number of hospitals have converted to for-profit status, prompting concerns that these hospita

275 , Medicaid proportion, and for-profit or not-for-profit status.

276 -day mortality, regardless of index hospital for-profit status.

277 For-Profit: Submit request for for-profit license from t

278 The USA has developed a fractured for-profit system that is substantially more expensive t

279 undergone OLTX at a single-center urban not-for-profit teaching hospital.

280 atients receiving telePrEP from MISTR LLC, a for-profit telehealth company, from November 27, 2018, t

281 rted substantially worse care experiences in for-profit than in not-for-profit hospices; however, the

282 areas where all hospitals converted from not-for-profit to for-profit ownership grew more rapidly tha

283 or-profit; 54.4%, jointly funded; and 65.5%, for-profit trials (P for trend across groups = .002).

284 or-profit; 69.2%, jointly funded; and 82.4%, for-profit trials (P for trend across groups = .07).

285 1991-1993, however, no-reuse, freestanding, for-profit units had higher risks (relative risk [RR] =

286 standing units (1989-1990) was identified in for-profit units only.

287 dehyde automatic reuse, and in freestanding, for-profit units using glutaraldehyde, which accounted f

288 No-reuse, hospital-based, for-profit units, in contrast, were associated with a lo

289 as stand-alone programs for academic and not-for-profit users.

290 NMRbox is freely available to not-for-profit users.

291 in April, August, or September; staying in a for-profit versus a nonprofit facility; and detention in

292 with shortages of radiologists higher in not-for-profit versus for-profit facilities (60% vs 28% repo

293 such reviews may ask: What is the effect of for-profit versus not-for-profit delivery of care on pat

294 e (United Kingdom vs non-United Kingdom, not for profit vs commercial), and appropriateness for sight

295 r each outcome among patients treated at all for-profit vs all nonprofit dialysis facilities: decease

296 for opioid use disorder, and differences by for-profit vs nonprofit center status.

297 n a clinical research site's ownership type (for-profit vs nonprofit or governmental) and how often i

298 ital outpatient department ownership status (for-profit vs not-for-profit, filgrastim: adjusted diffe

299 For-profit (vs nonprofit) dialysis facilities have histo

300 Not-for-profit webpages were of significantly greater length

301 s from authors affiliated with organizations for-profit were symmetrical without heterogeneity, where