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 ople in the United States are reported to be heavy drinkers.
2 he neural correlates of alcohol demand among heavy drinkers.
3 association with fatal prostate cancer among heavy drinkers.
4 nkers, and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.82 to 1.10) among heavy drinkers.
5 es the lower diabetes risk among moderate to heavy drinkers.
6 betes after excluding former and moderate to heavy drinkers.
7 ore comorbidities than light-to-moderate and heavy drinkers.
8 ) than people who reported never having been heavy drinkers.
9 =50%, without hepatitis B or C, who were not heavy drinkers.
10 abstainers, very light, light, moderate, and heavy drinkers.
11  drinkers, an effect that is strongest among heavy drinkers.
12 analysis was conducted between no-to-low and heavy drinkers.
13 F2 associated with reduced risk of ALC among heavy drinkers.
14 t least 2 consecutive visits were labeled as heavy drinkers.
15  (AH) develops in only a small proportion of heavy drinkers.
16 ated to lower SVR rates in moderate, but not heavy, drinkers.
17          A total of 48 non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers (16 women) who met DSM-IV criteria for al
18                                    Among the heavy drinkers, 86 (53.8%) were boys with mean (SD) age
19                     Cross-sectional study in heavy drinkers admitted for the treatment of AUD between
20 dictive of AUD, 140 participants (social and heavy drinkers, ages 21-26) underwent functional magneti
21        Participants were 156 individuals, 86 heavy drinkers and 70 light drinkers, undergoing an init
22 th cohort in South Africa, 206 gravidas (126 heavy drinkers and 80 controls) were interviewed regardi
23           A substantially increased risk for heavy drinkers and a slightly reduced risk for lighter d
24        Ethanol at concentrations observed in heavy drinkers and alcoholics may directly act on HDL an
25  process of reverse cholesterol transport in heavy drinkers and alcoholics.
26 alone, approximately 12.9 million people are heavy drinkers and chronic abuse of alcohol is known to
27 els described differences in trajectories of heavy drinkers and nondrinkers over age; secondary analy
28 hibiting a decreased risk compared with both heavy drinkers and nondrinkers.
29 orts compared with control groups, including heavy drinkers and patients with cirrhosis.
30  There are 2.4 billion drinkers (950 million heavy drinkers) and the lifetime prevalence of any alcoh
31 8% lower plasma ALT among the most obese, in heavy drinkers, and in individuals carrying three or fou
32 s occurred among otherwise moderate (ie, non-heavy) drinkers, and 73% of all binge drinkers were mode
33  the NAc core was significantly lower in the heavy drinkers, as compared with control subjects.
34                    People who reported being heavy drinkers at baseline were more likely to develop l
35 ls of DA and lower DOPAC/DA ratios among the heavy drinkers at the same time point.
36 ocardial infarction (AMI) than abstainers or heavy drinkers, but the effect of prior drinking on mort
37                               There were few heavy drinkers, but the inverse association persisted to
38          However, HDL levels are elevated in heavy drinkers, but their risk of vascular disease is gr
39 abolic products are significantly reduced in heavy drinkers compared to healthy controls.
40 ms (1.4 [1.1-1.7] vs 1.0 [0.9-1.1]), and for heavy drinkers compared with moderate drinkers (1.4 [1.1
41 cetate transport and oxidation are faster in heavy drinkers compared with that in light drinkers.
42 rinkers while the same adaptation metric for heavy drinkers (consuming greater than 60 drinks per mon
43  in professional/managerial occupations (for heavy drinkers: current tax increase, -1.3%; value-based
44                                 Only ~20% of heavy drinkers develop alcohol cirrhosis (AC).
45 a role in determining why only a minority of heavy drinkers develop hepatitis and cirrhosis.
46 creased with income, while the proportion of heavy drinkers did not vary significantly.
47                                       Twelve heavy drinkers during three identical visits completed a
48 gnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data from 22 heavy drinkers enrolled in a 12-week placebo-controlled,
49 htened reward sensitivity and stimulation in heavy drinkers exhibiting AUD progression in early mid-a
50 sing the case of Mr E, an older, moderate to heavy drinker experiencing memory difficulty, the diagno
51                                    Among the heavy drinkers, greater positive effects and lower sedat
52 isk for congestive heart failure, even among heavy drinkers (> or = 15 drinks/wk in men and > or = 8
53 5% confidence interval: 1.03, 2.01) and very heavy drinkers (>/=60 g/day; odds ratio = 1.44, 95% conf
54 -moderate drinkers (1 to 10 drinks/week), or heavy drinkers (>10 drinks/week) based on alcohol consum
55                                     Overall, heavy drinkers (>30 g/day) with a lower total folate int
56  moderate drinkers (>0 and <3 cups/day), and heavy drinkers (&gt;=3 cups/day).
57 inkers to have an SGA birth, but moderate or heavy drinkers (&gt;or=4 drinks per week) who also binged w
58                                      Regular heavy drinkers had a 74% higher risk of a major coronary
59                                              Heavy drinkers had approximately 2-fold more brain aceta
60 nal analyses, ex-drinkers, non-drinkers, and heavy drinkers had higher risks of death from most major
61  having the lowest risks and nondrinkers and heavy drinkers having similarly high risks.
62 ver a 5-year interval in at-risk young adult heavy drinkers (HD) and light drinker control subjects.
63                                              Heavy drinkers (HD, N=16, 16 males) and normal controls
64 s when given with no stimulation (NS), in 25 heavy drinkers (HDs) and 23 healthy controls, each of wh
65 ective response to alcohol between light and heavy drinkers (HDs), however, have yielded inconsistent
66 erate drinkers HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.17; heavy drinkers HR 1.25; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.72).
67                                 Moderate and heavy drinkers in late pregnancy were also more likely t
68 ers exhibited greater BOLD response than did heavy drinkers in left supplementary motor area (SMA), b
69 tion, and, from a public health perspective, heavy drinkers in routine/manual occupations are a key g
70 tion to clinical hypertension in chronic and heavy drinkers is discussed.
71                                      MetS in heavy drinkers is independently associated with reduced
72 10 to 30 g/d; F: >5 to 15 g/d; n = 1207), or heavy drinkers (M: >30 g/d; F: >15 g/d; n = 692).
73       Forty-four (14 F) nontreatment seeking heavy drinkers meeting criteria for AUD were enrolled.
74 ales fell by 3%, with the greatest effect on heavy drinkers of low-cost alcohol products.
75 4) with histological parameters (n = 106) in heavy drinkers primarily admitted for alcohol withdrawal
76                           Only a minority of heavy drinkers progress to alcohol-associated cirrhosis
77                       It is elusive why some heavy drinkers progress to severe alcohol-related liver
78 2 Asp40 carriers) were non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers recruited from the community.
79 (95% CI, 0.79-1.04) for light, moderate, and heavy drinkers, respectively.
80 (95% CI, 0.70-1.08) for light, moderate, and heavy drinkers, respectively.
81                                     Lifetime heavy drinkers showed poorer overall (aHR: 1.37; 95% CI:
82                                        Among heavy drinkers the decline was fastest in the younger co
83 ants (22-38 years, including both social and heavy drinkers) underwent a two-session, placebo-control
84 t the MOE value of lead for both average and heavy drinkers was less than 100 when consuming unrecord
85                        Non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers were enrolled in the study.
86            Fifty-six overweight and moderate-heavy drinkers were prospectively stratified by genotype
87 routine/manual occupations (particularly for heavy drinkers, where the estimated policy effects on mo
88 ated, would facilitate the identification of heavy drinkers who are likely to respond well to topiram
89 1 (64.5%) no-to-low drinkers and 160 (35.5%) heavy drinkers who indicated the potential for a deleter
90                                        Seven heavy drinkers, who regularly consumed at least 8 drinks
91 e efficacy and tolerability of topiramate in heavy drinkers whose treatment goal was to reduce drinki
92 of 270 patients aged 18 to 70 years who were heavy drinkers with severe biopsy-proven alcoholic hepat
93             Fifty-six, non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers, with alcohol dependence and a positive f
94  non- or very light drinkers and moderate to heavy drinkers, with different relation of dose to disea
95 A profiling was performed in 15 controls, 20 heavy drinkers without liver disease, and 65 patients wi