ライフサイエンスコーパス: intention

1 ltering) immediate alternatives to a current intention.

2 omotion and align its speed with the initial intention.

3 tion proceeds from inferring their goals and intentions.

4 ocessing, including inferences about speaker intentions.

5 respects researchers' actual generalization intentions.

6 ed with social density to affect vaccination intentions.

7 avior, as well as emotions, perceptions, and intentions.

8 cs, and the ventral pathway, the most likely intention afforded by the objects.

9 fined by the compatibility between grips and intentions afforded by the contextual objects.

10 in knowledge, attitudes, normative beliefs, intention and behavioural skills for all participants, i

11 The findings suggest that benefactor-intention and benefit-value appraisal and their neural c

12 d that the modulation patterns of benefactor-intention and benefit-value in mentalizing-related (e.g.

13 causally controlled objects are sensitive to intention and proximity to the subject's goal, potential

14 in which trait inferences centre on others' intentions and abilities (for example, warmth, competenc

15 Data on pregnancy intentions and abortion were compiled from country-based

16 key for successfully reading other people's intentions and beliefs (theory of mind).

17 essions, eye-gaze, audio-visual integration, intention, and mood) show that the third visual pathway

18 nces of saving a life, we observed subjects' intentions at the same time as creating random variation

19 retrospective will summarize the design and intentions behind the NAM population; its application, t

20 0.04, p < 0.001), self-reported anti-smoking intentions (beta = 0.42, SE = 0.06, p < 0.001), and obje

21 ing or reducing cooperation according to the intention communicated by the signal; in contrast, expre

22 gical theories and past studies suggest that intention driven functional electrical stimulation (FES)

23 ly demultiplexed from ongoing efferent motor intention, enabling intracortically controlled closed-lo

24 d, we assumed scientific competence and good intentions, enabling cooperation toward that goal.

25 aying) and at the level of their directional intentions (i.e., their intentions to change or to suppo

26 ascending sensory information and conscious intention, leading to maladaptive and disabling gait abn

27 The ability to infer intention lies at the basis of many social interactions

28 mediated mostly by inferences about other's intentions made from strategy and emotion.

29 inical studies have been registered with the intention of discovering effective treatments.

30 ics will be made publicly available with the intention of facilitating growth in the emerging area of

31 ngu was launched by EMBRAPA in 2015 with the intention of presenting higher productivity.

32 This review was written with the intention of providing guidance on improving the materia

33 The intention of this mini-review is not to provide a compre

34 Overall, the intention of this Review is to provide an overview of th

35 ed strategic information, including payoffs, intentions of the other player, reward outcomes and pred

36 Action is urgently needed, yet well-intentioned policies designed to reduce pressure on a si

37 g skills or behaviors; 5 assessed attitudes, intention, self-efficacy, empathy; and 4 assessed knowle

38 l set of 5 recommendations: (1) prepare with intention (take a moment to prepare and focus before gre

39 Furthermore, an intention to act with a bright stimulus results in prepa

40 nd its implementation in food products, with intention to design new functional foods.

41 associated with reduced craving ("desire and intention to drink" and "negative reinforcement"; r = 0.

42 onstructs (all as predictors) to explain the intention to follow a LCD (outcome).

43 = 0.14) were positively associated with the intention to follow a LCD, while higher knowledge of car

44 eement explained 60% of the variance for the intention to follow a LCD.

45 Critically, we manipulated the benefactor's intention to provide help and the value of the benefit.

46 r multi-layered structure approach, with the intention to reduce the transition temperature, as well

47 database mandated for clinicians to register intention to start all new systemic anticancer treatment

48 lysis for clinical endpoints was by modified intention to treat (excluding patients who withdrew cons

49 Intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses

50 The primary outcome, by intention to treat (ITT), was validated abstinence from

51 Data were analyzed on the basis of intention to treat (ITT).

52 e short form 36 health survey) RESULTS:: The intention to treat analysis showed the surgical group ha

53 Primary analyses were by intention to treat and the Kaplan-Meier method to estima

54 ores at 6 months post-treatment, analysed by intention to treat by means of multilevel random effect

55 With increasing intention to treat HIV as early as possible, evidence to

56 Median overall survival by intention to treat was 16.0 months with preoperative che

57 dpoint was disease-free survival analysed by intention to treat with a Peto-Haybittle stopping rule f

58 al of 1,094 patients were randomly assigned (intention to treat), and 1,068 eligible patients started

59 nalysed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat).

60 We analyzed data by intention to treat, and also performed cost-effectivenes

61 The primary objective, by intention to treat, determined if the addition of capiva

62 34.5% in the evaluable population (modified intention to treat, mITT; N = 29), including nine patien

63 The primary outcome, assessed by intention to treat, was change in insulin sensitivity be

64 Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat, which included all randomly assigned

65 Analyses were by intention to treat, with Hochberg adjustment for multipl

66 Analysis was by intention to treat.

67 The primary analysis was intention to treat.

68 Efficacy was assessed by intention to treat.

69 mary and secondary outcomes were analysed by intention to treat.

70 fficacy and safety outcomes were analysed by intention to treat.

71 he primary end point was overall survival by intention to treat.

72 or the primary endpoints and analysis was by intention to treat.

73 The main analysis was by intention to treat.

74 nt was progression-free survival assessed by intention to treat.

75 All analyses were intention to treat.

76 Analyses were performed by intention to treat.

77 of their directional intentions (i.e., their intentions to change or to support the music produced by

78 However, national intentions to deploy NbS have yet to be fully translated

79 cifically, prosocial concern led to stronger intentions to vaccinate against influenza and COVID-19 b

80 Safety was also analysed in the intention-to treat population.

81 t discusses the findings and why closing the intention-to-behavior gap for those willing to be vaccin

82 In the intention-to-screen analysis, advanced neoplasia detecti

83 We performed intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses using modified Poisson

84 on are reported, and outcomes assessed in an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis include male use of su

85 An intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was conducted, evaluat

86 By intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, 4 of 54 evaluable pre

87 Reporting of both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses

88 Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses

89 Primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and safety analysis

90 outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute

91 We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potent

92 mJOA score from baseline to 6 months in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, defined as all indi

93 In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, remission occurred

94 A Group and 33 (57.9%) in the Topical Group; intention-to-treat (ITT) set].

95 Adverse events were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, defined as all pat

96 t or after 20 weeks, according to a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) protocol.

97 e TBWL was maintained with TBE at 12 months (intention-to-treat 7.8 kg/6.5% loss, per-protocol 9.3 kg

98 different in the active and control groups (intention-to-treat [ITT] population: +11.4 letters and +

99 Analysis (modified intention-to-treat [mITT] and per-protocol) used a gener

100 Modified intention-to-treat analyses (n = 657) uncovered no betwe

101 Main analyses were per-protocol, with intention-to-treat analyses also conducted.

102 Intention-to-treat analyses included n = 100 women.

103 Intention-to-treat analyses including all patients indic

104 Intention-to-treat analyses were done.

105 Intention-to-treat analyses were performed to estimate t

106 ) and their infants in efficacy analyses, by intention-to-treat analyses.

107 ife survey and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (244 [78%] of 312 patients i

108 Therefore, randomized controlled trials with intention-to-treat analysis are needed to further compar

109 The intention-to-treat analysis compared 209 ESBL-PE carrier

110 The intention-to-treat analysis comprised 125 patients at 3

111 For all Lynch syndrome cancers combined, the intention-to-treat analysis did not reach significance b

112 Among 159 patients randomized, the modified intention-to-treat analysis included 155 patients: 73 pa

113 In an intention-to-treat analysis involving all 74 patients, 8

114 In the intention-to-treat analysis not accounting for crossover

115 from 136 participants were available for the intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome.

116 nal function only short-term after LT in the intention-to-treat analysis of this low MELD cohort.

117 We performed a modified intention-to-treat analysis on 231 patients (116 in the

118 on asthma and recurrent wheeze in either an intention-to-treat analysis or an analysis with stratifi

119 An intention-to-treat analysis revealed that the proportion

120 The primary endpoint was assessed in the intention-to-treat analysis set, after all participants

121 The fully adjusted intention-to-treat analysis showed an average reduction

122 At 1 year, intention-to-treat analysis showed that 79 (5.0%) patien

123 In a modified intention-to-treat analysis that excluded the patients w

124 osquitoes (rfMDA plus RAVC vs RACD only), an intention-to-treat analysis was done.

125 An intention-to-treat analysis was followed for all-cause m

126 Data from 508 patients of the intention-to-treat analysis were included in exploratory

127 nths, death or a first thromboembolic event (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 105 patient

128 or, disabling, or life-threatening bleeding (intention-to-treat analysis) had occurred in 46 and 31 p

129 The primary composite efficacy endpoint (intention-to-treat analysis) was the proportion of child

130 ess of compliance with randomisation status (intention-to-treat analysis).

131 tisfaction, expressed by 22 patients (48% in intention-to-treat analysis).

132 t 6 months after the end of treatment in the intention-to-treat analysis, 11 patients (10%) had an un

133 By intention-to-treat analysis, perioperative platelet targ

134 By intention-to-treat analysis, SVR12 rate was 85% (n=82/97

135 On the basis of intention-to-treat analysis, the ICD group had overall s

136 In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean (+/-SD) score on t

137 In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, the mean rate of change in

138 In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a

139 In intention-to-treat analysis, VO(2)peak increased 0.6+/-1

140 In the unadjusted intention-to-treat analysis, we found no significant dif

141 159 randomized participants in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, with 80 allocated to receiv

142 nse as assessed by local investigators in an intention-to-treat analysis.

143 not met at the 50-copies/mL threshold or in intention-to-treat analysis.

144 256) or placebo (n=2253) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

145 ll participants were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis.

146 e for 1014 patients who were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

147 ll 62 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

148 24 in the control group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.

149 d Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

150 Fifty patients were evaluated by modified intention-to-treat analysis.

151 ation, and 700 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis.

152 usted for baseline SFA and GP practice using intention-to-treat analysis.

153 omparisons among group were done by modified intention-to-treat analysis.

154 Results were similar in the intention-to-treat analysis.

155 A total of 293 patients were eligible for intention-to-treat analysis: 157 in the control arm and

156 223 healthy men and women aged 18-70 y with intention-to-treat and completers analysis.

157 Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses showed no e

158 We did intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses using an ab

159 SVR12 in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations was achi

160 At 6 months, in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations, the TBW

161 We estimated observational analogs of 6-year intention-to-treat and per-protocol risks, risk differen

162 The intention-to-treat and per-protocol SVR12 rates were 94.

163 All analyses were done using an intention-to-treat approach.

164 15) (group A) and 11 (8-15) (group B) in the intention-to-treat approach.

165 cross 12 weeks of treatment using a modified intention-to-treat approach.

166 comparisons were performed using a modified intention-to-treat approach.

167 part from safety were analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (participants who withdrew cons

168 free survival, and all analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis among eligible patients who wer

169 Statistical analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis and obtained P values from anal

170 lisant and 68 to placebo) and analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis.

171 walk unassisted) at 90 days, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis.

172 on, and it was analysed on an available case intention-to-treat basis.

173 Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis.

174 Intention-to-treat Cox proportional hazards analysis rev

175 The results showed no significant intention-to-treat effect on weight-for-age (effect: -0.

176 Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat evaluable population, which comprised

177 The intention-to-treat exposed population and the safety pop

178 nts with HIV-1 RNA <40 copies per mL) in the intention-to-treat exposed population were calculated vi

179 was HIV-1 RNA >=50 copies per mL (Snapshot, intention-to-treat exposed), with a non-inferiority marg

180 Dual-outcome intention-to-treat hazard rate analyses have potential t

181 Efficacy was analyzed by intention-to-treat in all randomized patients.

182 400 mg group) were included in the modified intention-to-treat maintenance phase population.

183 l hazards 1-stage meta-analysis models using intention-to-treat methods were used for the primary ana

184 Intention-to-treat overall survival and HCC recurrence i

185 Intention-to-treat patients (n = 103) included those ran

186 Median overall survival in the intention-to-treat patients was 21.0 months (95% CI 19.0

187 ures) from baseline analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (>=1 dose and any post-bas

188 s were screened and 196 were included in the intention-to-treat population (97 in the 2.5 mg/kg cohor

189 (ATRS) at 9 months, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients in the group

190 is was a complete-case analysis based on the intention-to-treat population (all patients with data at

191 emelimumab versus chemotherapy groups in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned pat

192 Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (all randomly assigned pat

193 10 or more passed over), and finally in the intention-to-treat population (alpha=0.00111 at this int

194 ity and safety were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, patients who received

195 We report vital status data for 99.6% of the intention-to-treat population (n = 10,355), documenting

196 In the intention-to-treat population (N = 92), HP-diet and beta

197 In the intention-to-treat population (n=509), 337 patients were

198 ndicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed

199 G + FTC arm and 94.7% in the cART arm in the intention-to-treat population (risk difference -1.2%; 95

200 The analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and adjusted for age, sex,

201 first protocol-defined relapse, based on the intention-to-treat population and analysed with stratifi

202 on 1.1 and overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population and in patients with PD-L1

203 The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in

204 The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in

205 ) followed by superiority were tested in the intention-to-treat population at 3 months (primary analy

206 survival between the treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population but suggests a clinically

207 or) score at week 12, analysed on a modified intention-to-treat population by use of a mixed-effect m

208 The intention-to-treat population comprised all randomised p

209 group A and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population in group F, both assessed

210 ts underwent randomization, and the modified intention-to-treat population included 249 patients in t

211 The primary analysis was on the modified intention-to-treat population of activated and germinal

212 ion (including for overall survival) was the intention-to-treat population of all patients who were r

213 Pooled data from the intention-to-treat population of HARBOR were analyzed fo

214 19), median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 8.2 months (95% CI 6.5

215 The intention-to-treat population was used for the primary e

216 The intention-to-treat population was used for the safety an

217 The co-primary efficacy endpoints for the intention-to-treat population were investigator-assessed

218 portion of randomly assigned patients in the intention-to-treat population who achieved an overall re

219 The analysis was done in all patients in the intention-to-treat population with a baseline and at lea

220 Pain response was analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least

221 eported outcomes (PROs) were analysed in the intention-to-treat population with baseline and at least

222 Overall survival analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population with crossover patients an

223 d (ie, all randomly assigned patients in the intention-to-treat population) and PD-L1-positive (ie, p

224 to receive placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (the intention-to-treat population).

225 In the intention-to-treat population, 2-year overall survival (

226 7 (98%) of 540 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, and 13 (2%) were excluded

227 400 mg group) were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, and 397 (102 [94%] in pla

228 or-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, first testing group A ver

229 In the intention-to-treat population, median CFI was 14.3 month

230 In the intention-to-treat population, median overall survival w

231 In the intention-to-treat population, recurrence of bacterial v

232 In the intention-to-treat population, the eradication rate was

233 eatment groups were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patien

234 vival at 24 months, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patien

235 -VASI (F-VASI50) at week 24, assessed in the intention-to-treat population.

236 keletal-related events were also done in the intention-to-treat population.

237 e in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population.

238 ifferent between the treatment groups in the intention-to-treat population.

239 cause mortality at 6 months, assessed in the intention-to-treat population.

240 uperior to deferred ablation strategy in the intention-to-treat population.

241 n-free survival by independent review in the intention-to-treat population.

242 Efficacy analyses were done by intention-to-treat population.

243 ll analyses (except safety) were done on the intention-to-treat population.

244 Outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population.

245 Safety was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population.

246 ary endpoint and safety were assessed in the intention-to-treat population.

247 n = 52; FOLFOX preop n = 52) represented our intention-to-treat population.

248 urvival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population.

249 Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population.

250 ter, and 3 months after intervention, in the intention-to-treat population.

251 by the investigator, and was analysed in the intention-to-treat population.

252 oint was the recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population.

253 fficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population.

254 key secondary endpoint) were assessed in the intention-to-treat population.

255 ee-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population.

256 ebo plus docetaxel (n=267) and comprised the intention-to-treat population.

257 Efficacy data were analysed in the intention-to-treat population.

258 Primary and safety analysis were done in the intention-to-treat population.

259 m-etoposide versus platinum-etoposide in the intention-to-treat population.

260 Safety was assessed in the intention-to-treat population.

261 a masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population.

262 (HR, 0.82, 0.69-0.97 [not tested]) among the intention-to-treat population.

263 mologous recombination deficiencies, and the intention-to-treat population.

264 Oxygen Therapy Trial (NOTT) criteria in the intention-to-treat population.

265 -L1 CPS of 10 or more, CPS of 1 or more, and intention-to-treat populations.

266 The intention-to-treat primary analyses examined in-hospital

267 This definition is different from the intention-to-treat primary progression-free survival ana

268 clude summaries that are consistent with the intention-to-treat principle and have a pragmatic focus.

269 A logistic regression model after the intention-to-treat principle was applied for analysis of

270 Analyses were done as per the intention-to-treat principle.

271 Efficacy analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle.

272 Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

273 for baseline control of hypertension (using intention-to-treat principles).

274 The dataset was analysed using intention-to-treat principles.

275 ed adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles.

276 Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles.

277 The estimated 6-year intention-to-treat risks were 14.6% for the InSTI group

278 Analysis by intention-to-treat showed a nonsignificant 14% relative

279 ascular disease in the COMPASS study cohort (intention-to-treat study population), with a specific fo

280 Intention-to-treat suppression was 75.0% and 64.3% below

281 mentia Rating Scale (MDRS) at week 76, using intention-to-treat with retrieved dropout at week 24 and

282 nt, delayed graft function, was analyzed by "intention-to-treat" evaluation.

283 Anti-H pylori therapy (intention-to-treat) reduced progression of the Correa sc

284 ecurrent venous thromboembolism (assessed by intention-to-treat), and the principal safety outcome, m

285 trials, who started any treatment (modified intention-to-treat).

286 point was >=50% reduction of pruritus (VAS; intention-to-treat).

287 rospective observational study including, in intention-to-treat, consecutive IVT-treated minor stroke

288 ug Administration Snapshot algorithm) in the intention-to-treat-exposed population (4% noninferiority

289 all and event-free survival analyses were by intention-to-treat.

290 Masked analysis was by intention-to-treat.

291 revascularization within 1 year, analyzed by intention-to-treat.

292 The analysis was conducted by intention-to-treat.

293 Analysis was intention-to-treat.

294 All analyses were intention-to-treat.

295 as responder (observed response rate: 44.4%; intention-to-treat: 32.0%).

296 foster cooperation, humans express and read intentions via explicit signals and subtle reflections o

297 de was stronger than joy when the benefactor-intention was strong and the benefit-value was low compa

298 The intention was to test whether all the main types of exin

299 d and objectively measured) smoking behavior/intentions were inspected in another structural model.

300 ive-noun descriptions to infer the speaker's intention when using an adjective (e.g., "the black..."