ライフサイエンスコーパス: intergroup

1 search groups such as the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup.

2 Intergroup 0116 (INT-0116) demonstrates strong persisten

3 relative to humans that also engages in male intergroup aggression [7].

4 lia likely evolved in bonobos as the risk of intergroup aggression dissipated and the benefits of bon

5 gher and less variable than participation in intergroup aggression in other primate species; (ii) mal

6 ighting, can lead to the evolution of severe intergroup aggression, with negative consequences for po

7 ere observed in almost all parameters in the intergroup analyses (i.e., L versus I and L versus C).

8 Intergroup analyses showed reduced IL-10 and increased i

9 Intergroup analysis showed significant activation decrea

10 Intergroup analysis showed significantly better outcomes

11 Intergroup and intragroup comparisons were performed usi

12 We propose that the study of the intergroup and intragroup dynamics could highlight more

13 iRNA-191 as a suitable EC miRNA with minimal intergroup and intragroup variability, and we used it fo

14 sed the M-SKIP Project, the Italian Melanoma Intergroup, and other European groups (with participants

15 Intergroup attitudes (evaluations) are generalized valen

16 nship between implicit (indirectly revealed) intergroup attitudes and beliefs.

17 risy intervention enduringly reduces harmful intergroup attitudes associated with conflict escalation

18 vent, nor did it yield consistent effects on intergroup attitudes.

19 on This trial was carried out on a worldwide intergroup basis, at the beginning of the learning curve

20 groups (e.g., white-bad/Asian-good), whereas intergroup beliefs (stereotypes) are specific trait attr

21 to prejudice investigates the psychology of intergroup bias by integrating models and methods of neu

22 pting a sociocultural lens to the origins of intergroup bias is important for understanding the natur

23 An exaggerated intergroup bias may therefore represent a motivational f

24 ndary psychopathic traits showed an elevated intergroup bias, making more generous offers toward memb

25 A hallmark of intergroup biases is the tendency to individuate members

26 v1.1 partial response and Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup CA125 response despite being platinum refract

27 nowledge of dyadic contest assessment to the intergroup case, describing what traits of groups, group

28 Malignancy Consortium) conducted a phase II Intergroup clinical trial that used early interim fluoro

29 The proportions of individuals involved in intergroup coalitional conflict, measured by war group s

30 Intergroup comparison (DBS x DE) demonstrated no signifi

31 /mL and serum = 1.85 ng/mL) with significant intergroup comparison at P < 0.001.

32 esting-state fMRI mapping, graph theory, and intergroup comparison revealed Oprm1-specific hubs and c

33 Intergroup comparison revealed significantly higher VR r

34 At 5 years, intergroup comparisons also favored the test group for p

35 vements in recession over baseline, although intergroup comparisons favored the control group at both

36 Intergroup comparisons for IOP change from baseline was

37 Intergroup comparisons of biochemical and clinical param

38 Differences in intergroup comparisons of PI, GI, BOP, and PD were found

39 Intergroup comparisons of the morphometric outcomes reve

40 Intergroup comparisons showed that a 60 mg dose achieved

41 Intergroup comparisons showed that GD subjects had signi

42 Intergroup comparisons were similar with VerifyNow-P2Y12

43 mal perfusion (22% vs. 12%, P < 0.05 for all intergroup comparisons).

44 included non-parametric tests for intra- and intergroup comparisons.

45 proximate mechanisms facilitating success in intergroup competition (sect.

46 - and between-group variation and effects of intergroup competition - is so far patchy, with no clear

47 ligionists, often contributing to success in intergroup competition and conflict.

48 article is that supernatural monitoring and intergroup competition have facilitated the rise of larg

49 han out-group hate) that emerges also absent intergroup competition or comparison.

50 ng species, in which the costs of intra- and intergroup competition vary as a function of group size.

51 Driven by intergroup competition, social norms, beliefs, and pract

52 een-group variation, and (albeit indirectly) intergroup competition.

53 zes can coexist, even in the face of intense intergroup competition.

54 cooperation, rather than winning (in)direct intergroup competitions.

55 created for the 2 days preceding a simulated intergroup conflict (pre-conflict network) and the 2 day

56 er coalitions' cohesion and combativeness in intergroup conflict [corrected].

57 d implications for researchers interested in intergroup conflict and for governments concerned with p

58 dge the gap between the immediate impacts of intergroup conflict and its role in social evolution.

59 ults within the framework of social capital, intergroup conflict and life-history theory and suggest

60 e how such inaccurate beliefs can exacerbate intergroup conflict and provide an avenue for reducing t

61 provides a more precise way to characterize intergroup conflict and revenge.

62 roles of attacker and defender in asymmetric intergroup conflict are structurally ambiguous and their

63 ghlight multiple linkages between asymmetric intergroup conflict as modeled with the attacker-defende

64 order migration, these tendencies exacerbate intergroup conflict between native populations and immig

65 Here, we show that intergroup conflict can evolve, despite not providing an

66 xytocin levels immediately before and during intergroup conflict compared with controls.

67 pirical studies investigating the impacts of intergroup conflict have focused on the immediate afterm

68 Intergroup conflict is a persistent feature of many huma

69 Intergroup conflict is evident throughout the history of

70 A common theoretical explanation for intergroup conflict is that it provides benefits to indi

71 proximate mechanisms conditioning success in intergroup conflict omits humans' deontological morality

72 Intergroup conflict persists when and because individual

73 ed one another at the roost, suggesting that intergroup conflict promotes consensus decision-making,

74 sonal violence rises 4% and the frequency of intergroup conflict rises 14%.

75 for more precise models of the psychology of intergroup conflict to be proposed and tested.

76 ontroversial, and some scholars contend that intergroup conflict was rare until the emergence of sede

77 Conflict between groups (intergroup conflict) is common in many social species an

78 help others in need, at times (e.g., during intergroup conflict), empathic responses are diminished

79 es show that in political and ethnoreligious intergroup conflict, adversaries tend to attribute their

80 Negative affect, interpersonal and intergroup conflict, and possibly psychological distress

81 oups that measures the costs and benefits of intergroup conflict, and we suggest that much of this ev

82 Our approach is not based on explicit intergroup conflict, but instead uses evolutionary set t

83 or of great apes' (including humans) violent intergroup conflict, but mountain gorillas are non-terri

84 y lead to different behavioural responses to intergroup conflict, particularly between the sexes.

85 indings suggest that in cases of intractable intergroup conflict, top-down control mechanisms may blo

86 zees, likely expediting fitness gains during intergroup conflict.

87 e, gang-related violence, and other forms of intergroup conflict.

88 to gain access to benefits from engaging in intergroup conflict.

89 aspecific killing occurs during coalitionary intergroup conflict.

90 in these terms contributes to prejudice and intergroup conflict.

91 y incite amplifies the destructive nature of intergroup conflict.

92 y across populations, e.g., food sharing and intergroup conflict.

93 lity towards outgroups contributes to costly intergroup conflict.

94 distress, and may elevate interpersonal and intergroup conflict.

95 connection between parochial cooperation and intergroup conflict.

96 ing structure in determining the outcomes of intergroup conflict.

97 societies, as well as chimpanzee patterns of intergroup conflict.

98 Here, we argue that attackers in intergroup conflicts are also likely to hold strong iden

99 Adolescents' participation in intergroup conflicts comprises an imminent global risk,

100 anism regulating in-group cooperation during intergroup conflicts in humans involves the neuropeptide

101 tocinergic system involvement during natural intergroup conflicts in wild chimpanzees.

102 lysis to investigate the impact of simulated intergroup conflicts on social relationships in groups o

103 ngooses, a species characterized by frequent intergroup conflicts that have very different fitness co

104 Simulated intergroup conflicts were performed by exposing banded m

105 llution, depletion of natural resources, and intergroup conflicts, are at their core social dilemmas.

106 uals can become "warriors" who specialize in intergroup conflicts, but are costly otherwise.

107 els were linked with greater cohesion during intergroup conflicts, rather than with the level of pote

108 tion and coalitionary support during violent intergroup conflicts.

109 y increases cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup conflicts; (ii) reducing the risk to third pa

110 lidarity- that is positively associated with intergroup contact among both advantaged and disadvantag

111 article is that prejudice reduction through intergroup contact and collective action work in opposit

112 uals from 69 countries), we demonstrate that intergroup contact and support for social change towards

113 ve intergroup contact, whereby the effect of intergroup contact between social contexts (the between-

114 Can intergroup contact build social cohesion after war?

115 Recent work, however, suggests that intergroup contact can undermine support for social chan

116 eight of evidence supporting the benefits of intergroup contact cautions against throwing the (contac

117 The effect of intergroup contact has long been a question central to s

118 eased international migration, understanding intergroup contact is increasingly important to scientif

119 In this study, we investigated the effect of intergroup contact on processing of own- and other-race

120 Increased research attention to intergroup contact similarly made possible a meta-analys

121 t established the pervasive effectiveness of intergroup contact to reduce prejudice under a wide rang

122 " stereotypes, superordinate identification, intergroup contact, and prejudice reduction techniques c

123 reduce their own sexual prejudice, including intergroup contact, as well as avenues for future empiri

124 trial testing the causal effects of repeated intergroup contact, in which Spanish-speaking confederat

125 evidence for a contextual effect of positive intergroup contact, whereby the effect of intergroup con

126 the long term by the beneficial influence of intergroup contact, which alleviates initial negative in

127 hment, and studying how authoritarians avoid intergroup contact.

128 as international migration brings increased intergroup contact.

129 scholars' ability to address the effects of intergroup contact.

130 warrior hypothesis proposes that success in intergroup contests has been vital in human evolution an

131 ted understanding of assessment during these intergroup contests.

132 The psychology underlying revenge in an intergroup context is built around a small handful of re

133 al variation, features of the intragroup and intergroup context, and important contextual variables (

134 by applying Gervais & Fessler's model to the intergroup context.

135 s multiple competitive (but not cooperative) intergroup contexts and appears to be yoked to group psy

136 te specific social emotions and behaviors in intergroup contexts.

137 ints included response by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criteria, duration of ORR, progression-free s

138 luated by RECIST v1.1 and Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criteria.

139 There were similar intergroup demographics; however, significantly more ble

140 group and 2 (10%) in the OLO group, without intergroup difference (P = 0.235).

141 any target IOP, with no significant endpoint intergroup difference at </= 15 mm Hg (log-rank P = 0.59

142 There was no intergroup difference except for the final hemoglobin (H

143 There was also no significant intergroup difference in the plasma concentrations of IL

144 /- 2.3) days for omeprazole (p = 0.93); mean intergroup difference was 0.01 +/- 1.55 days (95% CI = -

145 ment (P <0.001), and except TT (P <0.05), no intergroup difference was observed at 6 months after sur

146 miodarone) was the only parameter showing an intergroup difference, with earlier prescription of amio

147 < 0.001) after 6 months with no significant intergroup differences (P > 0.05, respectively).

148 fessionals and patients, without significant intergroup differences (P > 0.5).

149 /-0.2) to 1.4 (+/-0.3) in OLO group, with no intergroup differences (P = 0.08).

150 More subtle intergroup differences are lost in WO samples because of

151 No intergroup differences could be detected before and afte

152 Intergroup differences in 1alpha,25(OH)(2)D(3)-inducible

153 There were no intergroup differences in baseline technical ability.

154 Also, the intergroup differences in CCT measurements were evaluate

155 Intergroup differences in ED, DF, and MBS were assessed

156 There were no intergroup differences in liver failure (both 7.1%) and

157 There were no intergroup differences in overall morbidity (56% in bev+

158 There were no intergroup differences in perioperative morbidity and mo

159 tion ([(11) C]FMZ Bmax) revealed significant intergroup differences in the bilateral parietal cortice

160 Despite considerable intergroup differences in transplant-free survival betwe

161 ltiple regression analysis revealed that the intergroup differences observed were independent of age.

162 There were no significant intergroup differences or intragroup changes over time i

163 Statistical significance of intergroup differences was assessed by means of the Pear

164 Intra- and intergroup differences were assessed using the Friedman

165 tive in all groups except twins but distinct intergroup differences were evident, corresponding to cl

166 No intergroup differences were found regarding the duration

167 Regarding the primary end point, no intergroup differences were observed for the short form

168 No intergroup differences were observed in the vascular qua

169 in wKT, whereas no statistically significant intergroup differences were seen for 100% root coverage

170 o treat using analysis of variance to assess intergroup differences.

171 fferences and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for intergroup differences.

172 termine if the two methods identify the same intergroup differences.

173 e of the above parameters showed significant intergroup differences.

174 assessed pathogens, without any significant intergroup differences.

175 n both groups (P < 0.05) without significant intergroup differences.

176 yisoprenylated benzophenones (PIBs) promoted intergroup differentiation, whereas the expression of GB

177 rust and cooperation, which may give rise to intergroup discrimination and sometimes defensive aggres

178 ,987), we investigate whether the desire for intergroup dominance and inequality makes up a genetical

179 The phase III North American Intergroup E2496 Trial (Combination Chemotherapy With or

180 Analyzing the contempt as an intergroup emotion, we suggest that contempt and anger a

181 d and "inclusive" perspective on the role of intergroup emotions and beliefs in sustaining discrimina

182 oals and that it overlooks important work in intergroup emotions.

183 n types, consistent with the hypothesis that intergroup encounters reduce the level of intragroup con

184 Males were more affected socially by intergroup encounters than females, which may be because

185 e directionality of behaviour in response to intergroup encounters, and highlight how individual resp

186 nships to more fully understand responses to intergroup encounters.

187 nge, designed to ignite struggles to achieve intergroup equality?

188 enclosures filled broader regional needs for intergroup exchange and shared ritual.

189 Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES), an investigator-led s

190 Conclusion The Intergroup Exemestane Study and contemporaneous studies

191 Purpose The Intergroup Exemestane Study, an investigator-led study o

192 hip and behavior to covary, before extensive intergroup experience or linguistic input.

193 wild banded mongooses Mungos mungo, in which intergroup fights are more costly for males than females

194 Recent data from the Intergroup Francophone du Myelome, Cancer and Leukemia G

195 We describe RECIST and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) CA125 responses in patients receiving

196 lled, phase 3, three-arm, Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup (GCIG) trial done at 117 hospital sites in th

197 ery and chemotherapy, and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup group.

198 re, we started the randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL Intergroup H10 trial evaluating whether involved-node ra

199 We agree that promoting intergroup harmony "carries insidious, often unacknowled

200 reduction interventions that seek to promote intergroup harmony in historically unequal societies.

201 eric hemagglutinins (cHA) with intragroup or intergroup head/stalk combinations was generated.

202 l index of people's general attitudes toward intergroup hierarchy, correlates robustly with political

203 er than it actually is, which fosters mutual intergroup hostility.

204 effective way of tackling resulting forms of intergroup hostility.

205 adiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) E2491 (intergroup I0129, consisting of daunorubicin + cytarabin

206 h that the desire for (versus opposition to) intergroup inequality and support for political attitude

207 intergroup liking as a means of challenging intergroup inequality.

208 SDO-egalitarianism (SDO-E), a preference for intergroup inequality.

209 ating that both the intensity and outcome of intergroup interactions affect resource defense and asso

210 We show that group size heterogeneity and intergroup interactions affect the strength of populatio

211 acial composition of the population changes, intergroup interactions are increasingly common.

212 Because intergroup interactions often are mixed-motive rather th

213 ing closer to territorial borders, than when intergroup interactions were short or did not occur.

214 In the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup International Collaboration on Ovarian Neopla

215 Patients and Methods In this intergroup international trial, eligible patients had su

216 These findings imply that intergroup learning should rely on observing outcomes, r

217 unknown, which limits our chances to improve intergroup learning.

218 , and develops our critique of the limits of intergroup liking as a means of challenging intergroup i

219 nce at </= 15 mm Hg (log-rank P = 0.595).The intergroup MBGS scores differed due to reduced central a

220 s with breast cancer randomly assigned to an intergroup metronomic trial of cyclophosphamide, doxorub

221 ctive and non-active researchers, suggesting intergroup mixing as a key factor in academic success.

222 We also examine intergroup mixing by applying a novel approach to classi

223 ed three categories of mechanisms-prejudice (intergroup), motivation (intrapersonal), and assertivene

224 fender conflicts can inspire new research on intergroup negotiation.

225 s involving legal decisions, counseling, and intergroup negotiations.

226 The GAIN (German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-Positive) study was an open-label, rando

227 This intergroup, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial recrui

228 In the randomized intergroup phase 3 E2997 trial, initial therapy of chron

229 y in Treating Patients With Melanoma) was an Intergroup phase III trial that enrolled high-risk patie

230 Alliance/CALGB 50303 (NCT00118209), an intergroup, phase III study, compared dose-adjusted etop

231 an increased focus on group heterogeneities, intergroup polarization and conflict, cross-cultural dif

232 er, I have pursued three theories related to intergroup prejudice--each with a different mentor.

233 Existing research depicts intergroup prejudices as deeply ingrained, requiring int

234 py regimens for FL in a phase III randomized intergroup protocol (SWOG S0016) that enrolled 554 patie

235 e patients from the ATRA/chemotherapy arm of intergroup protocol C9710, 18 patients harbored PRalpha/

236 therapy on 3 clinical trials, North American Intergroup protocol I0129 and Programa para el Estudio d

237 On initial publication of GI Intergroup Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 98-11

238 Intergroup random effects analysis was performed.

239 In 2004, we started an intergroup randomized trial of adjuvant imatinib versus

240 lar to recombination within group M viruses, intergroup recombination is affected by the identity of

241 the gfp recombination assay, we showed that intergroup recombination occurs much less frequently tha

242 amined, we found three distinct barriers for intergroup recombination.

243 nt lines of research have shown that unequal intergroup relations are often marked by attitudinal com

244 udice reduction models should and do improve intergroup relations in such contexts.

245 the research agenda for those interested in intergroup relations in this age of mass migration.

246 The tolerant intergroup relations of bonobos offer an ideal context t

247 Improving intergroup relations requires multiple levels of analysi

248 suggest that the psychological literature on intergroup relations should shift from theorizing "preju

249 each other more is the best way of improving intergroup relations that are characterized by relativel

250 portance of a political conceptualisation of intergroup relations that challenges individualising mod

251 then use classic theoretical perspectives on intergroup relations to frame and then consider new ques

252 great policy potential as a means to improve intergroup relations, because it can simultaneously impa

253 and conflict among humans in the context of intergroup relations.

254 do not apply this analysis to the sphere of intergroup relations.

255 nal processes, as well as broader structural intergroup relations.

256 contributing member of society with healthy intergroup relations.

257 Implications for intergroup relationships and intercultural communication

258 itutions designed to assess the efficacy and intergroup reproducibility of clinically applicable immu

259 ntation technique comparisons showed similar intergroup results.

260 of 83% and overall survival rates of 95% on Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Group (IRSG) protocols

261 Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Group (IRSG) studies I

262 Patient data from the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Group and the Children

263 Oncology Group, Children's Cancer Group, the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Group, and the Nationa

264 stage (TNM system), and post-surgical stage (Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study system).

265 ive and PAX3/FOXO1 and PAX7/FOXO1 positive), Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study TNM stage, and age sho

266 Sixteen IRS (Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study) III and IV patients h

267 ropensity score-based 1:1 matching to reduce intergroup selection bias.

268 and weighting by the odds methods to reduce intergroup selection bias.

269 in CDH and esthetic dissatisfaction with no intergroup significant differences (P >0.05).

270 osocial stressor, and subsequently played an intergroup social dilemma game in which they could revea

271 For this randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study (EORTC 22033-26033), undertaken in 78 c

272 n the basis of these encouraging results, an intergroup study has been activated comparing EA consoli

273 nd a dataset derived from the North American Intergroup Study INT0129.

274 Patients and Methods North American Intergroup Study S1117 is a phase II/III trial that rand

275 This intergroup study was coordinated by SWOG, a cooperative

276 According to a French intergroup study, two groups (ECX arm and FOLFIRI arm) a

277 For this randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study, undertaken in 78 clinical centres in 1

278 Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-sponsored intergroup study.

279 may need ambivalence to justify more complex intergroup-system stability.

280 als Group PR.3/Medical Research Council PR07/Intergroup T94-0110 was a randomized controlled trial of

281 ids vary with regards to social cohesion and intergroup tolerance due to their feeding ecology.

282 or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, Intergroup Trial 0116 (Phase III trial of postoperative

283 Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) N9831 Intergroup trial and National Surgical Adjuvant Breast a

284 es from 290 patients enrolled onto the E2496 Intergroup trial comparing doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinbl

285 Specimens from the Cancer Cooperative Intergroup Trial E2496 were used to compare pretreatment

286 This was a phase II, intergroup trial led by the American College of Surgeons

287 CALGB 80101 (Alliance; Phase III Intergroup Trial of Adjuvant Chemoradiation After Resect

288 herapy arm of the RTOG-9501 trial (Phase III Intergroup Trial of Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy Ver

289 This prospective, randomized phase III intergroup trial of the Gynecologic Oncology Group and N

290 prognostic significance of TAMs in the E2496 Intergroup trial, a multicenter phase 3 randomized contr

291 C will be determined by an ongoing phase III intergroup trial.

292 tion arms of the current RTOG 0617 phase III intergroup trial.

293 n the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and intergroup trials E1684, E1690, and E1694 as adjuvant th

294 otential conflict escalation, development of intergroup understanding, and promotion of a wider human

295 nts, respectively, p = 0.027 with intra- and intergroup variability.

296 test was used to compare the intragroup and intergroup variances among the study groups.

297 e two aetiologies revealed graded intra- and intergroup variations on all four extracted components.

298 nce of raiding parties, and hence facilitate intergroup violence in small-scale societies.

299 Intergroup violence is common among humans worldwide.

300 ns, the result is unusually severe levels of intergroup violence.