ライフサイエンスコーパス: nonprofit

1 .4%), a personality disorder (public: 11.6%, nonprofit: 11.3%, proprietary: 4.7%), or a general medic

2 diagnosed with schizophrenia (public: 23.4%, nonprofit: 18.8%, proprietary: 12.6%), a comorbid substa

3 d substance-related disorder (public: 29.9%, nonprofit: 31.0%, proprietary: 17.4%), a personality dis

4 r a general medical disorder (public: 62.4%, nonprofit: 57.4%, proprietary: 41.1%) than patients of p

5 nly distributed among public (9.4%), private nonprofit (78.9%), and proprietary (11.7%) hospitals.

6 organizations (academia: 10, government: 7, nonprofit: 8, and private: 2).

7 he other types of facilities (public: 17.0%, nonprofit: 9.9%, proprietary: 6.4%).

8 Participants received care at a large nonprofit academic health system in the southern United

9 available without licensing restrictions to nonprofit academic users, affording freely available hig

10 , panelists from professional organizations, nonprofit advocacy/funding groups, and industry also ide

11 antly more study centers and subjects, while nonprofit agency-funded RCTs had longer duration and wer

12 c-private partnership was formed between the nonprofit Amyloidosis Research Consortium and the US Foo

13 ing on websites of the largest and top-rated nonprofit and for-profit hospitals in the US.

14 xamine the unreimbursed Medicaid costs among nonprofit and for-profit US hospitals.

15 -reviewed literature and online reports from nonprofit and government organizations was conducted bet

16 xciting career opportunities in industry and nonprofit and government organizations.

17 Compared with for-profit SNFs, nonprofit and government SNFs had lower odds of changing

18 stem, advocacy, professional, and supporting nonprofit and industry organizations.

19 Nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations have driven

20 alth systems leaders, policy makers, public, nonprofit and prepaid healthcare systems, and other syst

21 e, and hospital descriptors (rural location, nonprofit and teaching status), the hazard for recurrenc

22 d for transplantation compared with those at nonprofit and urban facilities, respectively.

23 m mental health to rare diseases, charitable nonprofits and foundations are bringing energy, perspect

24 of GAIN data by investigators from academic, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions with relatively f

25 Collaborations between the public, nonprofit, and private sectors are needed to maximize th

26 alth data across the academic, governmental, nonprofit, and private sectors.

27 rition research collaborations among public, nonprofit, and private sectors.

28 al disorders discharged from public, private nonprofit, and proprietary general hospitals.

29 1.53; 95% CI, 1.22-1.92); and being private nonprofit (AOR, 7.45; 95% CI, 4.67-11.87) or government

30 ue a new model of IRB oversight: independent nonprofit boards that stand apart from research institut

31 Many academic centers and nonprofits cannot support industry-level investment and

32 e disorder, and differences by for-profit vs nonprofit center status.

33 ices between nephrologists at for-profit and nonprofit centers.

34 revascularization procedures) compared with nonprofit centers.

35 have patients with worse acute outcomes than nonprofit centers.

36 rom for-profit chain facilities, compared to nonprofit chain facilities, were 13% (95% CI 0.77-0.98)

37 ng Real-Time Atmospheric Carbon Emissions)-a nonprofit coalition of artificial intelligence (AI) spec

38 CMPs) between state wildlife authorities and nonprofit conservation organizations to manage protected

39 Nonprofit contracts received an average 0.55 (95% CI, 0.

40 How can governments and nonprofits design aid programs that afford dignity and f

41 Compared with patients in nonprofit dialysis facilities (n = 28,199), patients in

42 Care of adults at profit vs nonprofit dialysis facilities has been associated with l

43 ng patients treated at all for-profit vs all nonprofit dialysis facilities: deceased donor waiting li

44 For-profit (vs nonprofit) dialysis facilities have historically had low

45 .5 [95% CI, 9.7-35.2]), and were more likely nonprofit (difference, 17.6% [95% CI, 7.7%-27.4%]) compa

46 onal Gastrointestinal Disorders (IFFGD) is a nonprofit education and research group.

47 Specifically, we partnered with the nonprofit educational platform Zearn Math to compare the

48 Academic, pharmaceutical, government, and nonprofit entities must cooperate to develop a more sust

49 clinical trial with a crossover design at a nonprofit eye research institute.

50 iour is a problem employers, governments and nonprofits face globally.

51 e incidence of death was higher at profit vs nonprofit facilities (7.03 vs 4.06 per 100 person-years,

52 ve incidence differences for each outcome vs nonprofit facilities (deceased donor waiting list: -13.2

53 advertising hospitals were more likely to be nonprofit facilities (mean [SD], 66% [47%] vs 51% [50%];

54 gher risk of death compared with children at nonprofit facilities in adjusted analyses accounting for

55 lysis at for-profit facilities compared with nonprofit facilities was associated with a lower likelih

56 epoetin ranged from 17,832 U/wk at chain 5 (nonprofit facilities with a mean hematocrit level of 34.

57 justed HR for kidney transplant at profit vs nonprofit facilities, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.74).

58 ard ratio [HR] for wait-listing at profit vs nonprofit facilities, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83).

59 was also lower at profit facilities than at nonprofit facilities, 21.5 vs 31.3 per 100 person-years,

60 sting was lower at profit facilities than at nonprofit facilities, 36.2 vs 49.8 per 100 person-years,

61 Compared with nonprofit facilities, for-profit facilities administered

62 On average, compared with nonprofit facilities, for-profit facilities increased ep

63 antation, such as older age, white race, and nonprofit facility status, were not always consistent wi

64 September; staying in a for-profit versus a nonprofit facility; and detention in certain facilities.

65 oject Open Hand (POH), a San Francisco-based nonprofit food organization.

66 ecialty, sponsoring institutions' ownership (nonprofit, for-profit, federal government, local governm

67 Private nonprofit general hospitals increasingly treat publicly

68 er for all teaching hospitals) or as private nonprofit, government (i.e., public), or private for-pro

69 by investigators who are based in the older nonprofit group and staff models of health maintenance o

70 the Open Bioinformatics Foundation (OBF), a nonprofit group dedicated to promoting the practice and

71 hile the feasibility of medical education in nonprofit group/staff model HMOs is well documented, it

72 Many environmental nonprofit groups are assumed to provide public goods.

73 with assumptions based on data from a large nonprofit health maintenance organization (Kaiser Perman

74 e differ between enrollees in for-profit and nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs).

75 or-profit HMOs are rated less favorably than nonprofit HMOs by patients who have self-reported fair o

76 cal care between enrollees in for-profit and nonprofit HMOs, for-profit HMOs are rated less favorably

77 For nonprofit HMOs, there was only one significant differenc

78 Society for Clinical Investigation (ASCI), a nonprofit honorary society, was established to support p

79 Compared with nonprofit hospice agencies, for-profit hospice agencies

80 discharges from 145 agencies), compared with nonprofit hospices (3618 discharges from 524 agencies),

81 For-profit hospices compared with nonprofit hospices had a significantly longer length of

82 For-profit and nonprofit hospices may respond differently to financial

83 at a public teaching hospital and a private, nonprofit hospital in Chicago, Illinois.

84 ol [for profit, government, church, or other nonprofit], hospital system [owner], number of staffed b

85 ospital discharges increased most in private nonprofit hospitals and declined substantially in public

86 Nonprofit hospitals are under increasing scrutiny to jus

87 e were lower, and payments to government and nonprofit hospitals for congestive heart failure were lo

88 Nonprofit hospitals had a lower adjusted mean score than

89 -profit hospitals had greater increases than nonprofit hospitals in their per-patient charges (mean i

90 A total of 2927 US nonprofit hospitals received a $37.4 billion total tax b

91 Safety-net and nonprofit hospitals reported lower commercial rates (coe

92 care, allocation of charity care spending by nonprofit hospitals to support this effort, and clinicia

93 wned, and for-profit hospitals, teaching and nonprofit hospitals were also more likely to report more

94 Psychiatric patients of public and private nonprofit hospitals were more likely to be diagnosed wit

95 ectional study examines the proportion of US nonprofit hospitals with community health needs assessme

96 ofit hospitals' tax-exempt status for all US nonprofit hospitals with the required Cost Reports data.

97 This study highlights the wide variation of nonprofit hospitals' tax benefit across states, its high

98 calculated the total financial benefit from nonprofit hospitals' tax-exempt status for all US nonpro

99 Policy efforts to strengthen nonprofit hospitals' taxpayer accountability are likely

100 informed public health policies and ensuring nonprofit hospitals' taxpayer accountability.

101 Nonprofit hospitals' total tax benefit, which equals the

102 tay has fallen most substantially in private nonprofit hospitals.

103 SEP-1 reporting was more common in larger, nonprofit hospitals.

104 ompared with 133,699 patients treated at 474 nonprofit hospitals.

105 h was categorized as nonprofit small chains, nonprofit independent facilities, for-profit large chain

106 small chain facilities; 78 287 (5.3%) at 324 nonprofit independent facilities; 483 988 (32.7%) at 223

107 s, they were disproportionately cared for at nonprofit/independently owned and hospital-based facilit

108 Ongoing loss of market share of nonprofit/independently owned outpatient dialysis facili

109 gher relative risk of initiating dialysis at nonprofit/independently owned versus for-profit/independ

110 m for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), a nonprofit initiative, was formed to define standard sets

111 Public companies, individual inventors, and nonprofit institutions represented 31.4%, 18.0%, and 5.7

112 hort study consisted of 109 218 members of a nonprofit Israeli health maintenance organization born b

113 e discrimination practiced by commercial and nonprofit journal publishers.

114 eveloping the program was facilitated by the nonprofit Keystone Center, an organization that develops

115 Nonprofit, larger, and older MA contracts were more like

116 res Unidas y Activas, a community organizing nonprofit led by and for Latina and Indigenous immigrant

117 In 2010, nonprofit MA contracts received significantly higher sta

118 Nonprofit (median accuracy score, 4 [IQR, 4-5]), governm

119 of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) is a professional nonprofit medical association founded in 1985 to facilit

120 of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) is a professional nonprofit medical association that facilitates communica

121 d 15 to 19 years experiencing pregnancy in a nonprofit Minnesota health care organization.

122 Here I define the problems and propose a nonprofit model to meet the needs of some of these patie

123 erature examines why donors join and give to nonprofits, none directly tests whether donations actual

124 t SNFs had lower odds of changing ownership (nonprofit: odds ratio [OR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.32-0.49; gov

125 Despite this, many nonprofits offer conditional thank-you gifts, such as mu

126 of for-profit sites (12 of 167) and 13.0% of nonprofit or governmental sites (16 of 123) collected in

127 4 of 173 for-profit sites [48.6%]; 22 of 123 nonprofit or governmental sites [17.9%]) and offering fi

128 the US (219 for-profit sites [57.5%] and 162 nonprofit or governmental sites [42.5%]).

129 5 of 162 for-profit sites [83.3%]; 60 of 123 nonprofit or governmental sites [48.8%]).

130 Proportions of for-profit vs nonprofit or governmental sites that use recruitment and

131 Overall, compared with nonprofit or governmental sites, for-profit sites report

132 mically diverse populations, particularly by nonprofit or governmental sites, may help minimize barri

133 esearch site's ownership type (for-profit vs nonprofit or governmental) and how often it used strateg

134 % for government-funded trials and 71.9% for nonprofit or nonfederal organization-funded trials (P <

135 among industry-funded trials to 56.2% among nonprofit or nonfederal organization-funded trials witho

136 gories of industry, government agencies, and nonprofit or nonfederal organizations.

137 14%) by government sources, and 126 (23%) by nonprofit or nonfederal organizations.

138 Trials funded by nonprofit or nonfederal sources with industry contributi

139 as academic, public, large for-profit, large nonprofit, or other private systems.

140 iatric inpatients treated in public, private nonprofit, or proprietary general hospitals.

141 ging times required founding of a binational nonprofit organization (RERF) with equal participation b

142 RAD-AID's more-than-a-decade experience as a nonprofit organization developing radiology in resource-

143 d Kids Can Write, becoming a CEO of a global nonprofit organization helping turn kids into published

144 tes and 2 residential programs operated by 1 nonprofit organization in the Northeastern United States

145 improvement program developed by the global nonprofit organization Lifebox, has demonstrated improve

146 members of the Mobile Lab Coalition (MLC), a nonprofit organization of mobile and other laboratory-ba

147 LFN) database of Triage Cancer, a nationwide nonprofit organization providing free education on legal

148 ntelligent Biology and Medicine (IAIBM) is a nonprofit organization that promotes intelligent biology

149 a county hospital and free eyeglasses from a nonprofit organization.

150 DMs placed greater trust in universities and nonprofit organizations (107/117; 91.4%) than either the

151 Websites of nonprofit organizations (median readability level, 12.9

152 Rare disease nonprofit organizations (RDNPs) are well-positioned to o

153 lts are consistent across subsamples, though nonprofit organizations appear to build greener building

154 y arose among studies involving authors from nonprofit organizations because of some imprecise studie

155 Several government and nonprofit organizations provide the researchers access t

156 government also partnered with academic and nonprofit organizations to establish a research and moni

157 Nonprofit organizations train villagers to create and le

158 dustry payments, while those affiliated with nonprofit organizations were 2.00 (95% CI, 1.36-2.93) ti

159 nformation, 34.6% reported funding solely by nonprofit organizations, 48.3% reported funding solely b

160 overnmental agencies, academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, and others to consider.

161 rmaceutical and life sciences companies, and nonprofit organizations, facilitated and managed by the

162 Partnerships among nonprofit organizations, state governmental agencies, pu

163 dicate private provision of a public good by nonprofit organizations.

164 rking in academia, government, industry, and nonprofit organizations.

165 ough the lenses of academia, government, and nonprofit organizations.

166 include academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations.

167 d subjects are more likely to be employed at nonprofit organizations.

168 BioEYES, a nonprofit outreach program using zebrafish to excite and

169 In the sample as a whole, enrollees in nonprofit plans were more likely to be very satisfied wi

170 aniasis, and Chagas disease, is being led by nonprofit product development partnerships (PDPs) workin

171 The ERAS Society, an international nonprofit professional society that promotes, develops,

172 ebruary 1, 1999, and December 31, 2022, at a nonprofit psychiatric system in Baltimore, Maryland.

173 upporting antibiotic R&D via the creation of nonprofit public-private partnerships, including Combati

174 In this framework, nonprofit research and development organizations, with s

175 Sena Institute of Technology (SIT), a nonprofit research institute based in Ghana, is one such

176 nical trial that took place across academic, nonprofit, safety-net, and community health care systems

177 at the board and executive levels across the nonprofit sector remains predominantly composed of white

178 ange of experts from academia, industry, the nonprofit sector, and the U.S. government discussed oppo

179 preclinical research by laboratories in the nonprofit sector, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline are developi

180 from academia, industry, government, and the nonprofit sector.

181 ganizations in the academic, government, and nonprofit sectors.

182 ecruited using the database of an accredited nonprofit service dog organization with constituents thr

183 109 030 patients (7.4%) received care at 435 nonprofit small chain facilities; 78 287 (5.3%) at 324 n

184 facility ownership, which was categorized as nonprofit small chains, nonprofit independent facilities

185 However, nonprofit SNHs were significantly less likely to offer a

186 arged by commercial publishers with those of nonprofit societies and to examine the types of price di

187 unded by industry, 19 (18.4%) were funded by nonprofit sources, 6 (5.8%) had mixed funding, and fundi

188 maceutical company-sponsored (6/20 [30%]) vs nonprofit-sponsored (3/24 [13%]) studies (P = .26).

189 pany-sponsored studies were less likely than nonprofit-sponsored studies to report unfavorable qualit

190 ties, partnering with other patient advocacy nonprofit stakeholders, and engaging with local, state,

191 ownership categories according to for-profit/nonprofit status and ownership (chain versus independent

192 ue-based care, teaching hospital status, and nonprofit status were the characteristics most consisten

193 associated with successful outcomes included nonprofit-supported patient recruitment into trials (Gin

194 Academic and large nonprofit systems accounted for a majority of system phy

195 In collaboration with a nonprofit, this study implements a direct mail field exp

196 d fundraising costs, limiting the ability of nonprofits to be effective.

197 nt for substance use disorders at a private, nonprofit treatment facility were randomized to MBRP, RP

198 volving 3 residential programs operated by 1 nonprofit treatment organization in the Midwestern Unite

199 mortality risk was noted in hospital-based, nonprofit units practicing formaldehyde automatic reuse,

200 003) compared with no-reuse, hospital-based, nonprofit units.

201 pend more per employee than large firms, and nonprofit universities are major producers.

202 IT license and is available for academic and nonprofit use for free.

203 IT license and is available for academic and nonprofit use for free.

204 Facilities with nongovernment, nonprofit (vs for-profit: OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-10.8; P =