ライフサイエンスコーパス: nonsmoker

1 57.5 +/- 8.9 yr; 37.5% male; 12 smokers; 12 nonsmokers).

2 mula: see text] smokers; [Formula: see text] nonsmokers).

3 She was a nonsmoker.

4 hol intake, healthy diet, physically active, nonsmoker.

5 4 years), long-term quitter (>4 years), and nonsmoker.

6 in nondiseased human lungs from smokers and nonsmokers.

7 dings were consistent among both smokers and nonsmokers.

8 smokers, but did not increase risk of HCC in nonsmokers.

9 y, approximately 1% for smokers and 0.3% for nonsmokers.

10 of 2.47 (95% CI, 1.24 to 4.92) compared with nonsmokers.

11 reduced granzyme B expression only in HIV(+) nonsmokers.

12 ronic airflow obstruction but is composed of nonsmokers.

13 els on average up to eight times higher than nonsmokers.

14 and no confounding medication use, and were nonsmokers.

15 he extent of chlorination at alpha-Tyr-24 in nonsmokers.

16 ficantly lower for smokers compared with the nonsmokers.

17 -Met-32 significantly in all subjects and in nonsmokers.

18 d lower lung CYP2A mRNA levels compared with nonsmokers.

19 8(+) T lymphocytes in patients with COPD and nonsmokers.

20 rom smoking mothers compared with those from nonsmokers.

21 up; n = 42), each stratified for smokers and nonsmokers.

22 of HIV-infected and -uninfected smokers and nonsmokers.

23 ker and less fatigue resistant than those of nonsmokers.

24 o of in-hospital mortality in smokers versus nonsmokers.

25 sive smoke exposure increased the risk among nonsmokers.

26 All participants were otherwise healthy and nonsmokers.

27 and 18.8% met combined ABC targets and were nonsmokers.

28 e is much stronger in smokers as compared to nonsmokers.

29 flow variability between active smokers and nonsmokers.

30 The study did not allow for evaluation of nonsmokers.

31 tal tracers, and estimated health impacts to nonsmokers.

32 r premature responding versus ex-smokers and nonsmokers.

33 group differences between adult smokers and nonsmokers.

34 er quality-adjusted life-year, especially in nonsmokers.

35 itude % mean (10.0% vs. 6.4%; P = 0.02) than nonsmokers.

36 ate myocardial layers in healthy smokers and nonsmokers.

37 scular risk factors in smokers compared with nonsmokers.

38 a associated with long-term weight change in nonsmokers.

39 ted in the microbiome of healthy smokers and nonsmokers.

40 night-shift work among smokers but not among nonsmokers.

41 hich predicted poor prognosis, compared with nonsmokers.

42 ,847 patients with COPD, 298 smokers and 204 nonsmokers.

43 bestos increases lung cancer mortality among nonsmokers.

44 %) had a history of smoking; 239 donors were nonsmokers.

45 100 person-examinations (95% CI, 2.0-3.0) in nonsmokers.

46 ularly in populations that include women and nonsmokers.

47 wal, as similar effects were not detected in nonsmokers.

48 ith weight change at the 1-y follow-up in 16 nonsmokers.

49 in regions associated with weight changes in nonsmokers.

50 n units and lower rates of HPR compared with nonsmokers.

51 d smoker cohort compared with HIV-uninfected nonsmokers.

52 s old as their chronological age compared to nonsmokers.

53 er and had fewer comorbidities compared with nonsmokers.

54 in both vapers' and smokers' BAL relative to nonsmokers.

55 have increased pregnancy losses compared to nonsmokers.

56 imilar rates of adverse events compared with nonsmokers.

57 compared between male and female smokers and nonsmokers.

58 ese associations were present in smokers and nonsmokers.

59 ignificantly increased fertility compared to nonsmokers.

60 nary interventions among current smokers and nonsmokers.

61 tly impacted endothelial function in healthy nonsmokers.

62 extent of MVO different between smokers and nonsmokers.

63 e-induced cortical DA release in smokers and nonsmokers.

64 n the COPDGene Study, including 103 lifetime nonsmokers.

65 connectivity strength among smokers but not nonsmokers.

66 of 1.76 (95% CI, 1.23 to 2.51) compared with nonsmokers.

67 resonance imaging data in 66 smokers and 92 nonsmokers.

68 entrations of serum endotoxin than asthmatic nonsmokers (0.25 EU/mL [IQR, 0.09-0.39 EU/mL] vs 0.08 EU

69 dence interval [CI] 0.44-0.71; p < 0.001) in nonsmokers, 0.73 (95% CI 0.61-0.88; p < 0.001) for moder

70 .04]) but reversed during adenosine stress (nonsmokers, 0.89 [P = .03]; smokers, 0.92 [P = .42]).

71 dial-to-epicardial gradient existed at rest (nonsmokers, 1.10 [P = .002]; smokers, 1.30 [P = .01]) an

72 P = .002]; smokers, 1.30 [P = .01]) and CPT (nonsmokers, 1.19 [P < .001] smokers, 1.28 [P = .04]) but

73 men; mean [SD] age, 35.8 [9.9] years) and 20 nonsmokers (10 women and 10 men; mean [SD] age, 30.4 [7.

74 in 18 daily smokers (7 women, 11 men) and 19 nonsmokers (10 women, 9 men).

75 Twenty-nine healthy volunteers (19 nonsmokers, 10 smokers; mean age +/- standard deviation,

76 Compared with 14 nonsmokers, 14 ex-smokers had global reductions in the a

77 mokers (reference group), 92 (12.5%) passive nonsmokers, 157 (21.3%) ex-smokers without environmental

78 Methods: We used PET/CT in 46 smokers and nonsmokers, 23 of whom had documented HIV infection.

79 8) and ex-smokers (28.2%, P = 0.022) than in nonsmokers (38.5%).

80 : 11.0, 64.4; P = .006), smoking (smokers vs nonsmokers, 45.2 mm(3); 95% CI: 7.1, 83.4; P = .020), an

81 mula: see text] smokers; [Formula: see text] nonsmokers; 450K: [Formula: see text] smokers; [Formula:

82 y-dense food, were measured in a group of 27 nonsmokers (5 men).

83 -year survival than recipients of lungs from nonsmokers (65.8% vs. 48.3%, P<0.05), but recipients of

84 r volume retention at 9 months compared with nonsmokers (74.4% vs 56.2%, P = 0.009).

85 b) was significantly higher among smokers vs nonsmokers (8.7 [IQR, 4.4-14.8] vs 2.6 [IQR, 1.7-5.2]; P

86 data from 51,080 current smokers and 190,178 nonsmokers (87% European descent) to identify loci influ

87 Infarct size was similar in smokers and nonsmokers (adjusted difference: 0.0%; 95% confidence in

88 surrogate markers of endothelial function in nonsmokers after inhalation of aerosol from nicotine-fre

89 re "normalized" in smokers (and increased in nonsmokers) after acute nicotine administration.

90 ed in the smoker AgP group compared with the nonsmoker AgP group, in the CP group, phospholipid, prot

91 ce (ALI) cultures derived from primary human nonsmoker airway basal stem cells (ABSCs) to short term

92 restricting the population to term births to nonsmokers, along with other restrictions, to isolate th

93 had a comparable risk of preterm birth with nonsmokers, although this was not the case when cessatio

94 Nonsmokers' AM generated significantly more tumor necros

95 Both smokers' and nonsmokers' AM induced FoxP3(+) T regulatory cell phenot

96 A healthy lifestyle was defined as being a nonsmoker and physically active (>/=150 min/wk), and hav

97 Compared with both nonsmoker and smoker control subjects, during long-term

98 PGE2 receptors EP2 and EP4 as compared with nonsmoker and smoker control subjects.

99 with relative VOC levels was up to 99.8% for nonsmokers and 100.0% for smokers.

100 s of human lung CYP2A mRNA in smokers versus nonsmokers and 2) the impact of daily nicotine treatment

101 [(18)F]fluoro-L-DOPA (FDOPA)-PET scans in 15 nonsmokers and 30 nicotine-dependent smokers, who either

102 chial epithelial cells isolated from healthy nonsmokers and COPD donors and in monocyte-derived macro

103 Baseline striatal D2R did not differ between nonsmokers and ex-smokers.

104 higher aggression scores compared with both nonsmokers and ex-smokers.

105 availability (binding potential, BPND) than nonsmokers and exhibit greater smoking-induced striatal

106 h BPND in the caudate nucleus and putamen in nonsmokers and female smokers but not in male smokers an

107 Prevalence of chronic rhinitis was lowest in nonsmokers and highest in very heavy smokers (18.5% vs 3

108 Nonsmokers and patients with a higher baseline lung tumo

109 hy smokers were intermediate between healthy nonsmokers and patients with COPD.

110 rs (control), non-pregnant smokers, pregnant nonsmokers and pregnant smokers and sequenced using 16S-

111 ward responsiveness relative to both control nonsmokers and rMDD smokers; conversely, smokers with rM

112 ividuals split evenly between HIV-uninfected nonsmokers and smokers and untreated HIV-infected nonsmo

113 These findings suggest that nonsmokers and smokers have comparable TSPO levels in th

114 Mouth communities differed between nonsmokers and smokers in species such as Porphyromonas,

115 a (LAE), and small airway epithelia (SAE) of nonsmokers and smokers were analyzed for expression of A

116 Macrophages from nonsmokers and smokers were CD163(+), CD206(+), CD14(+),

117 nsive to budesonide compared with those from nonsmokers and smokers when stimulated with LPS.

118 Participants were nonsmokers and smokers without significant comorbidities

119 decade for U.S. children, teens, and adults (nonsmokers and smokers) and, if so, factors influencing

120 The mouth microbiome differs in nonsmokers and smokers, but lung communities were not si

121 hich were 0.67 and 0.65 for SNR case-matched nonsmokers and smokers, respectively.

122 nome-wide methylation analysis of SAE DNA of nonsmokers and smokers, the data identified 204 unique g

123 okers and smokers and untreated HIV-infected nonsmokers and smokers.

124 , smokers have lower D(2)R availability than nonsmokers and that female vs. male smokers have a blunt

125 mortality in SAP patients was stronger among nonsmokers and those with lower plasma concentration of

126 rapy may outweigh the benefits, yet for most nonsmokers (and ex-smokers), the benefits of radiotherap

127 se), participant characteristics (smokers or nonsmokers), and drug manipulation employed (pharmacolog

128 for the effect of obesity on mortality among nonsmokers, and 1.97 (95% CI: 1.73, 2.22) for the joint

129 y diet, 66% were physically active, 95% were nonsmokers, and 55% had low stress.

130 The group with improved eGFR had more women, nonsmokers, and a lower cardiac index.

131 althy subjects, inducing 322 smokers and 306 nonsmokers, and genotyped them the BDNF Val66Met polymor

132 ND-E/I ratio was greater in smokers than in nonsmokers, and it progressively increased from mild to

133 with body mass index 22 to 40, disease-free, nonsmokers, and nonusers of exogenous hormones.

134 ted primary ATII cells from control smokers, nonsmokers, and patients with emphysema to determine DNA

135 tions were similar in analyses restricted to nonsmokers, and present for both Alzheimer's disease-rel

136 tory: nonsusceptible nonsmokers, susceptible nonsmokers, and smokers.

137 onal criteria together with healthy smokers, nonsmokers, and subjects with moderate chronic obstructi

138 e-wide DNA methylation changes compared with nonsmokers, and whether changes in SAE DNA methylation w

139 or long-term continuing smokers and 0.3% for nonsmokers; and cardiac mortality, approximately 1% for

140 5% CI, 1.2-58.6) and to susceptibility among nonsmokers (AOR, 8.5; 95% CI, 1.3-57.2).

141 differences that this approach reveals among nonsmokers, asymptomatic smokers, and patients with chro

142 3 subjects were separated into three groups: nonsmokers, asymptomatic smokers, and symptomatic smoker

143 86) among smokers but no mediated effect for nonsmokers (beta = -38 g; 95% CI: -88, 9).

144 thickness of the insula in 18 smokers and 24 nonsmokers between the ages of 16 and 21 years.

145 R availability (BP(ND) = 0.77 +/- 0.05) than nonsmokers (BP(ND) = 0.92 +/- 0.04), p = 0.016, driven b

146 urned to control levels in alcohol-dependent nonsmokers, but alcohol-dependent smokers had significan

147 smokers release less IL-17C than cells from nonsmokers, but cells from COPD patients release signifi

148 easured as SUV) for tobacco smokers than for nonsmokers by demonstrating the importance of accounting

149 In nonsmokers, by contrast, the shift from health to mucosi

150 ower striatal D2R availability compared with nonsmokers (caudate, putamen, and ventral striatum) and

151 antly higher in asymptomatic smokers than in nonsmokers (change in the standard deviation of Pao2 = 7

152 performed research bronchoscopies on healthy nonsmokers, cigarette smokers, and e-cigarette users (va

153 urrent smoking and for passive smoking among nonsmokers compared with a reference category of never a

154 e likely to be older, female, sedentary, and nonsmokers compared with those without SMI.

155 Nicotine-dependent smokers and nonsmokers completed a probabilistic reversal learning t

156 alized basal cell lines derived from healthy nonsmokers.Conclusions: ACE2, the gene encoding the rece

157 ter in the lungs of cigarette smokers versus nonsmokers.Conclusions: The precise locations occupied b

158 from patients with COPD and from smoker and nonsmoker control subjects.

159 cally and periodontally healthy non-pregnant nonsmokers (control), non-pregnant smokers, pregnant non

160 and nucleic acid content were found between nonsmoker CP and AgP groups.

161 Based on these variations, nonsmoker CP and AgP patients were discriminated from ea

162 (ND) = 14.0 +/- 4.3%), p < 0.005, and female nonsmokers (%DeltaBP(ND) = 9.3 +/- 3.3%), p < 0.005.

163 groups, however, pregnant women (smokers and nonsmokers) demonstrated higher levels of gram-positive

164 measurements above the LOD, with smoker and nonsmoker DNA containing 3.1 and 1.3 BPDE-N(2)-dG adduct

165 tively, for 10-19 and >=20 pack-years versus nonsmokers) during follow-up.

166 art of an ongoing study of smoking involving nonsmokers, exclusive users of e-cigarettes or vaping pr

167 ajor randomized trial data demonstrated that nonsmokers experience less or no benefit from clopidogre

168 the major locations outside of the home for nonsmokers' exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS).

169 e but not male smokers than in corresponding nonsmokers (F1, 32=5.089, p=0.03).

170 decreased reward sensitivity in smokers (vs nonsmokers; familywise error-corrected P < .05) in the d

171 obtained 10 minutes apart in 25 subjects: 10 nonsmokers (five men, five women; mean +/- standard devi

172 stinent smokers was restored to the level of nonsmokers following stimulation of nicotinic acetylchol

173 related to reduced lung function in current nonsmokers (forced expiratory flow midexpiratory phase [

174 mula: see text] smokers; [Formula: see text] nonsmokers), four replicated ([Formula: see text]).

175 Smokers versus nonsmokers (from GSE30063 and GSE108134) had lower (1.04

176 % methylation difference between placebo and nonsmoker groups were restored (by at least 50%) toward

177 A subgroup of pregnant smokers and nonsmokers had genotyping performed.

178 ers with more than 20 pack-years relative to nonsmokers had greater risk of persistence after adjusti

179 ailability relative to comparison group, and nonsmokers had lower beta2*-nAChR availability relative

180 As hypothesized, rMDD nonsmokers had lower reward responsiveness relative to b

181 oagulable state could be elicited (she was a nonsmoker, had undergone uncomplicated normal vaginal de

182 risk taking, and impulsivity in smokers and nonsmokers have not been investigated.

183 , nontransplanted lungs or from brushings of nonsmokers, healthy smokers, or COPD patients were expos

184 r in-hospital mortality among smokers versus nonsmokers hospitalized for these events.

185 rates of adverse events for both smokers and nonsmokers; however, there was evidence of interaction b

186 d over a period of ~45 h in 56 residences of nonsmokers in Copenhagen, Denmark.

187 emale nonsmokers showed higher BEN than male nonsmokers in prefrontal cortex, insula, and precuneus,

188 Among the nonsmokers in the ABT-126 25 mg group (N=19), significan

189 used a case-cohort design of postmenopausal nonsmokers in the multiethnic Women's Health Initiative

190 with a variety of adverse health outcomes in nonsmokers, including emphysema (a chronic obstructive p

191 Our prior work with nonsmokers indicates that MT reduces posterior cingulate

192 distinctly divergent pathways in smokers and nonsmokers, indicating a need for personalized therapeut

193 levels were reduced in smokers compared with nonsmokers (interferon-gamma-positive rate, 14.9% versus

194 els successfully differentiated smokers from nonsmokers, irrespective of periodontal status, with 100

195 Compared with nonsmokers, K was 15% to 20% lower in the caudate nuclei

196 roups were restored (by at least 50%) toward nonsmoker levels with vitamin C treatment.

197 Compared with controls, nonsmokers living with HIV had a significantly greater C

198 Conclusion: In nonsmokers living with well-controlled HIV and minimal r

199 s cotinine levels, we classified patients as nonsmokers (< 3.1 ng/mL), light smokers (3.1-20.9 ng/mL)

200 e combined and applied to current smoker and nonsmoker lung cancer and cardiac mortality rates in pop

201 antiplatelet response in clopidogrel-treated nonsmokers may provide an explanation for the smokers' p

202 cational attainment, higher income level, be nonsmokers, more physically active, and diabetic compare

203 (n = 15) and uninfected smokers (n = 7) and nonsmokers (n = 10).

204 ter in HCs than SCZ smokers (n = 11) and SCZ nonsmokers (n = 14).

205 atic ART-treated HIV(+) smokers (n = 11) and nonsmokers (n = 15) and uninfected smokers (n = 7) and n

206 Alveolar macrophages, obtained from nonsmokers (n = 20), COPD ex-smokers (n = 32), and COPD

207 COPD (n = 32), smokers (n = 7), and healthy nonsmokers (n = 25).

208 In young to middle-aged (predominately male) nonsmokers (n = 30) and smokers (n = 35), N-acetylaspart

209 led, crossover study of objectively assessed nonsmokers (n = 56) and smokers (n = 54) with stable cor

210 Participants were young adult nonsmokers (n = 61 ADHD, n = 75 Control) between the age

211 A from lung tissue samples was obtained from nonsmokers (n = 8); smokers without COPD (n = 8); patien

212 i, lateral geniculate body, and thalamus for nonsmokers (n = 9) but were less than 1 in the nAChR-poo

213 from baseline to final MCCB composite score: nonsmokers (N=69) demonstrated a difference from placebo

214 (1940s to 1980s) and three smoking history (nonsmokers, never-dependent smokers and ever-dependent s

215 king (9.4%, vs. 5.6% among former smokers or nonsmokers; odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.47).

216 Smokers scored lower than the nonsmokers on RBANS total score (p = 0.002), immediate m

217 gical status (RBANS), and 103 smokers and 89 nonsmokers on serum BDNF levels.

218 Ten smokers were matched with the 10 nonsmokers on the basis of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).

219 Of these, we assessed 114 smokers and 98 nonsmokers on the repeatable battery for the assessment

220 nce of smoking status (smokers compared with nonsmokers) on the brain response to food in regions ass

221 ly performed in nine subjects: three healthy nonsmokers (one man, two women; mean age, 45 years +/- 4

222 hree separate models were generated: one for nonsmokers, one for the SNR-matched smokers, and one for

223 i in chronic cigarette smokers compared with nonsmokers, only a few studies assessed brain spontaneou

224 ificantly more AM from smokers compared with nonsmokers or ex-smokers (P < 0.01).

225 youth, if they increase the likelihood that nonsmokers or former smokers will use combustible tobacc

226 gnificantly more IL-17C compared with either nonsmokers or healthy smokers.

227 effects may be influenced by smoking status (nonsmokers OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.26-1.22 vs current smoker

228 ronounced among women who were younger, were nonsmokers, or had optimal weight.

229 < 0.001), and regular smoking (-0.27 mum vs. nonsmokers; P = 0.02).

230 Thirteen healthy and 13 MDD nonsmokers participated in two [(11)C]ABP688 positron em

231 ers (12 females) and 25 sex- and age-matched nonsmokers) participated in two same-day [(11)C]FLB457 p

232 2 periodontitis groups as well as smoker and nonsmoker patients could be differentiated from each oth

233 A subset of subjects (n = 23/20; smokers/nonsmokers) performed the monetary incentive delay task,

234 In both smokers and nonsmokers, peri-implant mucositis appears to be a pivot

235 Ptrend < 0.001), with no association seen in nonsmokers (Pinteraction = 0.03).

236 Patients who were female, elderly, nonsmokers, poorly educated, with low income, and those

237 s increased by asbestos exposure alone among nonsmokers (rate ratio = 3.6 [95% confidence interval (C

238 nterval (CI), 1.7-7.6]), by asbestosis among nonsmokers (rate ratio = 7.40 [95% CI, 4.0-13.7]), and b

239 to live with another smoker (compared with a nonsmoker (referent)) increased the odds of smoking (OR

240 at smokers exhibited higher aging rates than nonsmokers, regardless of their cholesterol ratios and f

241 te exposure and PD effects of clopidogrel in nonsmokers relative to smokers.

242 Nonsmokers responded to CPT with a 47% increase in MBF (

243 operative morbidity was increased in passive nonsmokers (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.04-2.21) and passive ex-

244 group of age-, sex- and body weight-matched nonsmokers selected from the pool of nonsmokers who part

245 ory analyses indicated that both smokers and nonsmokers showed activity decreases in the vmPFC and PC

246 Female nonsmokers showed higher BEN than male nonsmokers in pre

247 stratum of current smokers, but not that of nonsmokers, showed significant improvement versus placeb

248 Compared with nonsmokers, smokers had a greater response to milk shake

249 Five-year persistence-free survival rates in nonsmokers, smokers of 1-20 pack-years, and smokers of m

250 ns were isolated from human lung tissue from nonsmokers, smokers, and patients with COPD by using Per

251 lls isolated from bronchoscopic brushings of nonsmokers, smokers, and smokers with chronic obstructiv

252 ed comparing STEMI rates between smokers and nonsmokers stratified by sex and 3 age groups (18 to 49,

253 nd then each group divided in two smoker and nonsmoker subgroups according to smoke exposing in the l

254 At baseline, compared with nonsmokers, subjects with COPD and smokers had increased

255 astatic prostate cancer more frequently than nonsmokers, suggesting that a tobacco-derived factor is

256 ic states along a trajectory: nonsusceptible nonsmokers, susceptible nonsmokers, and smokers.

257 and platelet reactivity index were higher in nonsmokers than in smokers (p = 0.043, p = 0.005, and p

258 rs were more likely to be older, leaner, and nonsmokers than nonretainers/nonengagers.

259 platelet aggregation (IPA) trended lower in nonsmokers than smokers (least squares mean treatment di

260 okers and 78.4 years (95% CI, 70.8-84.0) for nonsmokers; the numbers of life-years lost in associatio

261 42-2.99]) and declined to a level similar to nonsmokers thereafter.

262 e more likely to smoke than the offspring of nonsmokers, this sets the stage for more severe asthma i

263 rmation on current trends in the exposure of nonsmokers to SHS across various occupational groups is

264 posure was number of optimized risk factors: nonsmoker, total cholesterol <=4 mmol/L, triglycerides <

265 spective study (from May to September 2018), nonsmokers underwent 3.0-T MRI before and after inhaling

266 esign, 24 overnight-abstinent smokers and 20 nonsmokers underwent approximately 17 days of vareniclin

267 smokers (abstinent for at least 2 h) and 20 nonsmokers using a fully quantitative modeling approach

268 ipe-only smokers in comparison with lifelong nonsmokers using clinical parameters of cough and sputum

269 patients and with passive smoking in 41% of nonsmokers (vs 20% and 40% in general population, respec

270 ss MR per 1000 person-years among current vs nonsmokers was 17.6 (95% CI, 13.3-21.9) for HIV patients

271 Compared with nonsmokers, waterpipe smokers had more cough and sputum

272 P2A7 (and CYP1A2) mRNA levels in smokers and nonsmokers were assessed in Gene Expression Omnibus data

273 the present study, 55 smokers and 49 healthy nonsmokers were included.

274 er placement of a nicotine or placebo patch; nonsmokers were scanned twice without nicotine manipulat

275 placebo treated) and 76 newborns of pregnant nonsmokers were studied with newborn PFTs.

276 s without pulmonary disease (6 smokers and 6 nonsmokers) were evaluated using design-based stereology

277 y-2 (AHSMOG-2), a cohort of health conscious nonsmokers where 81% have never smoked.

278 ime intensity-years of passive smoking among nonsmokers, whereas it decreased with greater alcohol co

279 s old as their chronological age compared to nonsmokers, whereas male smokers were predicted to be on

280 nd temporal variability in Pao2 than did the nonsmokers, which suggests that this parameter allows de

281 ut the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in nonsmokers who are exposed to environmental tobacco smok

282 large airways and bronchopulmonary LNs of 11 nonsmokers who died from an asthma exacerbation (fatal a

283 matched nonsmokers selected from the pool of nonsmokers who participated in study 1.

284 with COPD, 24 ever-smokers without COPD, 32 nonsmokers who underwent a renal biopsy or nephrectomy,

285 of 8 current smokers, 10 ex-smokers, and 18 nonsmokers who were scanned with positron emission tomog

286 volumes of distribution between smokers and nonsmokers (whole-brain Cohen d = 0.09) despite adequate

287 dy for up to 235 hr per participant among 50 nonsmokers with coronary artery disease who were >/= 71

288 Selected patients, nonsmokers with less advanced nodal stage, may be overtr

289 Compared with nonsmokers with no other healthy lifestyle factors (heal

290 with COPD and as controls 20 smokers and 11 nonsmokers with normal lung function.

291 dontal pathology in 120 systemically healthy nonsmokers with periodontitis, with available data on cl

292 Relative to nonsmokers with schizophrenia, smokers with schizophreni

293 scover adducts that distinguish smokers from nonsmokers with untargeted adductomics indicates that th

294 thylated in SAE DNA of smokers compared with nonsmokers, with 67% of the regions with differential me

295 s demonstrated less microbial diversity than nonsmokers, with differences in relative abundances of O

296 metalloproteinase 9 compared with cells from nonsmokers, with no difference between the remaining fra

297 mokers exhibited lower diversity compared to nonsmokers, with significant enrichment for disease-asso

298 pect to mortality.For healthier agers (i.e., nonsmokers without disease-associated weight loss), havi

299 zation screening in healthy adults (all were nonsmokers without major comorbidities or contact with c

300 ugment cognition among cigarette smokers and nonsmokers, yet the systems-level neurobiological mechan