ライフサイエンスコーパス: peer group

1 a social challenge (entry into an unfamiliar peer group).

2 ited significant social avoidance of a novel peer group.

3 e beyond that experienced by their healthier peer group.

4 sisted after 6 months of social housing in a peer-group.

5 misconduct that results when officers switch peer groups.

6 anced support consisted of case managers and peer groups.

7 y males' preference to affiliate with larger peer groups.

8 pared with application of the method without peer grouping.

9 aining comparable accuracy to the human user peer group across different levels of question difficult

10 key circuit for the regulation of mammalian peer group affiliation.

11 f excellence attained by top performers in a peer group and are easily and reproducibly calculated fr

12 nsaction data, we construct 32,008 workplace peer groups and explore the longitudinal spending and sa

13 tate belonging and status within anti-school peer groups and symbolise alternative transitions to adu

14 fficacy was supported through primary use of peer group, and goal setting components supported the ex

15 e salary, salary rank within their workplace peer group, and the inequality of their workplace salary

16 nd the close association between the current peer grouping approach and stakeholder needs for peer-co

17 Subjects were randomized 1:1 to a peer group-based intervention group (IG) or a self-manag

18 for Medicare & Medicaid Services uses a new peer group-based payment system to compare hospital perf

19 (Peer-Group-Based Intervention Program [Fifty-Fifty]; NCT

20 twork involving key informants and caregiver peer groups (called mPower or mothers' power), (2) subdi

21 el and varied uses of objects, in predicting peer group centrality.

22 uses and only the latter category predicted peer group centrality.

23 Self-reported peer-group deviance at ages 8 to 11, 12 to 14, 15 to 17,

24 y genetic and environmental contributions to peer-group deviance in twins from midchildhood through e

25 Mean and variance of peer-group deviance increased substantially with age.

26 When standardized, the heritability of peer-group deviance is approximately 30% at ages 8 to 11

27 Peer-group deviance is strongly associated with external

28 ver, while the correlation between childhood peer-group deviance levels and the subsequent slope of p

29 ividual-specific environmental influences on peer-group deviance levels were stable in the first 3 ag

30 deviance levels and the subsequent slope of peer-group deviance over time resulting from genetic fac

31 Genetic effects on peer-group deviance showed a strong and steady increase

32 Understanding the risk factors for peer-group deviance will help clarify the etiology of a

33 fferences in the developmental trajectory of peer-group deviance.

34 of the sources of individual differences in peer-group deviance.

35 duction Program, stratifies hospitals into 5 peer groups for evaluation based on the proportion of th

36 this cross-sectional study, inclusion of the peer grouping in the CMS star rating method resulted in

37 ng the metagenomic context but also when the peer group includes all grade-mates and thus in cases wh

38 This is true not only when the peer group includes direct friends, and therefore where

39 The peer group intervention had beneficial effects on cardio

40 nability of the improvements associated with peer group intervention.

41 ates and peers (monogamous prairie voles) or peers (group-living meadow voles).

42 or identical star rating with the use of the peer grouping step compared with its nonuse, stratified

43 The presence of the peer grouping step resulted in 585 hospitals (19.0%) bei

44 Collectively, the presence of the peer grouping step supports a like-to-like comparison am

45 assigned a different star rating than if the peer grouping step was absent, including considerably mo

46 der curiosity surrounding the inclusion of a peer grouping step, implemented to the 2021 Overall Star

47 This study assessed the hypothesis that a peer group strategy would help improve healthy behaviors

48 es of income interact with inequality within peer groups to affect status signaling.

49 s to estimate the effect of being assigned a peer group with a high proportion of parents who believe