ライフサイエンスコーパス: reply

1 kelihood of producing or withholding a vocal reply.

2 We address these issues in this reply.

3 ere authors of the original Research Article reply.

4 Forty-nine of fifty experienced surgeons replied.

5 usly to a four-page questionnaire, 156 (84%) replied.

6 ng simple answers, and expressing volitional replies.

7 settings, permitting one-word or open-length replies.

8 ion as a percentage of total patient message replies.

9 egulates the input-dependent timing of vocal replies.

10 esty in the tweets align with those in their replies.

11 Thirty-four replies, 17 for each version (response rate, 28%), were

12 these subjects who were alive in 1998; 1,031 replies (68%) were received.

13 vey to the 526 past fellows and received 365 replies (69% response rate, 49% overall).

14 CD patients were approached with 29 sending replies (71%).

15 Of all replies, 74% of United States respondents and 64% of non

16 Of schools that replied, 75 (64%) reported offering elective courses in

17 There was no change in reply action time, write time, or read time between the

18 In synthesising these discussions, this reply addresses all four points of demurral in turn, and

19 This reply addresses that letter and suggests that more work

20 find that the conceptions of honesty used in replies align with those of the tweets, suggesting a "co

21 ges, (2) replying to messages, (3) length of replies, and (4) physician likelihood to recommend GenAI

22 f 46.1% in reposts, 44.1% in likes, 21.9% in replies, and 13.5% in views after being attached.

23 fewer reposts, 13.3% fewer likes, 6.9% fewer replies, and 5.5% fewer views on average.

24 is, and the amount of response time before a reply answer was sent.

25 The author of this reply argues that A. Weller and L. Weller merely defined

26 ansplant recipients were selected on a first reply basis for testing.

27 The reply concludes by clarifying and admitting some limits

28 Access to GenAI-drafted replies for patient messages.

29 ry 8, 2020, 1609 received the email, and 652 replied, for a response rate of 41%.

30 We received replies from 119 of 156 eligible trusts (76.3%) in Engla

31 We reply here to these criticisms and provide some addition

32 In my reply, I discuss these considerations and further my acc

33 % to 6.2%; P = .33), and a 17.9% increase in reply length (95% CI, 10.1% to 26.2%; P < .001).

34 hange in reply time, significantly increased reply length, and some perceived benefits.

35 xperiments revealed that hyrax males tend to reply more to songs with a climactic ending, indicating

36 There was a wide range of those who replied "not applicable" to the question of agreement be

37 The replies of 507 Iraqis, consisting of 326 males and 181 f

38 d sophisticated adaptive immune systems that reply on CRISPR loci and a diverse cassette of Cas genes

39 Most approaches, however, reply on optimal starting DNA, and are therefore unsuita

40 matic for development of disease models that reply on post-natal individuals.

41 ex cases were contacted by mail and asked to reply only if another family member also had undergone t

42 e effectively than hate speech users through replies, reposts, and mentions.

43 ta that inform about the natural world; this Reply responds to a Formal Comment that queried whether

44 In their reply, Sylvia Evans and colleagues argue that their line

45 Only about one-third of respondents replied that dissociative amnesia and dissociative ident

46 One hundred thirty (86.1%) respondents replied that infiltrate implied more than one pathophysi

47 reservations in DSM-IV; a larger proportion replied that these categories should be included only as

48 t respondents (32 of 55 respondents [58.2%]) replied that they order genetic testing on 5 to 50 patie

49 Most significantly, we reply that construction and emergence are necessary for,

50 We reply that other evidence suggests blindsighters' predic

51 5.2% to 41.0%; P = .008), a -5.9% change in reply time (95% CI, -16.6% to 6.2%; P = .33), and a 17.9

52 nificantly increased read time, no change in reply time, significantly increased reply length, and so

53 Participants reported parental myopia and replied to a set of questions, separately for schooldays

54 o completed the baseline survey, 799 (53.8%) replied to the disability questions.

55 original sender; requires that the recipient replied to the original message; and diminishes after a

56 We used predictors from the respondents who replied to the Wave-1 survey in 2006 and their turnover

57 t replies to themselves, or A and B are best replies to each other, the conditional fixation times of

58 Replies to messages identified patient refusal as the mo

59 Draft replies to patient portal messages generated by a Health

60 the scientific community is asking for rapid replies to prevent and combat the emergency.

61 s of whether A dominates B, A and B are best replies to themselves, or A and B are best replies to ea

62 role in mounting an inflammatory response in reply to a harmful stimulus that compromises the homeost

63 between neighbors (song sparrows address or reply to a neighbor with a song they share with that nei

64 obulin protein) modulates protein folding in reply to cellular insults that lead to endoplasmic retic

65 In this reply to commentators, we address key issues, including:

66 In our response, we reply to comments made by the authors regarding the anim

67 ect of identity cues on how viewers vote and reply to content.

68 This correspondence is a reply to Galectin-3, Cardiac Function, and Fibrosis by W

69 In reply to internal or external danger stimuli, the body o

70 search on infants and provide a long-awaited reply to key philosophical and practical questions about

71 In their reply to our Viewpoint, Schmitt and colleagues raise imp

72 In this reply to reviewers, I argue that, although reforming the

73 This Correspondence is a Reply to Significant Errors and Misdirection in Class IV

74 l dataset of hawkmoth hearing and ultrasonic reply to sonar attack using high-throughput field assays

75 ment due to its responsibility in the body's reply to stress.

76 We are writing to reply to the comment by Pouwels et al., 2019 about our r

77 We reply to the comment by S. Pan and G. Frenking who chall

78 Suggitt et al. reply to the concerns raised by Le Roux et al. on their

79 In this response, we reply to these concerns, discuss why the technical-reaso

80 Our reply to Zhou and colleagues forms part of a larger deba

81 bal level, such as tweeting, re-tweeting and replying to existing tweets.

82 Time spent (1) reading messages, (2) replying to messages, (3) length of replies, and (4) phy

83 d with less physician time spent reading and replying to messages.

84 es that require dialogue understanding (e.g. replying to post threads).

85 ied genes including non-coding lncRNAs, (ii) replying to requests for information about genes, (iii)

86 er, mothers did not produce contact barks in reply unless they themselves were at risk of becoming se

87 eptions of honesty of a sample of tweets and replies using computational text processing, and check w

88 The primary outcome was AI-generated draft reply utilization as a percentage of total patient messa

89 In their reply, Vezys et al. mention that we may have misinterpre

90 In this reply, we review and address these challenges and propos

91 In this QI study, GenAI-drafted replies were associated with significantly increased rea

92 A total of 674 replies were obtained from physicians, and 547 physician

93 Replies were received from 117 (94%) of the 125 US medic

94 A total of 417 replies were received from physicians, including 47 resp

95 47%]; chi2 = 20.64; P < .001), and those who replied Y were more likely to get vaccinated compared wi

96 Participants with serious illness replied yes to (1) having a diagnosis from a list of med

97 Both messages included the option to reply yes (Y) or no (N) to indicate that the patient wan

98 eligible pediatric oncologists surveyed, 632 replied, yielding a response rate of 67%.