ライフサイエンスコーパス: Hamilton

1 Hamilton Academy of Health Science Research Organization

2 Hamilton, an evolutionary biologist.

3 ition decreases inclusive fitness among kin, Hamilton and May predicted that the presence of nearby k

4 remission rates were 12.3% and 8.0% per the Hamilton and QIDS-SR(16) scores, respectively.

5 or Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale, Hamilton Anxiety and Depression Scale), and autonomic fu

6 The Hamilton Anxiety Rating scale (HAM-A) and Visual Analog

7 ton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A).

8 milton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) 17 and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) were recorded 10 da

9 enn State Worry Questionnaire but not on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale compared with escitalopram

10 (mainly generalized anxiety disorder) and a Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale score of 17 or higher were

11 was defined as a reduction exceeding 50% in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale scores.

12 was defined as exceeding a 50% reduction in Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale scores.

13 omery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale were performed to assess a

14 included interviewer-rated anxiety severity (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale) and self-reported worry s

15 amilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, and the Beck Depression I

16 Secondary outcomes included anxiety ratings (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Beck Anxiety Inventory),

17 eated items, Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Screen for Child Anxiety

18 omery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale.

19 d using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression and Hamilton Anxiety Rating scales, and distribution volume

20 citalopram had greater improvements in total Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) scores at each week (P <

21 mery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA), Clinical Global Impressio

22 (defined as at least 50% improvement on the Hamilton Anxiety Scale) compared with placebo.

23 milton Depression Scale: r = -0.64, P = .02; Hamilton Anxiety Scale: r = -0.56, P = .046), suggesting

24 William Hamilton argued that even species inhabiting the farthes

25 The Hamilton Chapter of the Canadian Intensive Care Foundati

26 is a consequence of natural selection, W.D. Hamilton concluded that human postmenopausal longevity r

27 000 children and adolescents with asthma in Hamilton County (approximately 13 000 of whom are Medica

28 itis and pneumonia hospitalization rates for Hamilton County and for each of 222 in-county census tra

29 dolescents aged 2 to 17 years who resided in Hamilton County, had a diagnosis of asthma, and were Med

30 n <13 years of age with ARI and residence in Hamilton County, Ohio were enrolled from the inpatient a

31 icaid-insured pediatric patients residing in Hamilton County, Ohio.

32 large, urban academic pediatric hospital in Hamilton County, Ohio.

33 c, stand-alone pediatric facility located in Hamilton County, Ohio.

34 scale and 14 items from the clinician-rated Hamilton Depression (HAM-D) rating scale.

35 Mean Hamilton depression and anxiety scores were highest in A

36 ale, the tender point score, the 17-question Hamilton Depression Inventory (HAM-d), and the Beck Anxi

37 ssion was defined as a posttreatment 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale <10 and >/= 50% reducti

38 educed depressive symptoms by 2.6 pps on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (95% CI, -4.6 to -0.4 p

39 ion Inventory II (self-reported, P=0.03) and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (clinician-reported, P<

40 iologic Studies-Depression Scale and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (completed by raters bl

41 The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D 17-item version

42 ned as an exit score of <or=7 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) (primary outcom

43 masked interviewer-rated depression with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (Ham-D) and self-report

44 tcome measures were the score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and the proport

45 ividual pre- and posttreatment scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and/or Beck Dep

46 ore from baseline to endpoint on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) between the CP-

47 he primary outcome was change in the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score after the

48 eek placebo period, those subjects who had a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) score of 18 or

49 teria for a major depressive episode and had Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores >/=14 we

50 xed-effects models assessed group effects on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores over tim

51 unction erectile function domain and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) scores.

52 The 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) total score was

53 y/somatization factor score from the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) was 7 or higher

54 he primary outcome was change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), administered b

55 for severity of Illness and improvement, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and the Hamilt

56 acy outcome measure was score on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), and the second

57 function measure predicted the score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), but HAM-D scor

58 Outcome measures included the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), the Hamilton A

59 e end of 4 weeks of treatment on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), the Montgomery

60 ure was remission, assessed with the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), which was admi

61 Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

62 the response rates according to the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

63 an independent clinician, using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

64 ed as a score < or =7 at exit on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

65 tion of at least 50% in score on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

66 4th Edition (DSM-IV) MDD, a baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) score 15 and

67 the investigator-rated score of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17) was the main

68 Our primary outcome was difference in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) score using data

69 ose-related ketamine effect on scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD).

70 group showed a 13.6% decrease in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17) scores compar

71 specificity: 0.88; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) (sensitivity: 0.

72 Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) 17 and Hamilton

73 The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and Young Mania

74 The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) is widely used t

75 tion (plasma IL-6), and depressive symptoms (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score).

76 a placebo washout period, and they used the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS).

77 eline and weekly intervals using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) and Montgomer

78 utcome measure was the change in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) score (range,

79 ing a visual analog scale (VAS), the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17), and the Posi

80 imary endpoint was the change on the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-21) 24 hours afte

81 correlated significantly with scores on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (r = 0.82; P = 0.02).

82 5 years with treatment-resistant depression (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17-item score of >/=18

83 the 122 participants, 58 achieved remission (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score </=7 at w

84 cale [YMRS] total score < or =12 and 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D] score <or =8) a

85 sberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] or the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D]) and self-repor

86 current major depressive episode, a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS17] score of >/=16

87 Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Beck Depression Inv

88 depressive symptoms assessed on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and SERT binding as ima

89 ith a significant improvement in the 17-Item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Center for Epid

90 uropsychiatric status was assessed using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Neuropsychiatri

91 sing the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and the Structured Clin

92 patients remitted (50% reduction in 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and total score 10) wit

93 Severity was assessed with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at admission and at 6,

94 y test of efficacy was noninferiority on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 16.

95 ajor depressive disorder were rated with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale during two separate epi

96 k to predict treatment response (% change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale pre- to post-treatment)

97 The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale provided continuous sev

98 ctional connectivity and its relationship to Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ratings of depression s

99 ose with an illness duration >10 years and a Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score >/=21, the drug-p

100 2 (much or very much improved) plus a final Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score <or=8.

101 jor depressive disorder frequency (P = .02), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score (P = .02), and Po

102 is was conducted to predict reduction of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score by pretreatment g

103 c medication use, and had a baseline 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score of 16 or greater.

104 e of 79.6 years (SD=4.4) and a mean baseline Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score of 24.3 (SD=4.1)

105 sure was response, defined as improvement in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score of 50% or more ov

106 Remission, defined as a 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale score of 7 or less at b

107 The secondary outcome was modified 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score subtracting the s

108 cant prediction of relative reduction in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score.

109 ing Scale-Revised scores (youth population), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores (adult and geria

110 improvements in measures of depression (mean Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores 19.40 [SD 6.76]

111 ctive WBH group showed significantly reduced Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores across the 6-wee

112 t were used to predict per cent reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores after treatment.

113 ys, and quality-adjusted life years based on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores and Medical Outc

114 An inverse correlation between 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores and white matter

115 eased chance of achieving a 50% reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores by 1 week (relat

116 group showed a 17.5% decrease in the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores compared with a

117 group had significantly lower adjusted mean Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores from the 3rd mon

118 to meet the criteria for major depression or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores of 14 or higher

119 A 50% or greater reduction in baseline Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores was observed in

120 The final Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores were 3.50+/-2.08

121 The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores were correlated

122 etween-group differences in postintervention Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores.

123 - SE change from baseline to 12 weeks in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score was -7.1 +/

124 d points were change in depression severity (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score) and compos

125 of remission (a score < or =7 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale).

126 On the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, a drug difference was

127 using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and Hamilton Rating Sc

128 s of depression symptoms, as measured by the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and higher levels of f

129 f Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and the Young Mania Ra

130 ratings with the Beck Depression Inventory, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and Young Mania Rating

131 w for DSM-IV mood module for depression, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Beck Depression In

132 sive Symptomatology, the 17-item and 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Beck Depression In

133 were collected by using the following tools: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the depressive disorde

134 e Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Gilles de la Toure

135 outcome measures were the 17-item CAPS, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, the Patient Health Que

136 iologic Studies-Depression Scale and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, with mean (SD) scores

137 t-resistant depressed unipolar patients with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 (HDRS-17) score >/=

138 e change from baseline to week 8 in the GRID-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 item total score, al

139 Thirty-one healthy controls (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-24 item [HDRS-24] = 1.7

140 with the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-Seasonal Affective Diso

141 us on the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-Seasonal Affective Diso

142 esponse and remission were defined using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

143 e to depression severity, as rated using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

144 ical morbidity as assessed by Y-BOCS and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

145 tcome measures were also used, including the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

146 on Rating Scale <10 and >/= 50% reduction in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

147 ar assessments of symptom severity using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

148 reatment symptom severity was rated with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

149 edication, and baseline score on the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

150 ersion, a sexual activity event log, and the Hamilton Depression Rating scale.

151 ment response and remission according to the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

152 on the primary efficacy measure, the 21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

153 as defined as a score < or =7 on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

154 nd affective symptoms were assessed with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

155 udinal Interval Follow-Up Evaluation and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

156 nts used a modified (24-item) version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

157 ion and scores of at least 20 on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

158 omery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

159 n was defined as a score of 6 or less on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

160 ed by 50% symptom improvement on the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.

161 standardized difference between means on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HDS).

162 even depressed outpatients were rated on the Hamilton depression scale and completed the Clinically U

163 igher coefficients of variation for both the Hamilton depression scale and the GAS scores and a great

164 eement was found between the self-report and Hamilton depression scale assessments of remission.

165 r, patients with severe depression (baseline Hamilton depression scale score >24) tended to have a hi

166 The remission rate, defined as a final Hamilton depression scale score <10, was 35% for the cit

167 d-in period were associated with lower final Hamilton depression scale scores in subjects randomly as

168 anges explained 19% of the variance in final Hamilton depression scale scores.

169 had an improvement of at least 50% in their Hamilton depression scale scores.

170 with the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Scale With Atypical Depression Suppl

171 andardized manner and were assessed with the Hamilton depression scale within 3 days and 4-8 days aft

172 ty of the CUDOS to identify remission on the Hamilton depression scale.

173 e magnitude of initial psychiatric symptoms (Hamilton Depression Scale: r = -0.64, P = .02; Hamilton

174 Mean adjusted 1-year Hamilton depression score was 10.9 (95% CI, 9.6 to 12.2)

175 assessments of depressive symptoms using the Hamilton Depresssion Rating Scale (HAMD17).

176 a major problem in evolutionary theory until Hamilton developed a method called inclusive fitness.

177 rsued a PhD in nutritional biochemistry with Hamilton Eaton at the University of Connecticut followed

178 Now in Cell Stem Cell,Hamilton et al. (2015) find that lipid accumulation obse

179 In this issue of Neuron, Hamilton et al. stimulate identified inhibitory interneu

180 The Upper Carboniferous Hamilton Formation (300 Myr) in Kansas, USA, yields exce

181 SETTING: Hamilton Glaucoma Center, University of California San D

182 Total PFPIAs in cormorants from Hamilton Harbour (5.02 +/- 2.80 ng/g ww) were statistica

183 ax auritus) from three wild colonies, two in Hamilton Harbour and one in cleaner northeastern Lake Er

184 dentified by LC-MS/MS in bile and liver from Hamilton Harbour cormorant chicks suggests that these co

185 jority of mutations found in chicks from the Hamilton Harbour site closest to industrial sources of P

186 ite mutation rates were 6-fold higher at the Hamilton Harbour site closest to the industrial sources

187 sources of PAH contamination than the other Hamilton Harbour site, and both were higher than the ref

188 Hamilton Harbour, Ontario, Canada is one of the most pol

189 gh concentrations in the air and sediment of Hamilton Harbour.

190 gional Medical Associates, AO International, Hamilton Health Sciences Trauma Fund.

191 When treatment was applied at Hamburger Hamilton (HH) stage 10, there was no optic cup formation

192 pment, we labeled the right SHF of Hamburger-Hamilton (HH) stage 14 chick embryos via microinjection

193 ocities of embryonic chicks at Hamburger and Hamilton (HH) stages 17, 21, and 25 were quantified usin

194 n based on level set methods for solving the Hamilton-Jacobi and eikonal equations.

195 classical statistical mechanics based on the Hamilton-Jacobi equation.

196 timized doubly anthracene-terminated acyclic Hamilton-like receptor (2b), leads to an interlocked arc

197 ing a game theoretic analysis for the Kalick-Hamilton mating model in which a cohort of males and fem

198 Cardiac output was calculated by the Stewart-Hamilton method, in which cardiac output is total inject

199 ing sample preparation was automated using a Hamilton MicroLab Star Robotic workstation, which includ

200 sample lysis and PCR setup performed on the Hamilton MICROLAB STAR(let) (Auto-MRSA), gave results co

201 e setting was a regional perinatal center in Hamilton, New Zealand.

202 Hamilton noted that the spread of "selfish" sex ratio-di

203 We report our continuing experience in Hamilton, ON, Canada, since January 1, 2015 (when we com

204 ritish Columbia (BC); Calgary, Alberta (AB); Hamilton, Ontario (ON); Montreal, Quebec (QC); and Halif

205 plastics recycling facility in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

206 d children from Montreal, Quebec, Canada and Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

207 patients with GI symptoms at 2 hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

208 gastrointestinal symptoms at 2 hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario; the subjects then underwent colonosco

209 , or recurrent thrombosis occurred in all 10 Hamilton patients with acute HIT treated with rivaroxaba

210 State-of-the-art crystal orbital Hamilton population analysis allows a detailed molecular

211 analyses demonstrate that ~81% of the total Hamilton populations originate from heteroatomic polar Y

212 n using anion exchange chromatography with a Hamilton PRP-X100 column as the stationary phase.

213 ressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (IDS-SR), Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HRSA), and Young Mani

214 statistically significant reductions in the Hamilton rating scale for anxiety scores.

215 Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety; and 24-hour urinary c

216 sing the standardized mean difference on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D(1)(7)) score

217 Seventeen-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and Beck De

218 illness therapy fatigue (FACIT-F) scale, the Hamilton rating scale for depression (Ham-D), the Beck d

219 2 weeks and assessed weekly with the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D-17).

220 to treatment was measured using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17).

221 nical symptoms, as assessed with the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HDRS), improved si

222 Outcome measures included the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), Inventory o

223 fined as a score of 7 or less on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) at the en

224 by a total score of 7 or less on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17) at the en

225 Symptoms were measured by using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-17).

226 observer ratings) as assessed by the 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-24).

227 =202) based on DSM-IV criteria and a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD17) score 16 u

228 partum) with severe post-partum depression (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] total score

229 -SR(16)) (equivalent to <or=7 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HRSD(17)]) defined

230 ho had a score of 15 or greater on a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and 28 medically he

231 overy with a modified version of the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and the Longitudina

232 en treatments was found in the change on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression of 0.86 (7.73) scal

233 f 9 or more, eight or more flushes per week, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression of 19 or more, or F

234 xhibited substantial depression improvement (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score, -1.2 SD, P <

235 riod and clinical outcome (the final 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores) were examin

236 r 16 weeks, all groups showed improvement on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression scores.

237 The 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Patient Health Que

238 Mood was assessed with the Hamilton rating scale for depression, quick inventory of

239 es on the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-SAD Version (SIGH-S

240 n, including a psychiatric interview and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

241 ned as a score of less than 7 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

242 Depression severity was measured by the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

243 as a total exit score of </=7 on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

244 nd assessed for 20 sequential weeks with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

245 atment, and remission was assessed using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

246 Expert blind evaluations with the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

247 e Symptomatology (QIDS-SR16) and the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression.

248 who had a score of 15 or higher on a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression; 14 medically healt

249 Analyses were carried out on a Hamilton RCX-30 column with a gradient elution of NaOH 5

250 yl] isophthalamide (often referred to as the Hamilton receptor or Wedge) and 2,7-diamido-1,8-naphthyr

251 orthogonality of the two recognition pairs, Hamilton receptor-CA and DAN-UG.

252 erization (ROMP) through the employment of a Hamilton receptor-functionalized ruthenium initiator and

253 with a metalloporphyrin (2) by means of the Hamilton receptor/cyanuric acid hydrogen bonding motif i

254 ng, we prepared a series of 12 deconstructed Hamilton receptors with varying degrees of steric bulk a

255 cts impact barbiturate binding in bifurcated Hamilton receptors, a library of receptors with differin

256 According to Hamilton's 'haplodiploidy hypothesis', this diversity re

257 is the product of age-specific fertility and Hamilton's age-specific force of selection for fertility

258 , bisporphyrin-trinitrofluorenone (TNF), and Hamilton's bis(acetamidopyridinyl)isophthalamide-barbitu

259 W. D. Hamilton's celebrated formula for the age-specific force

260 Hamilton's concept of kin selection, whereby individuals

261 theoretical perspective by combining William Hamilton's evolutionary model for aging with a quantitat

262 However, it has been argued that Hamilton's hypothesis does not work [4-9] and that the s

263 le for kith and kind selection, generalizing Hamilton's insight that we can model social selection th

264 tion in spider mites with those predicted by Hamilton's Local Mate Competition Theory clearly demonst

265 athematical form, the equation is similar to Hamilton's original rule in the case of inbreeding, alth

266 ur any social trait - i.e. a time-average of Hamilton's rule - remains the same as under particulate

267 he possible importance of different terms in Hamilton's rule [2, 11], with a comparative study across

268 We derived a generalization of Hamilton's rule and measured its parameters in Myxococcu

269 Hamilton's rule asserts that a trait is favored by natur

270 alled "exact and general" by its proponents, Hamilton's rule can "predict" only the data that have al

271 We show that, in this formulation, Hamilton's rule does not make predictions and cannot be

272 I derive expanded versions of Hamilton's rule for kith and kind selection, generalizin

273 This paper explores the validity of Hamilton's rule in the case of other-only altruism in wh

274 d noncooperation depending on whether or not Hamilton's rule is met.

275 but their indirect fitness as calculated by Hamilton's rule more than offsets the cost of helping.

276 I find that, whilst Hamilton's rule of kin selection can be readily derived

277 Whereas many feel that Hamilton's rule provides valuable intuition, there is di

278 Hamilton's rule states that cooperation will evolve if t

279 t to self, [Formula: see text] Specifically, Hamilton's rule states that the change in average trait

280 f selection are in conflict (as described by Hamilton's rule) are not frequency dependent.

281 peratively breeding birds is consistent with Hamilton's rule, indicating a key role for kin selection

282 ortant aspects of these two theories such as Hamilton's rule, Simpson's paradox, and the Price covari

283 Inclusive fitness models, following from Hamilton's rule, successfully predict major life history

284 investigate a widely endorsed formulation of Hamilton's rule, which is said to be as general as natur

285 atives, and satisfies the condition known as Hamilton's rule.

286 e implications of heterozygote advantage for Hamilton's rule.

287 s the nearest neighbour strategy proposed by Hamilton's selfish herd model, whereas a random strategy

288 Applying to Hamilton's setting the full nonlinear demographic model

289 olved three key debates, helping clarify how Hamilton's theoretical overview links to real-world exam

290 Hamilton's theory of inclusive fitness showed how natura

291 ns of the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale, Hamilton Scale for Anxiety, and Beck Depression Inventor

292 the proportion of patients with remissions (Hamilton score, <or=8) at the end of treatment.

293 The mean (SD) Hamilton scores for depression remained consistent with

294 Covariate-adjusted Hamilton scores were lower in the cognitive behavior the

295 the Empress Eugenie (France), the Duchess of Hamilton (Scotland), the Empress of Austria, and other r

296 d on a self-ordered spatial memory task, the Hamilton Search Task.

297 cification at the periphery by Hamburger and Hamilton stage 13.

298 arch growth in the chick embryo at Hamburger-Hamilton stages 18 and 24.

299 Nonlinear interactions cause the collapse of Hamilton-style predictions in the most commonly studied

300 Hamilton suggested that this difference owes to the hapl