ライフサイエンスコーパス: SFM

1 SFM and FFDM images were interpreted independently.

2 SFM images of a very large bacteriophage genome, G, show

3 SFM phenotypes have been discovered in most major verteb

4 SFM stimulation caused an increase in the association of

5 rs from 35 127 FFDM and 52 444 SFM examinations in two Norwegian counties.

6 eening center performed 8478 FFDM and 31 720 SFM screening examinations, with modality determined by

7 ntly screened with SFM after SFM, FFDM after SFM, and FFDM after FFDM.

8 r women subsequently screened with SFM after SFM, FFDM after SFM, and FFDM after FFDM.

9 -0.04, -0.04, -0.05, and 0.05 for BSM alone, SFM alone, BSM and SFM together, and the control group,

10 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.7, 5.2) and SFM (4.8 per 1000; 95% CI: 4.7, 5.0); however, the rate

11 , and 0.05 for BSM alone, SFM alone, BSM and SFM together, and the control group, respectively).

12 creening-detected cancers missed at FFDM and SFM did not differ significantly.

13 no evidence of differences between FFDM and SFM in terms of detection rates (0.68 [95% confidence in

14 rate has yet been observed between FFDM and SFM.

15 hard-copy image reading performed as well as SFM in terms of process indicators; the meta-analysis wa

16 20% [17 of 86] at FFDM vs 21% [26 of 123] at SFM [P = .946]).

17 33% [16 of 49] at FFDM vs 30% [24 of 81] at SFM [P = .868]; screening-detected cancers missed: 20% [

18 10% (95% CI: 3.3%, 21.8%) of those missed at SFM (P = .070).

19 4% (95% CI: 21.2%, 48.8%) of those missed at SFM (P = .185).

20 t mammographic features than those missed at SFM.

21 as masses was 10.4 mm at FFDM and 13.6 mm at SFM (P = .036).

22 We used a bistable SFM stimulus, which can be perceived in one of two diffe

23 f histone H3 to extended fiber morphology by SFM imaging of progressively trypsinized chromatin fiber

24 owing FBT, specialized intervention content (SFM+) enhanced children's weight outcomes and outperform

25 orce measurements between ligand-derivatized SFM probe and a protein receptor-derivatized surface, sh

26 Findings detected with either SFM or FFDM were evaluated with additional imaging and,

27 y at 60 years of age or younger (pooled FFDM-SFM difference: 0.11 [95% CI: 0.04, 0.18] per 100 screen

28 opsy rate was 1.4% (19 776 of 1 391 188) for SFM and 1.1% (5108 of 446 172) for FFDM (P < .001).

29 call rate was 3.4% (47 091 of 1 391 188) for SFM and 2.9% (13 130 of 446 172) for FFDM (P < .001).

30 onth, islet recovery ratios were greater for SFM-cultured islets than for cryopreserved tissue.

31 ion for the preparation of DNA molecules for SFM imaging.

32 women aged 40 years and older presenting for SFM.

33 r for CR (5.2%; 95% CI: 4.7%, 5.8%) than for SFM (6.6%; 95% CI: 6.4%, 6.8%); however, the adjusted od

34 r for CR (6.6%; 95% CI: 6.5%, 6.7%) than for SFM (7.4%; 95% CI: 7.3%, 7.5%).

35 (P < .001) for FFDM compared with those for SFM.

36 etection rates at least as high as those for SFM.

37 After the initial transitional phase from SFM to FFDM, population-based screening with FFDM is ass

38 r remained stable during the transition from SFM to FFDM (when the previous examination was SFM) and

39 HIGH SFM+ vs LOW SFM+ (CONTROL matched the dose of LOW).

40 However, incubation of human BMSCs in SFM prior to in vivo transplantation significantly stimu

41 llow-up, with low social problem children in SFM vs the control group having the best outcomes.

42 me points up to 2 months, islets cultured in SFM showed recovery ratios greater than those for standa

43 was detectable when MCF-7 cells, cultured in SFM, were treated with E2.

44 In wholemount cultures grown in SFM, trigeminal axon projections, growth patterns, and d

45 ulminating in prostate cancer, is reduced in SFM of ESR1 KO compared to WT mice (P </= 0.0007).

46 After visible irradiation, SFM imaging of the photoproducts revealed both the struc

47 HIGH SFM+ vs LOW SFM+ (CONTROL matched the dose of LOW).

48 ing extended (1-2 months) islet culture in M-SFM could significantly enhance islet transplantation by

49 After extended culture of islets in M-SFM for 1 or 2 months, transplanted islets maintained th

50 ee cadaveric donor organs were cultured in M-SFM for 1, 3, or 6 months before transplantation under t

51 trate that human islets can be cultured in M-SFM for extended periods and still retain in vitro and i

52 Prolonged culture in M-SFM had no significant impact on long-term function, ina

53 emonstrate that prolonged islet culture in M-SFM sustained viability and function, and in some instan

54 human islets in Memphis serum-free media (M-SFM) is associated with excellent postculture recovery,

55 of islets in a modified serum-free medium (M-SFM) would sustain function in vivo.

56 cadaveric organ donors and cultured in the M-SFM for up to 2 months, cryopreserved at -70 degrees C w

57 ce (BSM) or social facilitation maintenance (SFM) treatment.

58 n (enhanced social facilitation maintenance [SFM+]) vs a weight-control education condition (CONTROL;

59 ms embodied as structured flows on manifold (SFM) that provide a formal description of behavior as a

60 ment, a rapid single frequency measurements (SFM) was assessed based on recording total impedance |Z|

61 tyrphostin AG879 prevented serum-free media (SFM) induction of cell proliferation.

62 arallel in (A) CMRL + ITS (serum-free media; SFM) or (B) CMRL +10% fetal bovine serum (standard media

63 then cultured in serum-free XVIVO-15 medium (SFM) for 7 days with added granulocyte-macrophage colony

64 ontinued to grow in basal serum-free medium (SFM) and spontaneously produced both IL-6 and HGF under

65 or 24, 48, or 72 hours in serum-free medium (SFM) or SFM supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum, TGF-

66 rainstem were cultured in serum-free medium (SFM) or SFM supplemented with NGF or NT-3 for 3 days.

67 ured with FBS switched to serum-free medium (SFM) was considerably more extensive.

68 cells were maintained in serum free medium (SFM).

69 bes or a potential seminal fluid microbiome (SFM).

70 of a stand-alone scanning force microscope (SFM) scanner with a reflection interference contrast mic

71 imaging under the scanning force microscope (SFM).

72 ier defined, from scanning force microscopy (SFM) and mathematical modeling, a set of simple structur

73 Scanning force microscopy (SFM) of Lp(a) showed, for the first time, a belt-like st

74 We used scanning force microscopy (SFM) to study the binding and excited state reactions of

75 Scanning force microscopy (SFM) was used to image intact, nearly fully elongated la

76 -flux radiation absorption-scattering model (SFM).

77 rotation of ambiguous structure from motion (SFM) stimuli.

78 Structure-from-motion (SFM) is the perception of three-dimensional shape from m

79 ved three-dimensional structure-from-motion (SFM)-can be stabilized when an otherwise ambiguous objec

80 Resolving the rotation direction of SFM cylinders requires the conjoint decoding of directio

81 eclined during follow-up, but the effects of SFM alone (P = .03; d = 0.45; mean change in BMI z score

82 FBT and were then randomized to 8 months of SFM+ (HIGH, n = 59; LOW, n = 56) or CONTROL (n = 57).

83 MT contributes directly to the perception of SFM stimuli and by implication to decoding the specific

84 t radiologists and compared with a review of SFM examinations of 81 interval and 123 screening-detect

85 e perceptual decisions about the rotation of SFM stimuli.

86 d with DR (n = 220 520), CR (n = 64 210), or SFM (n = 403 688) between 2008 and 2009 were identified

87 Children receiving either BSM or SFM maintained relative weight significantly better than

88 8, or 72 hours in serum-free medium (SFM) or SFM supplemented with 10% fetal calf serum, TGF-gamma1,

89 were cultured in serum-free medium (SFM) or SFM supplemented with NGF or NT-3 for 3 days.

90 ssion of a STAT3 dominant negative prevented SFM-stimulated cell proliferation of MIA PaCa-2 cells, s

91 These results validate recent SFM application to quantitatively analyze the conformati

92 ly based techniques with the high-resolution SFM imaging presented here will likely produce a high-th

93 ch direction the front surface of a rotating SFM cylinder display was moving.

94 myosin crossbridge kinetics bat and songbird SFM express myosin heavy chain genes that are evolutiona

95 embedded within neural mechanisms specifying SFM.

96 lower recall rate (11.5%; 568 of 4,945) than SFM (13.8%; 685 of 4,945) (P <.001, McNemar chi(2) model

97 FFDM has so far led to fewer recalls than SFM.

98 ay-finned fish, birds, and mammals, and that SFM phenotypes operate at a maximum operational speed se

99 Our results show that SFM allows for the long-term culture of islet tissue.

100 Our results suggest that SFM evolved independently in sound-producing organs in r

101 The SFM was further combined with a comprehensive kinetic mo

102 The SFM-RICM combination, when applied to the force measurem

103 sex) for the FBT period (0-4 months) and the SFM+ period (4-12 months), and proportion of children ac

104 directly the separation distance between the SFM probe and the sample surface.

105 olution imaging on complex structures in the SFM image with high spatial accuracy.

106 tics and environmental factors influence the SFM may provide the next frontier in male reproductive d

107 ase in bone formation was due to neither the SFM components nor to the proliferation status of BMSCs

108 The bacterial composition of the SFM is influenced according to whether mice have functio

109 t directly involved in the generation of the SFM percept, whereas MT is.

110 itions, the present study indicates that the SFM can be used to determine the persistence length of D

111 Viability studies confirmed that the SFM-cultured islets were able to respond to glucose stim

112 rescence and scanning force microscope (TIRF-SFM) to pinpoint fluorescently labeled human homologous

113 Although DR is equivalent to SFM for breast screening among women aged 50-74 years, t

114 ty in cortical areas V1 and MT is related to SFM perception.

115 For both ambiguous and unambiguous SFM figures, rotation judgments shifted as if we had add

116 nockout (KO) male mice, we describe a unique SFM whose inhabitants differ from gut microbes.

117 For CR versus SFM, specificity was similar while sensitivity was signi

118 For DR versus SFM, sensitivity was similar while specificity was lower

119 M to FFDM (when the previous examination was SFM) and after FFDM was firmly established (when the pre

120 vation upon stimulating quiescent cells with SFM.

121 rformance was compared between cohorts, with SFM as the referent cohort.

122 er 10,000; 95% CI: 12.4, 15.0) compared with SFM (13.0 per 10,000; 95% CI: 12.1, 13.9).

123 sitivity of CR imaging systems compared with SFM, programs should assess the continued use of this te

124 higher than that for findings detected with SFM (19%; 22 of 114), but this difference was not signif

125 Twenty-two cancers were detected with SFM and 21 with FFDM.

126 in the Ontario Breast Screening Program with SFM (487,334 screening examinations, 403,688 women), DR

127 FDM and for women subsequently screened with SFM after SFM, FFDM after SFM, and FFDM after FFDM.

128 val cancers in women initially screened with SFM and FFDM and for women subsequently screened with SF

129 tive values after biopsy than screening with SFM.