ライフサイエンスコーパス: UES

1 UES and esophageal body pressure responses, along with l

2 UES contraction and relaxation were the overriding respo

3 UES is not caused by reduced scleral hydraulic conductiv

4 UES possessed Na,K-ATPase activity consistent with a sin

5 UES pressure progressively declined with deeper stages o

6 UES shows a misleading cystlike appearance at CT and MR

7 Only patients with SERD had abnormal UES relaxation responses to rapid distension with saline

8 (3) Although UES pressure progressively declines with deeper stages o

9 died in the supine position using concurrent UES and esophageal manometry and polysomnography.

10 n and high-resolution manometry to determine UES, lower esophageal sphincter, and intraesophageal pre

11 rotein was expressed in undifferentiated ES (UES) cells and throughout all stages studied.

12 ow balloon distension activated the esophago-UES contractile reflex and esophago-LES relaxation respo

13 smaller proportion of patients with SERD had UES contractile reflexes in response to slow esophageal

14 ophageal reflux disease (SERD) have impaired UES and esophageal body responses to simulated reflux ev

15 nd complaints of regurgitation have impaired UES and esophageal responses to simulated liquid reflux

16 detected by immunoblots (except for beta2 in UES), their mRNAs were detected in UES and EB (beta2 and

17 ly with age while the magnitude of change in UES pressure remains unchanged, indicating a deleterious

18 beta2 in UES), their mRNAs were detected in UES and EB (beta2 and beta3), and in immature and fully

19 ed more rapid bolus expulsion, and increased UES distention.

20 ater-induced UES contraction and air-induced UES relaxation were the predominant responses among indi

21 Water-induced UES contraction and air-induced UES relaxation were the

22 y induce contraction of the UES: the laryngo-UES contractile reflex.

23 Hg/50-ms duration stimuli, the frequency of UES response to air stimulation as evidenced by mucosal

24 in humans the effects of these variables on UES pressure response to esophageal distension.

25 aryngoglottal Closure reflex; PGCR, Pharyngo-UES Contractile reflex; PUCR, and Reflexive Pharyngeal S

26 Poststimulation UES pressure was significantly higher than prestimulatio

27 magnitude of the increase in poststimulation UES pressure in the elderly volunteers was similar to th

28 ange, 3-49 years) with pathologically proved UES were retrospectively reviewed.

29 ents include an upstream essential sequence (UES) located upstream of the UAS(INO) element and a nega

30 responses of the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) and esophageal body to liquid reflux events prevent

31 l vestibule, and upper esophageal sphincter (UES) and intraluminal pharyngeal dimensions were measure

32 Esophago-upper esophageal sphincter (UES) contractile reflex (EUCR) and secondary peristalsis

33 l stimulation on upper esophageal sphincter (UES) pressure and to determine the reproducibility of th

34 response of the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) to simulated or spontaneous gastroesophageal reflux

35 ssessment of the upper esophageal sphincter (UES).

36 formulations: uncoated on an empty stomach (UES), uncoated with food (UFED), and film-coated (FC) wi

37 The UES response to esophageal distension can be predicted u

38 The UES response to esophageal distension is affected by com

39 ransphincteric flow per unit area across the UES was constant, showing its compliance.

40 ct the airway by reflexively contracting the UES and clearing the esophagus of refluxate, respectivel

41 used to identify factors that determine the UES response.

42 icantly and independently differentiated the UES response to infusion with water or air.

43 MTDs were 200 mg daily in the UES group and 100 mg twice daily in the FC group; MTD wa

44 Initial dose escalation in the UES group was followed by parallel escalations in the UF

45 escalated from 100 mg to 340 mg daily in the UES group, from 60 mg to 100 mg twice daily in the UFED

46 arynx reproducibly induce contraction of the UES: the laryngo-UES contractile reflex.

47 Frequencies of various UES responses were compared using chi(2) analysis.

48 thy nonsmoker volunteers and 7 patients with UES dysphagia using a concurrent manometric and video en