ライフサイエンスコーパス: bowel wall

1 onal innervation of the smooth muscle of the bowel wall.

2 long distances between the high tie and the bowel wall.

3 rated network of neurons and glia within the bowel wall.

4 s of neurite extension within the developing bowel wall.

5 e distance from the high vascular tie to the bowel wall (100 v 99 mm, P = .605) was equivalent.

6 expression than in carcinomas limited to the bowel wall (3.4 [2.1-5.9] vs 1.9 [1.7-2.4], p=0.007), an

7 ry findings (n = 4), mesenteric hematoma and bowel wall abnormality (n = 2), mesenteric hematoma only

8 ments were obtained over time from the small-bowel wall and the aorta.

9 rest yielded time-enhancement curves for the bowel wall and the aorta.

10 orrelations between VAS score and MR imaging bowel wall arterial phase enhancement after contrast mat

11 Increased bowel-wall attenuation on unenhanced 64-section multidet

12 Increased bowel-wall attenuation on unenhanced images was signific

13 not only of inflammatory involvement of the bowel wall but also in terms of how the bowel in its tur

14 g of maximal enhancement of the normal small-bowel wall by using contrast material-enhanced multi-det

15 uld differentiate inflammatory from fibrotic bowel wall changes in both animal models of colitis and

16 e (4.9 +/- 0.1 vs 4.6 +/- 0.1, P: <.005) and bowel wall conspicuity (4.6 +/- 0.2 vs 4.2 +/- 0.2, P: <

17 roved reader confidence in the assessment of bowel wall conspicuity and the ability of CT colonograph

18 enhancement on overall reader confidence and bowel wall conspicuity.

19 from intraluminal bacterial gas entering the bowel wall due to increased mucosal permeability caused

20 restricts murine ENS precursors to the outer bowel wall during migration.

21 P < .0001), arterial signal (P = .0005), and bowel wall echotexture (P < or = .0200) between patients

22 ssociated splanchnic circulation congestion, bowel wall edema, and impaired intestinal barrier functi

23 Among the strangulated cases, reduced bowel wall enhancement (odds ratio, 3.9; 95% CI: 1.3, 12

24 lation in the multivariate analysis: reduced bowel wall enhancement (odds ratio, 7.8; 95% confidence

25 Diagnostic performance of decreased bowel wall enhancement and confidence in the diagnosis w

26 oves the diagnostic performance of decreased bowel wall enhancement as a sign of ischemia complicatin

27 ild-reported VAS score and (a) the degree of bowel wall enhancement in the arterial phase at contrast

28 as between change in VAS score and change in bowel wall enhancement in the arterial phase at contrast

29 adding unenhanced images improved decreased bowel wall enhancement sensitivity (observer 1: 46.3% [1

30 lar contrast medium allowed visualization of bowel wall enhancement that was obscured by intraluminal

31 Decreased bowel wall enhancement was evaluated with contrast-enhan

32 ore that combines three CT findings (reduced bowel wall enhancement, a closed-loop mechanism, and dif

33 of mechanical SBO, on the basis of decreased bowel wall enhancement.

34 Decreased segmental bowel-wall enhancement was the most accurate 64-section

35 ese results indicate that MT is sensitive to bowel wall fibrosis as occurs in Crohn strictures.

36 s that include soft-tissue thickening of the bowel wall, free fluid, periintestinal soft-tissue stran

37 nstrate whether the tumor was limited to the bowel wall in 16 patients (89%).

38 f intestinal epithelial cells may compromise bowel wall integrity and be a mechanism for bacterial or

39 n abnormally enhanced, thin mucosal layer of bowel wall involving fluid-filled, dilated, poorly opaci

40 l factor (SCF), but the source of SCF in the bowel wall is unclear and controversy exists about wheth

41 gnosed when the cancers are localized to the bowel wall, it is likely that widespread implementation

42 ial gas under pressure to percolate into the bowel wall layers, particularly the submucosa (29).

43 a and an 18-gauge needle in 10 patients with bowel-wall lesions.

44 ed mucosal permeability caused by defects in bowel wall lymphoid tissue.

45 bowel loops with a thin, enhancing layer of bowel wall mucosa.

46 Pathologic examination showed bowel wall necrosis and massive panniculitis of the rect

47 and potentially life-threatening transmural bowel wall necrosis.

48 matic hernia, with ultrasound signs of acute bowel wall necrosis.

49 -selectin (31.2% +/- 25.7) in vessels in the bowel wall of segments with ileitis were higher than in

50 e hand, and of the muscularis propria of the bowel wall on the other, it might be valid to consider i

51 inomas of the rectum that extend through the bowel wall or with lymph nodes positive for tumor.

52 eatitis, hemorrhage, portal vein thrombosis, bowel wall perforation, or dehydration.

53 hich is often polymicrobial, hemorrhage, and bowel wall perforation/abscess formation.

54 Colonic wall thickness (P >/= .06), bowel wall perfusion (P >/= .85), and clinical disease a

55 The mean +/-SD bowel wall perfusion in the study and control groups wer

56 ysician in consensus evaluated the following bowel wall PET/MR enterography biomarkers: signal intens

57 tents that breach the mucosal barrier of the bowel wall, resulting in granuloma formation and chronic

58 crotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in neonates or bowel wall rupture in older children.

59 Bowel wall SWV helps distinguish acutely inflamed from f

60 Nine transcutaneous bowel wall SWV measurements were obtained from the colon

61 Mean bowel wall SWVs were significantly higher for fibrotic v

62 let and was linked to the contraction of the bowel wall that drove pellet propulsion.

63 mputed tomography scan results demonstrating bowel wall thickening (>5 mm) and/or fat stranding consi

64 ome PI vs percentage of benign): soft-tissue bowel wall thickening (51.2% vs 13.3%, P = .0167), free

65 appendageal fat stranding (n = 10), adjacent bowel wall thickening (n = 4) or compression (n = 2), an

66 signs of small bowel inflammation were fund: bowel wall thickening (n=21), submucosal edema (n=8), se

67 large amount of retained stool in the colon, bowel wall thickening and infiltration of peri-colonic f

68 Hospitalization for diarrhea associated with bowel wall thickening occurred in 5.5% of the patients r

69 should undergo evaluation of the abdomen for bowel wall thickening of >4 mm, the hallmark of NEC.

70 Bowel wall thickening often is absent.

71 = 2), mesenteric hematoma only (n = 4), and bowel wall thickening only (n = 4).

72 r risk of GIP was observed for patients with bowel wall thickening or bowel obstruction on CT scan.

73 itoneal thickening or enhancement, and small-bowel wall thickening or distortion demonstrated positiv

74 itoneal thickening or enhancement, and small-bowel wall thickening or distortion.

75 d 23-96 years) with inflammatory or ischemic bowel wall thickening underwent US.

76 Bowel wall thickening was often absent.

77 ween patients with inflammatory and ischemic bowel wall thickening were significant.

78 ed tomography of her abdomen showed diffused bowel wall thickening without evidence of bowel obstruct

79 inflammatory cell infiltration, ulceration, bowel wall thickening, and granuloma formation.

80 imaging findings of these episodes included bowel wall thickening, lymphadenopathy, and focal masses

81 and associated findings such as soft-tissue bowel wall thickening, periintestinal soft-tissue strand

82 tiating ischemic, vascular, and inflammatory bowel wall thickening.

83 rentiation between ischemic and inflammatory bowel wall thickening.

84 Patient age (P = .0022), bowel wall thickness (P = .0001), and color Doppler flow

85 using the Limberg index on the basis of (a) bowel wall thickness and (b) size and extent of Doppler

86 P-selectin-targeted US imaging, by measuring bowel wall thickness and perfusion, and by using a clini

87 Patients with intestinal murmurs had greater bowel wall thickness of the sigmoid and descending colon

88 The mean bowel wall thickness ranged from 1.2 to 3.2 mm in the co

89 Small-bowel wall thickness was not a significant factor after

90 Intestinal blood flow and bowel wall thickness were measured using ultrasound.

91 susception and the inner fat core, the outer bowel wall thickness, and the presence or absence of lym

92 The two groups differed regarding bowel wall thickness, echogenicity, and perfusion in son

93 Findings of bowel wall thickness, wall echotexture, location of bowe

94 difference between inflammatory and ischemic bowel wall thicknesses was not significant (P = .49).

95 e mean time to peak enhancement of the small-bowel wall was 49.3 seconds +/- 7.7 (standard deviation)

96 The MT ratio in the bowel wall was calculated.

97 hat is, diverticulae) due to weakness in the bowel wall, which can become infected and inflamed causi

98 ctic acid level secondary to ischemia of the bowel wall with CT scan findings aid in establishing the