1 xposure, recurrent infection, aspiration, or choking.

2                                              Choking cancer via inhibition of metabolic enzymes essen

3 cluded vomiting (78%), growth failure (62%), choking-coughing-gagging (38%), and pneumonia (25%).

4                       Although problems with choking declined to levels comparable with patients with

5 o chest infections, episodes of coughing and choking during meals, and prognosis.

6 igated the influence of incentive framing on choking effects in humans: in one condition, participant

7  effect on an individual's susceptibility to choking effects, which is contingent on their loss avers

8  was correlated with their susceptibility to choking effects.

9 d not predict chest infections, coughing and choking episodes during meals or survival.

10 ith higher loss aversion were susceptible to choking for large prospective gains and not susceptible

11 rge prospective gains and not susceptible to choking for large prospective losses, whereas individual

12                         Nocturnal gasping or choking is the most reliable indicator of obstructive sl

13 nt is unlikely to be a consequence of direct choking of proteasomes by protein aggregates.

14 , unintentional social transgressions (e.g., choking on food at a party and coughing it up), or inten

15 s with obstructive sleep apnea was nocturnal choking or gasping (summary likelihood ratio [LR], 3.3;

16       Among adults 65 years of age or older, choking or pill-induced dysphagia or globus caused 37.6%

17 re parkinsonism, near mutism, dysphagia with choking, vertical supranuclear gaze palsy or slowing, ba

18 tensively documented (e.g., entanglement and choking), very little is known about effects on assembla

19 eases in performance, a phenomenon known as "choking." We investigated the influence of incentive fra