ライフサイエンスコーパス: critique

1 But so does Jussim's critique.

2 animal models, and computer simulations) are critiqued.

3 d several hypotheses on its pathogenesis are critiqued.

4 Gaps in the literature are identified and critiqued.

5 nce related to these impacts is reviewed and critiqued.

6 f grants that are frequently scrutinized and critiqued.

7 s because our findings lend support to these critiques.

8 ting extensions and applications, as well as critiques.

9 o examine the conceptual significance of TTC critiques.

10 o all affected health care professionals for critique; (3) implementation includes direct feedback on

11 However, when critiqued, all studies were classified as weak because t

12 nt practice with intermittent evaluation and critique allows for skill acquisition and time efficienc

13 so the 2003 vaccination recommendations are critiqued along with perceived barriers to proper immuni

14 the observed patterns are provided, and the critique also identifies some potential problems with th

15 rovide published criteria for performing and critiquing an economic analysis.

16 ions are not affected by this methodological critique and clarify that the discrepancies between our

17 Finally, we review previous critiques and identify fundamental weaknesses of this pe

18 However, their critiques and suggested improvements lack biological and

19 The authors provide an updated discussion, critique, and recommendations regarding the need for cle

20 In this review, the articles are critiqued, and their clinical significance is discussed.

21 The primary focus of this review is to critique articles published over the past 18 months that

22 rpreted within the context of the structural critiques because our findings lend support to these cri

23 n of Gaia, went some way to addressing these critiques but, despite recent success in incorporating n

24 e review studies that have responded to this critique by employing a variety of innovative research d

25 I augment Lankford's critique by tracing these views to a simplistic situatio

26 Studies were selected and critiqued by 2 reviewers.

27 These statements were then formally critiqued by representatives of several sientific societ

28 al observations and uncontrolled trials were critiqued by the author.

29 ailable scientific evidence was examined and critiqued by the entire group to assess the strength of

30 l articles were investigated for content and critiqued by Z.T. and S.D.

31 It will also critique current utilization models and highlight some u

32 In addition, this review discusses and critiques current experimental and computational models

33 In their critique, Durif et al.[2] seem to conflate the separate

34 The critique focuses on their treatment of the Paradox of Fi

35 ene paleodemographic profiles that have been critiqued for having too few older individuals for subsi

36 ut previous literature on the topic has been critiqued for its reliance on cross-sectional data.

37 sonography has been developed, refined, and critiqued for over 18 years.

38 This critique has been a substantial part of congressional de

39 This critique highlights one problem that is particularly rel

40 addition, the model allows one to frame and critique hypotheses about how the division cycle is regu

41 dies of spatial frequency are reanalyzed and critiqued in this article.

42 was used to undermine evidence; this form of critique insisted on methodological perfection, rejected

43 It is proposed that the rationality critique is compelling and rightfully gaining influence

44 In other words, the main target of our critique is the model of change that underlies prejudice

45 ydration constancy hypothesis and provides a critique of applied methodology.

46 constituents and is therefore not a specific critique of articles espousing remote sensing of foliar

47 The critique of Barth et al centers on three points: (i) the

48 be the central feature in any discussion or critique of examinations given for the privilege of prof

49 From an informed critique of existing methods to the development of origi

50 as developed on the basis of an analysis and critique of existing science to (1) describe the psychol

51 d by J. C. Schank and T. J. Koehnle in their critique of experimental design.

52 Charney's target article continues a critique of genetic blueprint models of development that

53 In this Perspective, I outline the critique of informal reverse inference and describe a nu

54 A detailed critique of objective measurements of gastroesophageal r

55 in recent reviews, provide a more systematic critique of past research, identify current research tre

56 Previous critique of phylogenetic reconstruction has claimed that

57 In this article, the authors provide a critique of previous analyses of the relationship betwee

58 problems, as does the legacy of the postwar critique of psychodynamic psychiatry.

59 Firestone & Scholl's (F&S) critique of putative empirical evidence for the cognitiv

60 Our review and critique of recent large randomized trials in patients w

61 Finally, we attempt to integrate our critique of reductionism into a broader social framework

62 de worthwhile recommendations but that their critique of research by Levin and Banaji (2006) is unfou

63 Jussim's critique of social psychology's embrace of error and bia

64 Finally, a written analysis and critique of the article was performed by each fellow.

65 Guala does not go far enough in his critique of the assumption that human decisions about sh

66 This review is an evidence-based critique of the available treatment approaches considere

67 5 for a critique of the binding by neural synchrony hypothesis).

68 s, their involvement in dissemination, and a critique of the limitations of PPI were not reported.

69 ponse clarifies, qualifies, and develops our critique of the limits of intergroup liking as a means o

70 A critique of the literature on this topic is given that l

71 We then offer a critique of the main intervention approaches designed to

72 We end with a critique of the model with regard to current views on po

73 ther organismal group and motivate a broader critique of the mutation cluster phenomenon.

74 A methodological critique of these studies follows, providing a springboa

75 o previously published screens, plus a later critique of these studies.

76 ne article from the literature and present a critique of this article to the group and faculty (Journ

77 A critique of this database and how it could serve the sci

78 nt practices, alternative methods, published critiques of CEAs, and criticisms of general CEA methods

79 Indeed, the sharpest critiques of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural sel

80 Now several critiques of ENCODE's narrative have been published, and

81 The critiques of inclusive fitness theory have provided neit

82 The authors review critiques of Kraepelin's work published in his lifetime

83 We first describe critiques of professionalism and current challenges to i

84 Despite long-standing critiques of the conduct of underpowered clinical trials

85 ory of ethical and social challenges through critiques of the medicalization of deviance.

86 Recent critiques of the paradox, claiming the time series relat

87 new model on effort and performance and the critique on existing resource-based models.

88 This is followed by a detailed critique on infrared spectroscopy applied to DNA conform

89 Norby et al center their critique on the design of the data set and the response

90 Lake et al. offer a timely critique on the recent accomplishments in artificial int

91 Newell and Shanks provide a useful critique on unconscious decision making.

92 D diagnosis to patients with cancer has been critiqued on conceptual and methodological grounds, and

93 Gusakov critiques our methodology for comparing the cellulolytic

94 series was almost immediate, with a defining critique published in same journal 2 years later.

95 This review will highlight and critique recent attempts to understand some of the cellu

96 dvocates for universal models of reading and critiques recent models that concentrate in what has bee

97 plinary expert panel searched, reviewed, and critiqued relevant English-language literature published

98 Frost's critique reveals the limitations of the reverse-engineer

99 Elliott's critique seems to single out psychiatric research with d

100 This Series paper critiques some of the key areas and controversies, summa

101 We critique studies that use science and math tests to pred

102 Two reviewers independently critiqued studies included in a recent systematic review

103 sible to readily integrate additional primer critique tests based on iterative feedback from the labo

104 e protected areas than outside, refuting the critique that they only occur in pristine areas.

105 Here, we critique the current mammalian models of GH/IGF-1 defici

106 Here we describe and critique the current models concerned with the proximate

107 he goal of this overview is to summarize and critique the current state of knowledge of the immunolog

108 David McCoy and colleagues critique the dominance of "lives saved" models of assess

109 To critique the feasibility of this methodology as a qualit

110 Tropek et al. critique the Hansen et al. global forest loss paper in t

111 We also critique the myopic focus on prejudice reduction, but we

112 cal analysis in the Journal, Hutcheon et al. critiqued the existing evidence of the fetal benefits of

113 Studies have tested and constructively critiqued the procedure, hoping to increase the success

114 Numerous authors have critiqued the use of race as an etiologic quantity in me

115 ing careful attention to the methodology and critiquing the importance of the insight gained.

116 reviewers in better understanding, and thus critiquing, the methodology and results of submissions t

117 available information and, more importantly, critique their current practice, before employing this t

118 pain in their children, recent studies have critiqued their underuse of prescribed analgesics to tre

119 These findings, however, have never been critiqued thoroughly for their statistical and biologica

120 ogical perspective, discuss points of common critique to which GxE research is vulnerable, and addres

121 Second, 'mimicked scientific critique' was used to undermine evidence; this form of c

122 expectation, and appreciate their thoughtful critique, we argue here that their comment mostly restat

123 In this critique, we draw from work in healthy human populations

124 to 1) identify the use of and 2) review and critique Web-based resources for critical care education