ライフサイエンスコーパス: donor selection

1 y become a feasible, additional criterion in donor selection.

2 current practices in live liver donation and donor selection.

3 e of anticoagulation, and strict patient and donor selection.

4 tantial implications for prognostication and donor selection.

5 and 5 are usually not taken into account in donor selection.

6 donor-related variables may be useful during donor selection.

7 engraftment and should be considered in HCT donor selection.

8 ease susceptibility, transplant outcome, and donor selection.

9 The latter can be minimized with careful donor selection.

10 transplantation is highly influenced by good donor selection.

11 e incorporated into algorithms for unrelated donor selection.

12 /Mcm1p-binding sites, DPS1 and DPS2, control donor selection.

13 ctivating the left arm of chromosome III for donor selection.

14 t TUP1, but not SSN6, is required for proper donor selection.

15 ted with modifications in both recipient and donor selection.

16 t selection (70 patients, 11%) or because of donor selection (78 patients, 12%), group A.

17 hat KIR genotyping should be included in the donor selection algorithm for haploidentical transplanta

18 This study supports a donor selection algorithm whereby patients who lack a cl

19 factors, which is important for mating-type donor selection and for the biased gene conversion obser

20 icity of various HLA antigens may help guide donor selection and identify mismatches to avoid for pat

21 -resolution class I typing may help optimize donor selection and improve outcome.

22 kidney transplant outcome will allow better donor selection and more educated informed consent when

23 Donor selection and optimization of immunosuppression ma

24 Donor selection and organ allocation must follow specifi

25 erstanding of HCV pathogenesis and influence donor selection and patient management.

26 Screening for iciHHV-6 could guide donor selection and post-HCT risk stratification and tre

27 this pattern in the light of improvements in donor selection and post-transplant supportive care.

28 In conclusion, improving donor selection and preservation is warranted if the all

29 A four-step evaluation protocol was used for donor selection and satisfactory results of all tests in

30 ncentrates through a combination of improved donor selection and screening, effective virucidal techn

31 ignificant new source of grafts, but careful donor selection and short cold ischemia are mandatory.

32 However, criteria for patient and donor selection and the most effective transplant proced

33 ne matching is expected to improve unrelated donor selection and transplant outcome.

34 methods for HLA class II loci have improved donor selection and treatment outcome in unrelated donor

35 into account comorbidities, disease status, donor selection, and effective nontransplant therapies.

36 ction, use of high-resolution HLA typing for donor selection, and improved supportive care treatment.

37 arizes FDA regulatory changes, principles of donor selection, and recommended laboratory screening pr

38 Advances in preparative regimens, donor selection, and supportive care should improve the

39 Preoperative imaging and donor selection are cardinal components of adult-to-adul

40 The mechanisms of donor selection are different for the two mating types.

41 nt reduction of recipient weight and careful donor selection are therefore crucial in order to decrea

42 l therapy can be further improved by optimal donor selection based on phenotypic and genotypic proper

43 e explored the mechanism of alpha2p-directed donor selection by examining the effects on donor prefer

44 ute to this poor pancreas use include strict donor selection criteria and the requirement for short c

45 e that, with careful consideration, existing donor selection criteria can be expanded to include cert

46 Donor selection criteria for adult-to-adult living donor

47 nts included liberalization of recipient and donor selection criteria, improved surgical techniques,

48 Donor selection criteria, laparoscopic port positions, a

49 outcome marker to evaluate our living kidney donor selection criteria.

50 he process of cell type determination and in donor selection during mating interconversion.

51 he mechanisms of silencing and may relate to donor selection during mating-type interconversion.

52 nt in family planning after chemotherapy and donor selection for assisted reproduction.

53 This new algorithm may be a tool in donor selection for hematopoietic stem cell transplantat

54 py, risk of treatment-related complications, donor selection for hematopoietic stem cell transplantat

55 monstrate its potential to refine and expand donor selection for HLA-alloimmunized patients.

56 sideration of KIR3DL1-mediated inhibition in donor selection for HLA-matched HCT may achieve superior

57 Our finding may be useful in donor selection for liver transplantation with HCV, and

58 ed surveillance, familial screening to guide donor selection for transplantation, and changes in ther

59 urther research is needed to explore optimal donor selection, FT preparation, route, timing, and numb

60 Living kidney donor selection has become more liberal with acceptation

61 uman diseases and is an important factor for donor selection in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell tr

62 ponse to viral pathogens and malignancy, for donor selection in allogeneic hemopoietic cell transplan

63 IR2DL2/L3-associated diseases as well as for donor selection in allogeneic stem cell transplantation.

64 nd provides objective selection criteria for donor selection in LDLT.

65 Donor selection is dictated by cell type: mat2 is the pr

66 Careful donor selection is necessary to minimize complications a

67 Donor selection limits the application of living donor l

68 This approach to donor selection may allow wider geographic sharing of ca

69 tify mismatches for MICA-129, and compatible donor selection may improve outcome for this small but h

70 time under different allocation policies and donor selection mechanisms for candidates on the wait li

71 ults caution the use of genotyping alone for donor selection or leukemia-relapse prognostication beca

72 novel therapeutic targets for improvement of donor selection, peritransplant management and kidney pr

73 y, current surgical technique, recipient and donor selection, postoperative care, immunosuppression,

74 icantly by recipient race/ethnicity and sex, donor selection practices do not seem to be the dominant

75 e of "healthy" controls designed to simulate donor selection processes has identified higher risk of

76 dentity was protected through a double-blind donor selection protocol.

77 on, modification of conditioning regimes and donor selection should be considered carefully.

78 These results suggest that donor selection should consider the presence of antibodi

79 To validate current donor selection strategies based on previous internation

80 Aiming to develop a donor selection strategy to improve transplant outcome,

81 Improved donor selection, tailored conditioning regimens, and bet

82 lantation is related to the recipient's age, donor selection, the conditioning regimen and the extent

83 recipient HLA class I can be used to inform donor selection to improve outcome of unrelated donor he

84 Alternative donor selection using haploidentical donors and posttran

85 effect of detecting renovascular disease on donor selection was determined in 74 of the 78 patients.

86 To support an empirical approach to donor selection, we developed a tool that simultaneously

87 Clinicians lack criteria for donor selection when HLA-C-mismatched donors are a patie

88 The use of serum analysis in donor selection would have reduced the total number of r