ライフサイエンスコーパス: heavy drinker

1 he neural correlates of alcohol demand among heavy drinkers.

2 (AH) develops in only a small proportion of heavy drinkers.

3 association with fatal prostate cancer among heavy drinkers.

4 nkers, and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.82 to 1.10) among heavy drinkers.

5 es the lower diabetes risk among moderate to heavy drinkers.

6 betes after excluding former and moderate to heavy drinkers.

7 ore comorbidities than light-to-moderate and heavy drinkers.

8 ople in the United States are reported to be heavy drinkers.

9 ) than people who reported never having been heavy drinkers.

10 abstainers, very light, light, moderate, and heavy drinkers.

11 ated to lower SVR rates in moderate, but not heavy, drinkers.

12 Participants were 156 individuals, 86 heavy drinkers and 70 light drinkers, undergoing an init

13 A substantially increased risk for heavy drinkers and a slightly reduced risk for lighter d

14 Ethanol at concentrations observed in heavy drinkers and alcoholics may directly act on HDL an

15 process of reverse cholesterol transport in heavy drinkers and alcoholics.

16 alone, approximately 12.9 million people are heavy drinkers and chronic abuse of alcohol is known to

17 els described differences in trajectories of heavy drinkers and nondrinkers over age; secondary analy

18 hibiting a decreased risk compared with both heavy drinkers and nondrinkers.

19 s occurred among otherwise moderate (ie, non-heavy) drinkers, and 73% of all binge drinkers were mode

20 the NAc core was significantly lower in the heavy drinkers, as compared with control subjects.

21 People who reported being heavy drinkers at baseline were more likely to develop l

22 ls of DA and lower DOPAC/DA ratios among the heavy drinkers at the same time point.

23 ocardial infarction (AMI) than abstainers or heavy drinkers, but the effect of prior drinking on mort

24 There were few heavy drinkers, but the inverse association persisted to

25 However, HDL levels are elevated in heavy drinkers, but their risk of vascular disease is gr

26 cetate transport and oxidation are faster in heavy drinkers compared with that in light drinkers.

27 rinkers while the same adaptation metric for heavy drinkers (consuming greater than 60 drinks per mon

28 in professional/managerial occupations (for heavy drinkers: current tax increase, -1.3%; value-based

29 a role in determining why only a minority of heavy drinkers develop hepatitis and cirrhosis.

30 creased with income, while the proportion of heavy drinkers did not vary significantly.

31 htened reward sensitivity and stimulation in heavy drinkers exhibiting AUD progression in early mid-a

32 sing the case of Mr E, an older, moderate to heavy drinker experiencing memory difficulty, the diagno

33 Among the heavy drinkers, greater positive effects and lower sedat

34 isk for congestive heart failure, even among heavy drinkers (> or = 15 drinks/wk in men and > or = 8

35 5% confidence interval: 1.03, 2.01) and very heavy drinkers (>/=60 g/day; odds ratio = 1.44, 95% conf

36 -moderate drinkers (1 to 10 drinks/week), or heavy drinkers (>10 drinks/week) based on alcohol consum

37 Overall, heavy drinkers (>30 g/day) with a lower total folate int

38 inkers to have an SGA birth, but moderate or heavy drinkers (>or=4 drinks per week) who also binged w

39 Regular heavy drinkers had a 74% higher risk of a major coronary

40 Heavy drinkers had approximately 2-fold more brain aceta

41 having the lowest risks and nondrinkers and heavy drinkers having similarly high risks.

42 ver a 5-year interval in at-risk young adult heavy drinkers (HD) and light drinker control subjects.

43 Heavy drinkers (HD, N=16, 16 males) and normal controls

44 s when given with no stimulation (NS), in 25 heavy drinkers (HDs) and 23 healthy controls, each of wh

45 ective response to alcohol between light and heavy drinkers (HDs), however, have yielded inconsistent

46 erate drinkers HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.17; heavy drinkers HR 1.25; 95% CI 0.91 to 1.72).

47 Moderate and heavy drinkers in late pregnancy were also more likely t

48 ers exhibited greater BOLD response than did heavy drinkers in left supplementary motor area (SMA), b

49 tion, and, from a public health perspective, heavy drinkers in routine/manual occupations are a key g

50 tion to clinical hypertension in chronic and heavy drinkers is discussed.

51 4) with histological parameters (n = 106) in heavy drinkers primarily admitted for alcohol withdrawal

52 2 Asp40 carriers) were non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers recruited from the community.

53 Lifetime heavy drinkers showed poorer overall (aHR: 1.37; 95% CI:

54 Non-treatment-seeking heavy drinkers were enrolled in the study.

55 Fifty-six overweight and moderate-heavy drinkers were prospectively stratified by genotype

56 routine/manual occupations (particularly for heavy drinkers, where the estimated policy effects on mo

57 ated, would facilitate the identification of heavy drinkers who are likely to respond well to topiram

58 Seven heavy drinkers, who regularly consumed at least 8 drinks

59 e efficacy and tolerability of topiramate in heavy drinkers whose treatment goal was to reduce drinki

60 of 270 patients aged 18 to 70 years who were heavy drinkers with severe biopsy-proven alcoholic hepat

61 non- or very light drinkers and moderate to heavy drinkers, with different relation of dose to disea