ライフサイエンスコーパス: intergroup

1 trial was performed within the United States Intergroup.

2 group trial (Southwest Oncology Group 8710, Intergroup 0080) reported that neoadjuvant chemotherapy

3 Intergroup 0099 established the role of concurrent chemo

4 9-47-51, NCCTG 86-47-51, US Gastrointestinal Intergroup 0114, National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and B

5 Intergroup 0116 (INT-0116) demonstrates strong persisten

6 ation Therapy Oncology Group trial 8911 (USA Intergroup 113), a comparison of chemotherapy plus surge

7 relative to humans that also engages in male intergroup aggression [7].

8 lia likely evolved in bonobos as the risk of intergroup aggression dissipated and the benefits of bon

9 gher and less variable than participation in intergroup aggression in other primate species; (ii) mal

10 Intergroup analyses showed reduced IL-10 and increased i

11 Intergroup analysis showed significant activation decrea

12 er and Leukemia Group B and US Breast Cancer Intergroup analyzed; patient outcomes by ER status compa

13 Intergroup and intragroup comparisons were performed usi

14 iRNA-191 as a suitable EC miRNA with minimal intergroup and intragroup variability, and we used it fo

15 on This trial was carried out on a worldwide intergroup basis, at the beginning of the learning curve

16 An exaggerated intergroup bias may therefore represent a motivational f

17 ndary psychopathic traits showed an elevated intergroup bias, making more generous offers toward memb

18 rs [RECIST] or modified Gynecological Cancer Intergroup CA-125), toxicity, progression-free survival

19 Malignancy Consortium) conducted a phase II Intergroup clinical trial that used early interim fluoro

20 The proportions of individuals involved in intergroup coalitional conflict, measured by war group s

21 esting-state fMRI mapping, graph theory, and intergroup comparison revealed Oprm1-specific hubs and c

22 Intergroup comparison revealed significantly higher VR r

23 At 5 years, intergroup comparisons also favored the test group for p

24 The data were analyzed for intra- and intergroup comparisons and associations of treatment wit

25 vements in recession over baseline, although intergroup comparisons favored the control group at both

26 Intergroup comparisons for IOP change from baseline was

27 Intergroup comparisons of biochemical and clinical param

28 Differences in intergroup comparisons of PI, GI, BOP, and PD were found

29 Intergroup comparisons of post-treatment log-transformed

30 Intergroup comparisons of the morphometric outcomes reve

31 Intergroup comparisons showed that a 60 mg dose achieved

32 Intergroup comparisons were similar with VerifyNow-P2Y12

33 mal perfusion (22% vs. 12%, P < 0.05 for all intergroup comparisons).

34 fines patterns of interest based on multiple intergroup comparisons.

35 - and between-group variation and effects of intergroup competition - is so far patchy, with no clear

36 ligionists, often contributing to success in intergroup competition and conflict.

37 cological factors of resource patchiness and intergroup competition are associated with the most elab

38 ely to have been great enough so that lethal intergroup competition could account for the evolution o

39 article is that supernatural monitoring and intergroup competition have facilitated the rise of larg

40 han out-group hate) that emerges also absent intergroup competition or comparison.

41 ng species, in which the costs of intra- and intergroup competition vary as a function of group size.

42 Driven by intergroup competition, social norms, beliefs, and pract

43 zes can coexist, even in the face of intense intergroup competition.

44 w small groups persist in areas with intense intergroup competition.

45 over shares of the resources gained through intergroup competition.

46 een-group variation, and (albeit indirectly) intergroup competition.

47 cooperation, rather than winning (in)direct intergroup competitions.

48 dge the gap between the immediate impacts of intergroup conflict and its role in social evolution.

49 provides a more precise way to characterize intergroup conflict and revenge.

50 xytocin levels immediately before and during intergroup conflict compared with controls.

51 pirical studies investigating the impacts of intergroup conflict have focused on the immediate afterm

52 Intergroup conflict is a persistent feature of many huma

53 Intergroup conflict is evident throughout the history of

54 theories have implications for understanding intergroup conflict over natural resources and are relev

55 Intergroup conflict persists when and because individual

56 ed one another at the roost, suggesting that intergroup conflict promotes consensus decision-making,

57 sonal violence rises 4% and the frequency of intergroup conflict rises 14%.

58 for more precise models of the psychology of intergroup conflict to be proposed and tested.

59 ontroversial, and some scholars contend that intergroup conflict was rare until the emergence of sede

60 simple way of determining quantitatively how intergroup conflict will propel a society forward along

61 Conflict between groups (intergroup conflict) is common in many social species an

62 help others in need, at times (e.g., during intergroup conflict), empathic responses are diminished

63 es show that in political and ethnoreligious intergroup conflict, adversaries tend to attribute their

64 Our approach is not based on explicit intergroup conflict, but instead uses evolutionary set t

65 or of great apes' (including humans) violent intergroup conflict, but mountain gorillas are non-terri

66 indings suggest that in cases of intractable intergroup conflict, top-down control mechanisms may blo

67 zees, likely expediting fitness gains during intergroup conflict.

68 y across populations, e.g., food sharing and intergroup conflict.

69 e, gang-related violence, and other forms of intergroup conflict.

70 to gain access to benefits from engaging in intergroup conflict.

71 aspecific killing occurs during coalitionary intergroup conflict.

72 in these terms contributes to prejudice and intergroup conflict.

73 We asked participants to read stories about intergroup conflicts and interpersonal conflicts and pre

74 pproaches to peacemaking in international or intergroup conflicts are identified--conflict settlement

75 Adolescents' participation in intergroup conflicts comprises an imminent global risk,

76 anism regulating in-group cooperation during intergroup conflicts in humans involves the neuropeptide

77 tocinergic system involvement during natural intergroup conflicts in wild chimpanzees.

78 We show that intergroup conflicts may explain the evolutionary succes

79 ind that the estimated level of mortality in intergroup conflicts would have had substantial effects,

80 llution, depletion of natural resources, and intergroup conflicts, are at their core social dilemmas.

81 els were linked with greater cohesion during intergroup conflicts, rather than with the level of pote

82 tion and coalitionary support during violent intergroup conflicts.

83 y increases cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup conflicts; (ii) reducing the risk to third pa

84 article is that prejudice reduction through intergroup contact and collective action work in opposit

85 Although some intergroup contact and cooperation interventions appear

86 ve intergroup contact, whereby the effect of intergroup contact between social contexts (the between-

87 eight of evidence supporting the benefits of intergroup contact cautions against throwing the (contac

88 ividual differences and societal norms shape intergroup contact effects.

89 The effect of intergroup contact has long been a question central to s

90 eased international migration, understanding intergroup contact is increasingly important to scientif

91 Increased research attention to intergroup contact similarly made possible a meta-analys

92 The chapter outlines a longitudinal intergroup contact theory.

93 t established the pervasive effectiveness of intergroup contact to reduce prejudice under a wide rang

94 " stereotypes, superordinate identification, intergroup contact, and prejudice reduction techniques c

95 reduce their own sexual prejudice, including intergroup contact, as well as avenues for future empiri

96 trial testing the causal effects of repeated intergroup contact, in which Spanish-speaking confederat

97 evidence for a contextual effect of positive intergroup contact, whereby the effect of intergroup con

98 as international migration brings increased intergroup contact.

99 scholars' ability to address the effects of intergroup contact.

100 ional studies, since prejudiced people avoid intergroup contact.

101 hment, and studying how authoritarians avoid intergroup contact.

102 llport specified four conditions for optimal intergroup contact: equal group status within the situat

103 warrior hypothesis proposes that success in intergroup contests has been vital in human evolution an

104 size does not always determine the winner of intergroup contests.

105 The psychology underlying revenge in an intergroup context is built around a small handful of re

106 by applying Gervais & Fessler's model to the intergroup context.

107 te specific social emotions and behaviors in intergroup contexts.

108 p status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation and authority support.

109 ints included response by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criteria, duration of ORR, progression-free s

110 luated by RECIST v1.1 and Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criteria.

111 = 288) and compared with Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup criterion.

112 There were similar intergroup demographics; however, significantly more ble

113 group and 2 (10%) in the OLO group, without intergroup difference (P = 0.235).

114 any target IOP, with no significant endpoint intergroup difference at </= 15 mm Hg (log-rank P = 0.59

115 There was no intergroup difference except for the final hemoglobin (H

116 There was a significant intergroup difference for arteriolar length density (P=0

117 There was no intergroup difference in surgical blood loss (P>.05 for

118 There was also no significant intergroup difference in the plasma concentrations of IL

119 /- 2.3) days for omeprazole (p = 0.93); mean intergroup difference was 0.01 +/- 1.55 days (95% CI = -

120 ment (P <0.001), and except TT (P <0.05), no intergroup difference was observed at 6 months after sur

121 miodarone) was the only parameter showing an intergroup difference, with earlier prescription of amio

122 /-0.2) to 1.4 (+/-0.3) in OLO group, with no intergroup differences (P = 0.08).

123 More subtle intergroup differences are lost in WO samples because of

124 There were no significant intergroup differences at 3 weeks.

125 No intergroup differences could be detected before and afte

126 After adjustment for silicon intake, all intergroup differences for beer were no longer significa

127 There were no intergroup differences in baseline skill.

128 There were no intergroup differences in baseline technical ability.

129 Intergroup differences in ED, DF, and MBS were assessed

130 However, there were no intergroup differences in epithelial regeneration or low

131 There were no intergroup differences in liver failure (both 7.1%) and

132 There were no intergroup differences in overall morbidity (56% in bev+

133 There were no intergroup differences in severity of stroke, impairment

134 tion ([(11) C]FMZ Bmax) revealed significant intergroup differences in the bilateral parietal cortice

135 Despite considerable intergroup differences in transplant-free survival betwe

136 ltiple regression analysis revealed that the intergroup differences observed were independent of age.

137 No intra- or intergroup differences or changes in nonalcoholic fatty

138 There were no significant intergroup differences or intragroup changes over time i

139 Statistical significance of intergroup differences was assessed by means of the Pear

140 Intra- and intergroup differences were assessed using the Friedman

141 tive in all groups except twins but distinct intergroup differences were evident, corresponding to cl

142 No intergroup differences were found regarding the duration

143 in wKT, whereas no statistically significant intergroup differences were seen for 100% root coverage

144 fferences and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for intergroup differences.

145 termine if the two methods identify the same intergroup differences.

146 e of the above parameters showed significant intergroup differences.

147 assessed pathogens, without any significant intergroup differences.

148 ents' characteristics that might account for intergroup differences.

149 n terms of the magnitude and significance of intergroup differences.

150 ough there were no statistically significant intergroup differences.

151 o treat using analysis of variance to assess intergroup differences.

152 rust and cooperation, which may give rise to intergroup discrimination and sometimes defensive aggres

153 The phase III North American Intergroup E2496 Trial (Combination Chemotherapy With or

154 Analyzing the contempt as an intergroup emotion, we suggest that contempt and anger a

155 d and "inclusive" perspective on the role of intergroup emotions and beliefs in sustaining discrimina

156 oals and that it overlooks important work in intergroup emotions.

157 nge, designed to ignite struggles to achieve intergroup equality?

158 enclosures filled broader regional needs for intergroup exchange and shared ritual.

159 ealth in a subgroup of women included in the Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES), a large randomised tr

160 Intergroup Exemestane Study (IES), an investigator-led s

161 Conclusion The Intergroup Exemestane Study and contemporaneous studies

162 Purpose The Intergroup Exemestane Study, an investigator-led study o

163 hip and behavior to covary, before extensive intergroup experience or linguistic input.

164 Recent data from the Intergroup Francophone du Myelome, Cancer and Leukemia G

165 RVs have been isolated from humans; however, intergroup gene reassortment does not occur for reasons

166 oups of strains of the same species, and the intergroup genetic similarity can be as high as 98-99% A

167 ery and chemotherapy, and Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup group.

168 re, we started the randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL Intergroup H10 trial evaluating whether involved-node ra

169 We agree that promoting intergroup harmony "carries insidious, often unacknowled

170 reduction interventions that seek to promote intergroup harmony in historically unequal societies.

171 eric hemagglutinins (cHA) with intragroup or intergroup head/stalk combinations was generated.

172 Since Darwin, intergroup hostilities have figured prominently in expla

173 effective way of tackling resulting forms of intergroup hostility.

174 adiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) E2491 (intergroup I0129, consisting of daunorubicin + cytarabin

175 intergroup liking as a means of challenging intergroup inequality.

176 The Intergroup INT-0091 demonstrated the superiority of a re

177 d overall survival as demonstrated by the US Intergroup INT-116 study.

178 Intergroup (INT) 0089 assessed the relative contribution

179 ating that both the intensity and outcome of intergroup interactions affect resource defense and asso

180 We show that group size heterogeneity and intergroup interactions affect the strength of populatio

181 an automated radio telemetry system to study intergroup interactions among six capuchin monkey (Cebus

182 acial composition of the population changes, intergroup interactions are increasingly common.

183 Because intergroup interactions often are mixed-motive rather th

184 ing closer to territorial borders, than when intergroup interactions were short or did not occur.

185 e of the logistical difficulties of studying intergroup interactions, previous studies have been unab

186 In the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup International Collaboration on Ovarian Neopla

187 Patients and Methods In this intergroup international trial, eligible patients had su

188 , and develops our critique of the limits of intergroup liking as a means of challenging intergroup i

189 The INT-0098 Intergroup Liver Tumor Study demonstrated no statistical

190 INT-0098 Intergroup Liver Tumor Study demonstrated that patients

191 enhance assortative mating to prevent costly intergroup matings that produce only maladaptive or ster

192 nce at </= 15 mm Hg (log-rank P = 0.595).The intergroup MBGS scores differed due to reduced central a

193 ients on the North American Gastrointestinal Intergroup N9741 study.

194 In a parallel phase III study, Intergroup N9741, oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil and leuc

195 Previously, we reported results of Intergroup N9741, which compared standard bolus fluorour

196 s involving legal decisions, counseling, and intergroup negotiations.

197 The GAIN (German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-Positive) study was an open-label, rando

198 This intergroup, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial recrui

199 In the randomized intergroup phase 3 E2997 trial, initial therapy of chron

200 d specimens from patients enrolled in the US Intergroup phase 3 trial comparing R-CHOP to CHOP with o

201 nd these phase 2 data support the current US Intergroup phase 3 trial in recurrent/refractory diffuse

202 t among recent studies will be from a large, intergroup phase III trial evaluating intraperitoneal th

203 y in Treating Patients With Melanoma) was an Intergroup phase III trial that enrolled high-risk patie

204 er, I have pursued three theories related to intergroup prejudice--each with a different mentor.

205 Existing research depicts intergroup prejudices as deeply ingrained, requiring int

206 py regimens for FL in a phase III randomized intergroup protocol (SWOG S0016) that enrolled 554 patie

207 e patients from the ATRA/chemotherapy arm of intergroup protocol C9710, 18 patients harbored PRalpha/

208 therapy on 3 clinical trials, North American Intergroup protocol I0129 and Programa para el Estudio d

209 On initial publication of GI Intergroup Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 98-11

210 The US Gastrointestinal Intergroup Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 98-11 anal c

211 Intergroup random effects analysis was performed.

212 neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, and therefore our intergroup randomised trial was designed to investigate

213 clophosphamide (FC; n = 122) as part of a US Intergroup randomized trial for previously untreated CLL

214 In 2004, we started an intergroup randomized trial of adjuvant imatinib versus

215 lar to recombination within group M viruses, intergroup recombination is affected by the identity of

216 the gfp recombination assay, we showed that intergroup recombination occurs much less frequently tha

217 amined, we found three distinct barriers for intergroup recombination.

218 nt lines of research have shown that unequal intergroup relations are often marked by attitudinal com

219 udice reduction models should and do improve intergroup relations in such contexts.

220 Improving intergroup relations requires multiple levels of analysi

221 suggest that the psychological literature on intergroup relations should shift from theorizing "preju

222 each other more is the best way of improving intergroup relations that are characterized by relativel

223 portance of a political conceptualisation of intergroup relations that challenges individualising mod

224 then use classic theoretical perspectives on intergroup relations to frame and then consider new ques

225 great policy potential as a means to improve intergroup relations, because it can simultaneously impa

226 do not apply this analysis to the sphere of intergroup relations.

227 nal processes, as well as broader structural intergroup relations.

228 and conflict among humans in the context of intergroup relations.

229 Implications for intergroup relationships and intercultural communication

230 itutions designed to assess the efficacy and intergroup reproducibility of clinically applicable immu

231 ntation technique comparisons showed similar intergroup results.

232 = 5.9, 95% CI, 2.1 to 16.4, respectively) or Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS) Clinical Group I

233 For Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS) IV patients with

234 obtained from the Children's Oncology Group Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study (IRS) IV, D9502 and D9

235 of 83% and overall survival rates of 95% on Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Group (IRSG) protocols

236 Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Group (IRSG) studies I

237 Patient data from the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Group and the Children

238 Oncology Group, Children's Cancer Group, the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study Group, and the Nationa

239 stage (TNM system), and post-surgical stage (Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study system).

240 ive and PAX3/FOXO1 and PAX7/FOXO1 positive), Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study TNM stage, and age sho

241 Sixteen IRS (Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study) III and IV patients h

242 with intermediate-risk RMS enrolled onto the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study-IV and the Children's

243 and weighting by the odds methods to reduce intergroup selection bias.

244 ropensity score-based 1:1 matching to reduce intergroup selection bias.

245 neoadjuvant regimen in a multi-institutional Intergroup setting.

246 in CDH and esthetic dissatisfaction with no intergroup significant differences (P >0.05).

247 Institute-funded and Gastrointestinal Cancer Intergroup-sponsored study coordinated by the North Cent

248 Intergroup statistical comparisons used chi(2) analysis

249 For this randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study (EORTC 22033-26033), undertaken in 78 c

250 Intergroup Study 0114 was designed to study the effect o

251 Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG)/Intergroup study 9623 was undertaken to compare treatmen

252 al was a National Cancer Institute-sponsored Intergroup study coordinated by the Southwest Oncology G

253 n the basis of these encouraging results, an intergroup study has been activated comparing EA consoli

254 A recent intergroup study has shown that postoperative chemoradia

255 nd a dataset derived from the North American Intergroup Study INT0129.

256 Patients and Methods North American Intergroup Study S1117 is a phase II/III trial that rand

257 SWOG) study 9921 is a randomized, phase III, intergroup study to define the role of adjuvant chemothe

258 tive Oncology Group-Southwest Oncology Group intergroup study was conducted to determine whether thre

259 This intergroup study was coordinated by SWOG, a cooperative

260 According to a French intergroup study, two groups (ECX arm and FOLFIRI arm) a

261 For this randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study, undertaken in 78 clinical centres in 1

262 Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)-sponsored intergroup study.

263 sease, and this is the subject of an ongoing intergroup study.

264 278 patients were randomly assigned in this Intergroup study.

265 rony index (SI): a combination of intra- and intergroup synchronies.

266 may need ambivalence to justify more complex intergroup-system stability.

267 als Group PR.3/Medical Research Council PR07/Intergroup T94-0110 was a randomized controlled trial of

268 y the Cancer and Leukemia Group B and the US Intergroup that used fludarabine and rituximab (CALGB 97

269 vocal dialects, in animals generally for the intergroup transmission that would allow innovations to

270 metastatic breast cancer were entered on an Intergroup trial (E1193) comparing doxorubicin (60 mg/m(

271 iven these results, we are now developing an intergroup trial (ECOG 2202) to assess MIE in a multicen

272 s with osteosarcoma enrolled onto a national Intergroup trial (INT0133) were analyzed prospectively t

273 or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, Intergroup Trial 0116 (Phase III trial of postoperative

274 chemotherapy plus chemoradiotherapy, in the Intergroup trial 0116, prolonged the overall and disease

275 se cyclophosphamide/thiotepa or observation (Intergroup Trial 0121).

276 Intergroup trial 0153 (Southwest Oncology Group trial 94

277 Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) N9831 Intergroup trial and National Surgical Adjuvant Breast a

278 es from 290 patients enrolled onto the E2496 Intergroup trial comparing doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinbl

279 E2997 is a phase III randomized Intergroup trial comparing fludarabine and cyclophospham

280 Specimens from the Cancer Cooperative Intergroup Trial E2496 were used to compare pretreatment

281 LUSION: A prospective, phase III, randomized Intergroup Trial is currently underway comparing the eff

282 This was a phase II, intergroup trial led by the American College of Surgeons

283 ) and time-to-progression (TTP) data for the Intergroup trial N9741 after a median 5 years of follow-

284 CALGB 80101 (Alliance; Phase III Intergroup Trial of Adjuvant Chemoradiation After Resect

285 herapy arm of the RTOG-9501 trial (Phase III Intergroup Trial of Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy Ver

286 This prospective, randomized phase III intergroup trial of the Gynecologic Oncology Group and N

287 TTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: US Gastrointestinal Intergroup trial RTOG 98-11, a multicenter, phase 3, ran

288 prognostic significance of TAMs in the E2496 Intergroup trial, a multicenter phase 3 randomized contr

289 III trials were initiated in response to the Intergroup trial, and technologic advances in radiothera

290 C will be determined by an ongoing phase III intergroup trial.

291 tion arms of the current RTOG 0617 phase III intergroup trial.

292 n the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group and intergroup trials E1684, E1690, and E1694 as adjuvant th

293 otential conflict escalation, development of intergroup understanding, and promotion of a wider human

294 Nontechnical scores showed similar intergroup variability with a mean of 26 and a range of

295 nts, respectively, p = 0.027 with intra- and intergroup variability.

296 test was used to compare the intragroup and intergroup variances among the study groups.

297 ncture for examining the evolution of lethal intergroup violence among hominids during the 2.9-millio

298 nce of raiding parties, and hence facilitate intergroup violence in small-scale societies.

299 Intergroup violence is common among humans worldwide.

300 onflicts with other groups, was the level of intergroup violence sufficient to influence the evolutio