ライフサイエンスコーパス: interpatient

1 A wide range of interpatient absorbed doses was delivered to normal orga

2 ence in CD19-mediated signaling unfolds both interpatient and intraclonal diversity in CLL.

3 bevacizumab is high in mRCC, with remarkable interpatient and intrapatient heterogeneity.

4 ing has become increasingly used to evaluate interpatient and intrapatient tumor heterogeneity.

5 Interpatient and intrapatient variabilities in apparent

6 sporin (Neoral) exhibited significantly less interpatient and intrapatient variability than tacrolimu

7 Interpatient and intrapatient variability was similar (i

8 PK studies showed wide interpatient and intrapatient variability.

9 ap prediction in osseous regions and reduced interpatient bias variation in femur-adjacent VOIs.

10 Improved bioavailability and reduced interpatient biovariability are therefore desirable for

11 Interpatient comparisons were also made and showed that

12 Interpatient differences in both decay rates were signif

13 Reflecting the interpatient differences in contrast enhancement, resect

14 deployment to elucidate the genomic basis of interpatient differences in drug response and disease ri

15 This study helps explain interpatient differences in efficacy and safety followin

16 rovide new insight into the genomic basis of interpatient differences in intracellular TGN accumulati

17 harmacology of drugs, potentially leading to interpatient differences in response.

18 w is to discuss genetic factors that lead to interpatient differences in the pharmacokinetics and pha

19 Both intra- and interpatient diversification at the plasmid and transpos

20 The interpatient diversity of the clones from Botswana was h

21 ombinants were both remarkable for their low interpatient diversity, less than 1% for the full genome

22 llenged by high intratumor heterogeneity and interpatient diversity.

23 tients were treated with tipifarnib using an interpatient dose-escalation scheme.

24 fficacious, they are difficult to use due to interpatient dose-response variability and the risks of

25 get carboplatin AUC was 10 mg/ml x min, with interpatient escalation in increments of 25%.

26 showed that steady-state occurred by day 7, interpatient exposure was more variable than intrapatien

27 ear mixed model that is ideal to control for interpatient gene expression profile variation, such as

28 Deep sequencing revealed interpatient gp350 sequence variation but conservation o

29 onclusion, our findings identify substantial interpatient heterogeneity and distinct patterns of dysr

30 Cellular and interpatient heterogeneity and the involvement of differ

31 f CTCs has exposed dramatic intrapatient and interpatient heterogeneity and their evolution over time

32 ded to clarify the relevance of the observed interpatient heterogeneity in clonal constitution.

33 l thrombocythemia (ET) manifests substantial interpatient heterogeneity in rates of thrombosis, hemor

34 Interpatient heterogeneity in the absolute degree of tur

35 while exhibiting intrapatient similarity and interpatient heterogeneity.

36 r establishing a high degree of quantitative interpatient integral map pattern correspondence irrespe

37 associated with anxiety, it explained 24% of interpatient MCS variability.

38 a single strain the complete process of (i) interpatient microevolution, (ii) intrapatient respirato

39 Whether interpatient pharmaco-kinetic differences in dexamethaso

40 ty was demonstrated but with high intra- and interpatient pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variabi

41 oposide is feasible and dramatically reduces interpatient pharmacokinetic variability.

42 hed (intrapatient) samples and in unmatched (interpatient) samples from rectal cancer patients after

43 microevolution both at the intrapatient and interpatient scenarios.

44 DNA sequence analyses showed interpatient specific mutations (2 to 3 bp).

45 kable variability and redundancy, intra- and interpatient, suggesting ongoing parallel adaptive diver

46 B typing demonstrated in vivo, in vitro, and interpatient transmission stability yet revealed that th

47 enhanced capacity for human infection and/or interpatient transmission.

48 Analysis of variance revealed that interpatient variability (1.2-2.0x10(-3) mm2/sec) was si

49 ve the LLQ in most patients (93%), with wide interpatient variability (3.50-2,990 pg/mL).

50 seem to contribute significantly to the high interpatient variability (49%) in the clearance of this

51 the exposure profile of the drug showed low interpatient variability and a small peak:trough ratio o

52 piridol pharmacology, we observed unexpected interpatient variability and postinfusion peaks in appro

53 n of transporter substrates while decreasing interpatient variability and reversing tumor drug resist

54 ients using ultrafiltration to determine the interpatient variability and, therefore, whether individ

55 studies of vesnarinone revealed significant interpatient variability at any given dose level.

56 d for adjacent biopsies, was larger than the interpatient variability for individuals with a history

57 e some pharmacological limitations including interpatient variability in antithrombotic effects in pa

58 MCL showed large interpatient variability in basal levels, and elevated l

59 e was normalized to body-surface area (BSA), interpatient variability in Cl(S/F) was reduced from 20%

60 Interpatient variability in Cmax,ss and AUCtau,ss was es

61 Interpatient variability in community structure exceeded

62 Interpatient variability in HCY exposure at a given CY d

63 This study was conducted to test whether interpatient variability in neurocognitive outcomes can

64 From evidence of interpatient variability in normal tissue sensitivity to

65 The high degree of interpatient variability in parameter estimates suggests

66 ly fails even under perfect adherence due to interpatient variability in pharmacological parameters.

67 etion are important determinants of the wide interpatient variability in plasma free dobutamine and d

68 There was marked interpatient variability in plasma PZA concentrations at

69 There was a large interpatient variability in RBC MTXPG levels (median 35

70 a suggest that host factors may also predict interpatient variability in response to aromatase inhibi

71 Recognition that there is a great deal of interpatient variability in response to these antiplatel

72 been associated with a significant degree of interpatient variability in response to treatment.

73 ggesting activities potentially relevant for interpatient variability in response to treatment.

74 There was marked interpatient variability in the degree of platelet aggre

75 This may contribute to interpatient variability in the risk of CsA-induced neph

76 nset of action, fewer interactions, and less interpatient variability in their antithrombotic effects

77 e limited by their calibration range and the interpatient variability in their dose-response curves.

78 To elucidate interpatient variability in thioguanine nucleotide (TGN)

79 administered monthly HBIg, intrapatient and interpatient variability in trough antibody to HBsAg (an

80 Large interpatient variability of measurable immunosuppressant

81 r after transplantation explained 19% of the interpatient variability of PCS 3 months after transplan

82 However, interpatient variability of percentage of HbF (%HbF) res

83 There was a high degree of interpatient variability of plasma alitretinoin concentr

84 Food and film coating apparently increased interpatient variability of the maximum observed plasma

85 e for body size or disease does not diminish interpatient variability sufficiently to obviate plasma

86 ay translate to less intestinal toxicity and interpatient variability than the SN-38 prodrugs thus fa

87 There is also considerable interpatient variability that was not explained by the c

88 Vmax>pt overlapped between the 2 groups, and interpatient variability was greater for HER2+ than HER2

89 Marked interpatient variability was noted for which KIs were ef

90 Wide interpatient variability was noted in vorinostat disposi

91 A large interpatient variability was observed on clearance (coef

92 dren with first-dose PK studies, substantial interpatient variability was observed, plus a novel oral

93 an those without, but because of significant interpatient variability, defining an effective general

94 Despite significant interpatient variability, exposure to vandetanib increas

95 CD8(+) T lymphocyte response, despite marked interpatient variability, increased overall with STI.

96 There was significant interpatient variability, which correlated with plasma c

97 heterogeneity and readily evident intra- and interpatient variability.

98 years; IQR, -8.9% to 1.2%), indicating large interpatient variability.

99 on in ARVD/C is progressive with substantial interpatient variability.

100 on, dose-proportional exposure, and moderate interpatient variability.

101 with increasing patient age, there is great interpatient variability.

102 and maximum plasma concentration with marked interpatient variability.

103 um 57 mins), although there was considerable interpatient variation (20 to 175 mins with cisatracuriu

104 ths posttransplant but there was significant interpatient variation as to when peak levels occurred.

105 material, provides a possible mechanism for interpatient variation in host-stromal response to invad

106 based on body surface area results in marked interpatient variation in pharmacokinetics, toxic effect

107 or number, differences in receptor activity, interpatient variation in pharmacological dose-response

108 There was marked interpatient variation in plasma concentrations of PZA.

109 Such interpatient variation in T-cell kinetics may be reflect

110 Intra- and interpatient variation of PZ ADCs was determined by mean

111 The effect of interpatient variation on the assessment of prostate can

112 PZ ADCs show significant interpatient variation, which has a substantial effect o

113 s greater than in HT29 cells but with marked interpatient variations and proficiently glucuronidated

114 Interpatient variations are relevant for prognosis and t

115 as used to determine the significance of the interpatient variations in ADCs.

116 ases promoter activity and may contribute to interpatient variations in hRFC expression and effects o

117 Interpatient variations in serum clearance rates were ob

118 Interpatient variations in serum clearance rates were ob