ライフサイエンスコーパス: local reaction

1 ent Ang-3 to its receptor to elicit specific local reaction.

2 in at the injection-site was the most common local reaction.

3 fracture apertures and flow fields based on local reactions.

4 istration was well tolerated, with only mild local reactions and 1 unrelated serious adverse event (b

5 ystemic reactions (of 16 participants, 4 had local reactions and 13 had systemic reactions) than did

6 well tolerated with only mild and transient local reactions and constitutional symptoms.

7 Acute adverse events (fever, allergy, and local reactions) and adverse birth outcomes (small for g

8 ine was associated with an increased risk of local reactions as compared with the control vaccine, an

9 Toxicity consisted of local reaction at the site of injection and mild fever a

10 s given placebo, except for a higher rate of local reactions at injection sites in the former group.

11 We report the first series of patients with local reactions at the injection sites of meglumine anti

12 ts were associated with treatment except for local reactions at the site of application and those rel

13 Local reactions at the site of injection have been brief

14 who developed cutaneous pox lesions had more local reactions but also achieved significantly higher c

15 ich are fluorescent objects generated by the local reaction-diffusion of released Ca and cytosolic in

16 all rate of clot lysis and creates a complex local reaction environment at the plasma/clot interface.

17 Safety outcomes were immediate reactions, local reactions, fever within 7 days after each dose, an

18 Using a multipole shielding polarizability-local reaction field approach, we have computed the elec

19 Yet, the technical difficulty and frequent local reactions hamper its broad application in the clin

20 vaccines are reactogenic, causing fever and local reactions in many vaccinees.

21 , most likely, the incidence and severity of local reactions in teenagers and adults.

22 The most common adverse events were local reactions in the mouth.

23 ts receiving SLIT experience mild, transient local reactions in the oral mucosa, these primary reacti

24 milar in the two groups, but there were more local reactions in the PCV13 group.

25 Local reactions included mild to moderate injection site

26 The proposed grading system for SLIT-induced local reactions is expected to improve and harmonize sur

27 Children who suffered from large local reaction (LLR) or SR after insect stings were incl

28 patients had SSRs, but 41 (43.6%) had large local reactions (LLRs) after the sting.

29 The most common local reaction, mild arm pain, was reported by all recip

30 Such local reaction networks give rise to microdomains of act

31 SCIT was well tolerated; six mild local reactions occurred, and there were no serious adve

32 he vascular endothelium provides signals for local reaction of inflammatory cells.

33 d with MF59 alone (of 16 participants, 7 had local reactions [P < 0.01] and 0 had systemic reactions

34 There were more local reactions (pain, erythema, induration, and warmth)

35 Local reactions peaked at day 4, with a mean maximum com

36 Systemic reactions were rare, but local reactions (primarily erythema at the injection sit

37 arying the flow rate within the cell and the local reaction rate.

38 hotodecomposition of OA on TiO2 to determine local reaction rates and, after integration over the rea

39 Local reactions, such as gastrointestinal or oropharynge

40 ningococcal conjugate vaccine produced fewer local reactions than concurrent routine immunizations.

41 In contrast, ID injection induced severe local reactions that persisted for weeks.

42 ogy of PGCG is unknown, it might represent a local reaction to trauma or irritation.

43 he presence of subconjunctival drainage, and local reaction to treatment were assessed.

44 Local reactions to IGHy were generally mild to moderate,

45 tebrates and invertebrates to mediate rapid, local reactions to physiological or pathological cues.

46 The risk of these local reactions was significantly correlated with prevac

47 Systemic adverse events were rare, but local reactions were common in all groups.

48 Local reactions were frequent, but anaphylaxis was not r

49 Local reactions were mainly injection site pain/tenderne

50 Local reactions were more frequent in individuals who re

51 rimary outcome) was assessed at 57 days, and local reactions were quantitatively measured.

52 Local reactions were significantly more frequent among r

53 Local reactions were strongly correlated with levels of

54 This local reaction, which is likely an Arthus hypersensitivi