ライフサイエンスコーパス: nonprofit

1 .4%), a personality disorder (public: 11.6%, nonprofit: 11.3%, proprietary: 4.7%), or a general medic

2 diagnosed with schizophrenia (public: 23.4%, nonprofit: 18.8%, proprietary: 12.6%), a comorbid substa

3 d substance-related disorder (public: 29.9%, nonprofit: 31.0%, proprietary: 17.4%), a personality dis

4 r a general medical disorder (public: 62.4%, nonprofit: 57.4%, proprietary: 41.1%) than patients of p

5 nly distributed among public (9.4%), private nonprofit (78.9%), and proprietary (11.7%) hospitals.

6 he other types of facilities (public: 17.0%, nonprofit: 9.9%, proprietary: 6.4%).

7 available without licensing restrictions to nonprofit academic users, affording freely available hig

8 antly more study centers and subjects, while nonprofit agency-funded RCTs had longer duration and wer

9 xciting career opportunities in industry and nonprofit and government organizations.

10 e, and hospital descriptors (rural location, nonprofit and teaching status), the hazard for recurrenc

11 m mental health to rare diseases, charitable nonprofits and foundations are bringing energy, perspect

12 of GAIN data by investigators from academic, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions with relatively f

13 rition research collaborations among public, nonprofit, and private sectors.

14 al disorders discharged from public, private nonprofit, and proprietary general hospitals.

15 ices between nephrologists at for-profit and nonprofit centers.

16 revascularization procedures) compared with nonprofit centers.

17 have patients with worse acute outcomes than nonprofit centers.

18 rom for-profit chain facilities, compared to nonprofit chain facilities, were 13% (95% CI 0.77-0.98)

19 Nonprofit contracts received an average 0.55 (95% CI, 0.

20 Compared with patients in nonprofit dialysis facilities (n = 28,199), patients in

21 .5 [95% CI, 9.7-35.2]), and were more likely nonprofit (difference, 17.6% [95% CI, 7.7%-27.4%]) compa

22 onal Gastrointestinal Disorders (IFFGD) is a nonprofit education and research group.

23 clinical trial with a crossover design at a nonprofit eye research institute.

24 epoetin ranged from 17,832 U/wk at chain 5 (nonprofit facilities with a mean hematocrit level of 34.

25 Compared with nonprofit facilities, for-profit facilities administered

26 On average, compared with nonprofit facilities, for-profit facilities increased ep

27 antation, such as older age, white race, and nonprofit facility status, were not always consistent wi

28 Private nonprofit general hospitals increasingly treat publicly

29 er for all teaching hospitals) or as private nonprofit, government (i.e., public), or private for-pro

30 by investigators who are based in the older nonprofit group and staff models of health maintenance o

31 the Open Bioinformatics Foundation (OBF), a nonprofit group dedicated to promoting the practice and

32 hile the feasibility of medical education in nonprofit group/staff model HMOs is well documented, it

33 with assumptions based on data from a large nonprofit health maintenance organization (Kaiser Perman

34 e differ between enrollees in for-profit and nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs).

35 or-profit HMOs are rated less favorably than nonprofit HMOs by patients who have self-reported fair o

36 cal care between enrollees in for-profit and nonprofit HMOs, for-profit HMOs are rated less favorably

37 For nonprofit HMOs, there was only one significant differenc

38 Compared with nonprofit hospice agencies, for-profit hospice agencies

39 discharges from 145 agencies), compared with nonprofit hospices (3618 discharges from 524 agencies),

40 For-profit hospices compared with nonprofit hospices had a significantly longer length of

41 For-profit and nonprofit hospices may respond differently to financial

42 at a public teaching hospital and a private, nonprofit hospital in Chicago, Illinois.

43 ospital discharges increased most in private nonprofit hospitals and declined substantially in public

44 e were lower, and payments to government and nonprofit hospitals for congestive heart failure were lo

45 -profit hospitals had greater increases than nonprofit hospitals in their per-patient charges (mean i

46 Psychiatric patients of public and private nonprofit hospitals were more likely to be diagnosed wit

47 ompared with 133,699 patients treated at 474 nonprofit hospitals.

48 tay has fallen most substantially in private nonprofit hospitals.

49 m for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), a nonprofit initiative, was formed to define standard sets

50 Public companies, individual inventors, and nonprofit institutions represented 31.4%, 18.0%, and 5.7

51 e discrimination practiced by commercial and nonprofit journal publishers.

52 eveloping the program was facilitated by the nonprofit Keystone Center, an organization that develops

53 Nonprofit, larger, and older MA contracts were more like

54 In 2010, nonprofit MA contracts received significantly higher sta

55 Nonprofit (median accuracy score, 4 [IQR, 4-5]), governm

56 d 15 to 19 years experiencing pregnancy in a nonprofit Minnesota health care organization.

57 Despite this, many nonprofits offer conditional thank-you gifts, such as mu

58 % for government-funded trials and 71.9% for nonprofit or nonfederal organization-funded trials (P <

59 among industry-funded trials to 56.2% among nonprofit or nonfederal organization-funded trials witho

60 gories of industry, government agencies, and nonprofit or nonfederal organizations.

61 14%) by government sources, and 126 (23%) by nonprofit or nonfederal organizations.

62 Trials funded by nonprofit or nonfederal sources with industry contributi

63 iatric inpatients treated in public, private nonprofit, or proprietary general hospitals.

64 ging times required founding of a binational nonprofit organization (RERF) with equal participation b

65 tes and 2 residential programs operated by 1 nonprofit organization in the Northeastern United States

66 members of the Mobile Lab Coalition (MLC), a nonprofit organization of mobile and other laboratory-ba

67 Addgene (www.addgene.org) is a nonprofit organization that facilitates biomedical resea

68 DMs placed greater trust in universities and nonprofit organizations (107/117; 91.4%) than either the

69 Websites of nonprofit organizations (median readability level, 12.9

70 lts are consistent across subsamples, though nonprofit organizations appear to build greener building

71 NESdb is freely available to nonprofit organizations at http://prodata.swmed.edu/LRNe

72 y arose among studies involving authors from nonprofit organizations because of some imprecise studie

73 Several government and nonprofit organizations provide the researchers access t

74 Nonprofit organizations train villagers to create and le

75 nformation, 34.6% reported funding solely by nonprofit organizations, 48.3% reported funding solely b

76 d subjects are more likely to be employed at nonprofit organizations.

77 BioEYES, a nonprofit outreach program using zebrafish to excite and

78 In the sample as a whole, enrollees in nonprofit plans were more likely to be very satisfied wi

79 aniasis, and Chagas disease, is being led by nonprofit product development partnerships (PDPs) workin

80 The ERAS Society, an international nonprofit professional society that promotes, develops,

81 ange of experts from academia, industry, the nonprofit sector, and the U.S. government discussed oppo

82 preclinical research by laboratories in the nonprofit sector, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline are developi

83 arged by commercial publishers with those of nonprofit societies and to examine the types of price di

84 unded by industry, 19 (18.4%) were funded by nonprofit sources, 6 (5.8%) had mixed funding, and fundi

85 maceutical company-sponsored (6/20 [30%]) vs nonprofit-sponsored (3/24 [13%]) studies (P = .26).

86 pany-sponsored studies were less likely than nonprofit-sponsored studies to report unfavorable qualit

87 In collaboration with a nonprofit, this study implements a direct mail field exp

88 d fundraising costs, limiting the ability of nonprofits to be effective.

89 nt for substance use disorders at a private, nonprofit treatment facility were randomized to MBRP, RP

90 volving 3 residential programs operated by 1 nonprofit treatment organization in the Midwestern Unite

91 mortality risk was noted in hospital-based, nonprofit units practicing formaldehyde automatic reuse,

92 003) compared with no-reuse, hospital-based, nonprofit units.

93 pend more per employee than large firms, and nonprofit universities are major producers.

94 IT license and is available for academic and nonprofit use for free.