ライフサイエンスコーパス: normal birth

1 Their levels increased significantly after normal birth.

2 erformed in three independent white European normal birth cohorts.

3 hromosomally normal losses and chromosomally normal births combined.

4 Phenotypically, the patient had normal birth height and weight, had normal psychomotor d

5 en whose index pregnancy was a chromosomally normal birth (n=226).

6 for age-matched controls with chromosomally normal births (n = 388).

7 mTOR activity preserves ovarian function and normal birth numbers.

8 Subsequently, until the time of normal birth, the principal development is a proliferati

9 t (>4 kg) participants were more likely than normal birth weight (>/=2.5-</=4 kg) participants to bec

10 w birth weight (<2,500 g), 41% in those with normal birth weight (2,500-4,499 g), and 64% in those wi

11 respectively) versus mothers of newborns of normal birth weight (2500-4000 g).

12 ed with increased rates of SLE compared with normal birth weight (7-8.5 pounds; rate ratio [RR] 2.7,

13 alifornia (the DARLING Study), 2) infants of normal birth weight (NBW) but from low-income families i

14 58.05, SE = 20.00 microg/ml) compared to the normal birth weight (NBW) group (mean 13.45, SE = 3.92 m

15 men born with LBW and 13 controls born with normal birth weight (NBW).

16 vs 2.3%; P<.01) compared with those born at normal birth weight (NBW).

17 lth risk compared to birth at full term with normal birth weight (NBW).

18 birth weight (MLBW, 1,500-2,499 g); and 794 normal birth weight (NBW, > or = 2,500 g).

19 th weight (MLBW: 1,500-2,499 g; n = 553) and normal birth weight (NBW: > or = 2,500 g; n = 555) singl

20 In children with normal birth weight and a high prevalence of obesity at

21 presentative samples of low birth weight and normal birth weight children from the City of Detroit (u

22 sed risk of neuroblastoma compared with term/normal birth weight delivery among infants (OR = 6.99, 9

23 Controls were normal birth weight infants (NBW).

24 die before their first birthday compared to normal birth weight infants.

25 ntrols were 304 women who delivered term and normal birth weight infants.

26 BW newborns, and 195 who delivered full-term normal birth weight newborns as the controls.

27 Girls with LBW and normal birth weight with no adversities had no adolescen

28 dmfs was 1.86 between children with low and normal birth weight, and 1.66 between children of smokin

29 dence interval 0.72-7.2) that in subjects of normal birth weight, and the odds in subjects of high bi

30 Infants with TGA had normal birth weight, but lesser head volume relative to

31 egenerative disorder characterized by low to normal birth weight, growth failure, brain dysmyelinatio

32 Clinical manifestations included normal birth weight, late onset of hypoglycemia, diazoxi

33 In comparison with mothers of newborns with normal birth weight, mothers of newborns with low birth

34 In children of normal birth weight, obesity is positively associated wi

35 al: 1.50, 2.14)) outcomes in comparison with normal birth weight.

36 D status at 4 y in 323 Chilean children with normal birth weight.

37 CI, 5.2%-13.3%) among adolescent girls with normal birth weight.

38 of in girls with LBW more than in girls with normal birth weight.

39 is associated with risk of CP in children of normal birth weight.

40 marked increase in risk of CP in infants of normal birth weight.

41 egenerative disorder characterized by low-to-normal birth weight; growth failure; brain dysmyelinatio

42 prevalence of U between low-birth weight and normal-birth weight children.

43 The role of genes in normal birth-weight variation is poorly understood, and

44 on gene variants can substantially influence normal birth-weight variation.

45 hose of low to moderate parity who delivered normal-birth-weight babies (adjusted odds ratio = 3.53,

46 5% CI, 0.6-6.3 mum; P = .02) thinner than in normal-birth-weight children after adjustment for all va

47 ever, the consistency of this association in normal-birth-weight children and its potential mediators

48 ognitive scores between low-birth-weight and normal-birth-weight children was large in the NCDS [-0.3

49 0 g) in their mid-20s was similar to that of normal-birth-weight controls (>2500g), there was uncerta

50 cases (n = 33) had infants weighing <2500 g; normal-birth-weight controls (n = 390) had infants weigh

51 t women, were significantly less likely than normal-birth-weight controls to be enrolled in postsecon

52 ug use and had lower rates of pregnancy than normal-birth-weight controls; these differences persiste

53 Four control pregnancies resulting in normal-birth-weight infants (> or =2500 g) were randomly

54 12, there were 43.0 NICU admissions per 1000 normal-birth-weight infants (2500-3999 g), while the adm

55 t age 2 months, there were 173373 full-term, normal-birth-weight infants enrolled as controls; at age

56 re than 2500 g, and 65% to 76% of full-term, normal-birth-weight infants.

57 A total of 7012 healthy normal-birth-weight neonates were randomized to BCG only

58 , and 89 of 144 sociodemographically matched normal-birth-weight term controls (61.8%) recruited at a

59 low-birth-weight survivors and 89 (33 males) normal-birth-weight term controls.

60 ewer very-low-birth-weight young adults than normal-birth-weight young adults had graduated from high

61 r intelligence quotient (IQ) than those with normal birth weights (NBW, >/=2500 g).

62 studied a control group of 43 children with normal birth weights.

63 rom the same population in Cleveland who had normal birth weights.