ライフサイエンスコーパス: parasitological

1 Paromomycin modulated parasitological and clinical parameters in highly predic

2 We did parasitological and malacological surveys at nine potent

3 L, here we review clinical, epidemiological, parasitological, and immunological perspectives of this

4 Based on parasitological criteria, treatment failed in 26%, 16%,

5 f the implications of their work is that the parasitological criterion of egg-positivity versus egg-n

6 ted by difficulties in demonstrating sterile parasitological cure.

7 epeated negative hemacultures, indicative of parasitological cure.

8 lication to the analysis of various types of parasitological data are reviewed here.

9 However, robust and reliable analysis of parasitological data from natural and experimental infec

10 Complete parasitological data of 1860 (86.6%) enrollees were anal

11 Statistical analysis of parasitological data provides a powerful method for unde

12 rring form of interval-censored longitudinal parasitological data-specifically, 2-wave panel data-was

13 e increasingly being used in the analysis of parasitological data.

14 However, spatial parasitological datasets rarely, if ever, have sufficien

15 gyloidiasis example addresses the problem of parasitological diagnosis in the absence of a gold stand

16 ship between SP resistance mutations and the parasitological efficacy of SP during pregnancy, we esti

17 n the effectiveness of interventions against parasitological endpoints such as placental infection at

18 ified according to CVL clinical severity and parasitological evaluation.

19 uation, ELISA anti-HCV antibodies screening, parasitological examination for diagnosing S. mansoni an

20 substantial evidence that stool culture and parasitological examinations are of minimal to no value

21 luations of stool cultures and the number of parasitological examinations for patients hospitalized f

22 nd pathological basis, supported by positive parasitological exams and demonstration of leishmanin de

23 28-Day risk of parasitological failure (unadjusted and adjusted by geno

24 The primary outcome was parasitological failure at day 42.

25 The primary endpoint was parasitological failure by day 14 assessed blind to trea

26 The primary outcome was parasitological failure by day 28 of treatment.

27 PCR-corrected parasitological failure by day 28 was 14%, 11%, 3%, and

28 difference 10.4% [95% CI, 1.6-19.3] p=0.021; parasitological failure in 12.8% vs 26.4%, risk differen

29 By day 14, the parasitological failure rates were 103 of 248 (42%) for

30 By day 28, the parasitological failure rates were 182 of 239 (76%), 282

31 Parasitological, hematological, and micronutrient data w

32 ends that all malaria management be based on parasitological identification.

33 pothesized that this suboptimal clinical and parasitological immunity may in part be due to reduced a

34 are well suited to both laboratory and field parasitological investigation.

35 ue-positive patients not being identified by parasitological methods or to the number of asymptomatic

36 nd expert training in infrequently practiced parasitological methods.

37 f active (canine and human) cases and to the parasitological monitoring of patients after chemotherap

38 re followed up for 14 days, and clinical and parasitological outcomes were assessed.

39 distinct immunological, virological, and/or parasitological parameters underlying disease exacerbati

40 on of patients with an adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) at day 28, in the per-pr

41 -lumefantrine with the adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) in an intention-to-treat

42 r correction, the mean adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) was 50.3% (n = 163).

43 ain reaction corrected adequate clinical and parasitological response (PCR-corrected ACPR) on day 28

44 %) given SP achieved acceptable clinical and parasitological response by day 14.

45 AM-PQP demonstrated high clinical and parasitological response rates as well as rapid parasite

46 Second, this parasitological response was associated with a nearly no

47 ain reaction-corrected adequate clinical and parasitological response) in the per-protocol population

48 Primary endpoints were adequate clinical and parasitological responses (ACPR) rates at day 28.

49 Adequate clinical and parasitological responses were 14%, 38%, and 39% after s

50 We report on parasitological results in a malaria study in selected r

51 were observed for virtually all clinical and parasitological scoring parameters, including diarrhea s

52 of phytoremediation but also from a clinical parasitological standpoint.

53 ividuals over 1-2 years and determined their parasitological status during monthly visits and inciden

54 The parasitological status of mothers was studied by PCR in

55 The parasitological status was studied by PCR in 159 pregnan

56 rug registers, household questionnaires, and parasitological surveys were collected to track 935 indi

57 Monthly parasitological surveys were undertaken for a cohort of

58 location and spatial aspects of exposure in parasitological surveys.

59 idence interval, 1.17-2.13) explained 38% of parasitological treatment failures by day 7.

60 between immunological endpoints and clinical/parasitological variables were tested.

61 ith a comprehensive set of socioeconomic and parasitological variables.