ライフサイエンスコーパス: radiation exposure

1 llary oxygen saturation [SpO2] and increased radiation exposure).

2 only regarded as a method that causes a high radiation exposure.

3 oregistration, motion correction, and reduce radiation exposure.

4 elated VT ablation resulted in low levels of radiation exposure.

5 ed before 1940 is likely due to occupational radiation exposure.

6 zation that did not show obstructive CAD and radiation exposure.

7 adolescents from potential risks of ionizing radiation exposure.

8 of the highest levels of annual occupational radiation exposure.

9 tances, including health issues unrelated to radiation exposure.

10 graphy (CT) owing to concerns about ionizing radiation exposure.

11 a novel surgical cap in reducing operators' radiation exposure.

12 of diagnostic quality while reducing patient radiation exposure.

13 d to reduce unnecessary healthcare costs and radiation exposure.

14 City, KS) designed to protect the head from radiation exposure.

15 uded death, major cardiovascular events, and radiation exposure.

16 ay potentially be more sensitive to low-dose radiation exposure.

17 med at mitigating the toxicities of ionizing radiation exposure.

18 zed by the clinical decision rule and spared radiation exposure.

19 in lungs from older patients with CF without radiation exposure.

20 by combining depletion of Lgr5(+) ISCs with radiation exposure.

21 on, which may therefore be omitted to reduce radiation exposure.

22 thod with high accuracy and without ionizing radiation exposure.

23 however, comes with risk related to ionizing radiation exposure.

24 to determine whether radial access increases radiation exposure.

25 way choice at DSBs generated in G2 following radiation exposure.

26 Reconstructed 2D images do not require radiation exposure.

27 BMI was not a significant predictor of radiation exposure.

28 te use, and patient safety in the context of radiation exposure.

29 ection rates while offering markedly reduced radiation exposure.

30 delayed diagnosis and the 6-month cumulative radiation exposure.

31 8; P<0.001) were associated with the highest radiation exposure.

32 ons were associated with the highest patient radiation exposure.

33 changes in rCBF during hypoglycemia without radiation exposure.

34 hole-body, assessment of tissue damage after radiation exposure.

35 DNA lesions resulting from ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure.

36 a variety of CT scanners without additional radiation exposure.

37 vers to minimize maternal and fetal ionizing radiation exposure.

38 greater likelihood of reduced ultraviolet B radiation exposure.

39 re associated with the long-term response to radiation exposure.

40 % of CLL, 15% of non-CLL) were attributed to radiation exposure.

41 nephrolithiasis also contributes to patient radiation exposure.

42 he shortest time and with the lowest patient radiation exposure.

43 age interpretation and justify the resulting radiation exposure.

44 etter inform safe levels of chronic low-dose radiation exposure.

45 FA undergoing alternative donor HCT without radiation exposure.

46 95% CI, 12.0- to 127.9-fold), relative to no radiation exposure.

47 emoglobin and albumin levels decreased after radiation exposure.

48 nique is the absence of DNA damage caused by radiation exposure.

49 ts underwent whole-body scanning to estimate radiation exposure.

50 ol/L during periods of minimal ultraviolet B radiation exposure.

51 , with improved prognostic accuracy and less radiation exposure.

52 rrelate them with the length of occupational radiation exposure.

53 rally focuses the cells, ensuring consistent radiation exposure.

54 sociated with significantly higher levels of radiation exposure.

55 erstanding of the biological consequences of radiation exposure.

56 ination and sensitizes the cells to ionizing radiation exposure.

57 oup 4 patients seem to benefit from limiting radiation exposure.

58 may be a new therapeutic target for ionizing radiation exposure.

59 n group had significantly lower median chest radiation exposure (0.06 versus 0.34 mSv; P=0.037, Mann-

60 ts of high dietary iron (650 mg/kg diet) and radiation exposure (0.375 Gy cesium-137 every other day

61 Ultraviolet radiation exposure 1 month prior to juvenile dermatomyos

62 the above metrics and significantly reduced radiation exposure (5.5 +/- 4.4 vs. 12.5 +/- 2.7 mSv, P

63 on (20%), season (17%), personal ultraviolet radiation exposure (8%), vitamin D supplementation (7%),

64 NI directly controls radiation exposure; a higher NI allows for greater image

65 at in 2011-2012, to determine variability in radiation exposure according to facility for this indica

66 er the linear no-threshold model of ionizing radiation exposure accurately predicts the subsequent in

67 Skin phototype, ultraviolet radiation exposure, age at transplant and duration of tr

68 entified correlations between rosacea and UV radiation exposure, alcohol, smoking, skin cancer histor

69 lly increased the survival of mice following radiation exposure and after myeloablative BM transplant

70 d the cap reduced significantly the operator radiation exposure and can be easily incorporated into c

71 Only radiation exposure and certain genetic syndromes are wel

72 The radiation exposure and clinical data were collected pros

73 anagement strategies, can reduce unnecessary radiation exposure and cost in low-risk patients with sy

74 probability and prescriptive advice reduced radiation exposure and cost of care in low-risk ambulato

75 suggested clinical actions designed to lower radiation exposure and cost.

76 RCT is limited because of concerns regarding radiation exposure and cost.

77 y in children, with associated reductions in radiation exposure and costs.

78 s associated with a significant reduction of radiation exposure and cumulative costs (59% and 24%, re

79 ispose to the development of thyroid cancer--radiation exposure and family history of thyroid cancer

80 Estimated radiation exposure and image quality were compared with

81 ildren with chronic diseases should consider radiation exposure and limit exposure when possible.

82 or breast cancer results in variable cardiac radiation exposure and may increase the risk of HF.

83 en with a T-cell-depleted graft to eliminate radiation exposure and minimize early and late toxicitie

84 The mean latency between radiation exposure and onset of RIM was 15 years (range

85 d controlled in order to ensure reduction of radiation exposure and optimization of image quality.

86 terative reconstruction (IR) with changes in radiation exposure and phantom size.

87 Secondary outcomes were operator radiation exposure and procedural time.

88 outine monitoring of occupationally internal radiation exposure and rapid analysis of neptunium conta

89 n occurs in many immune cell types following radiation exposure and that allopurinol prevented radiat

90 hiatrists are consistent with known risks of radiation exposure and the changes in radiation exposure

91 O MRI are valuable tools in mapping regional radiation exposure and the effects of radiation on BM.

92 ared with MPI, CCTA was associated with less radiation exposure and with a more positive patient expe

93 ing, invasive procedures, clinical outcomes, radiation exposure, and cumulative costs rather than the

94 ronary arteries with high image quality, low radiation exposure, and high diagnostic accuracy in pati

95 iven the lack of significant toxicity, lower radiation exposure, and improved accuracy compared with

96 ity, time to diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, radiation exposure, and overall cost.

97 Stress, in the form of infections, radiation exposure, and steroids, impairs thymic epithel

98 otic and proliferative responses to acute UV radiation exposure are also similar between wild-type an

99 Orthopedic strain and radiation exposure are recognized risk factors in person

100 during the D. radiodurans response to gamma radiation exposure are unknown.

101 l delivery to and uptake by cells in tissue, radiation exposures are often highly nonuniform.

102 s underscores the need to conduct a detailed radiation exposure assessment to enable quantitative eva

103 p were more likely to have a missing dose of radiation exposure assigned, leading to a bias in the ra

104 cess route was not associated with increased radiation exposure (beta=1.00; CI, 0.98-1.03; P=0.67).

105 Differential effects were observed following radiation exposure between the two cell lines.

106 Our aim was therefore to compare radiation exposure between transradial access and transf

107 At present relatively low radiation exposures, breast shielding contributed to an

108 for robust intestinal regeneration following radiation exposure but are dispensable for premalignant

109 sed clonogenic survival following subsequent radiation exposure but increased sensitivity to Docetaxe

110 ase in downstream testing, cost, and patient radiation exposure, but these findings may not be genera

111 The open arc cone-beam CT radiation exposure by means of weighted CT index was sli

112 treotate is noteworthy and disputes internal radiation exposure by PRRT as a toxicity risk factor in

113 nd in PCa lesions as well as to evaluate the radiation exposure by the radioligand in PET imaging.

114 Reduction of up to 62.5% in radiation exposure by using SAFIRE-3 yielded similar rea

115 We estimated external radiation exposure by using thermoluminescent dosimeters

116 h administration of lower doses; unnecessary radiation exposure can be avoided by administering doses

117 Accidental or deliberate ionizing radiation exposure can be fatal due to widespread hemato

118 Medical radiation exposure can be reduced by initially ordering

119 However, cardiac radiation exposure causes coronary microvascular endothe

120 g and procedures against carefully minimized radiation exposures; collation, dissemination, and imple

121 ss increases the risk of operator or patient radiation exposure compared to transfemoral access when

122 ntly higher in breast cancer with antecedent radiation exposure compared with breast cancer without a

123 the RADPAD radiation shield reduced operator radiation exposure compared with procedures with NOPAD o

124 Radiation exposure did not accelerate the rate of telome

125 y the relationships between ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure, dietary intake of vitamin D, and ser

126 Both early and midgestational radiation exposure diminished the surface area and volum

127 A prediction model was made for the radiation exposure (dose-area product) expressed in Gy.c

128 Radiation exposure due to computed tomography (CT) has b

129 Radiation exposure due to GKRS and CT/angio study may be

130 PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Radiation exposure due to medical imaging has grown expo

131 ation, a steady temporal decrease in patient radiation exposure during CA and PCI was noted between 2

132 y feedback can significantly reduce operator radiation exposure during cardiac catheterization.

133 k of HFpEF increases with increasing cardiac radiation exposure during contemporary conformal breast

134 Radiation exposure during fluoroscopically guided interv

135 s to the issues surrounding maternity leave, radiation exposure during pregnancy, and breastfeeding a

136 ood loss, shorter operation time and reduced radiation exposure during the operation.

137 related marrow failure or leukemia, but both radiation exposure during transplant and graft-versus-ho

138 The average radiation exposure (effective dose) was approximately 0.

139 of causation of male breast cancer following radiation exposure exceeds by at least a factor of 5 tha

140 ase, it remains a primary source of low-dose radiation exposure for cardiac patients.

141 National mean CT radiation exposure for evaluation of renal colic during

142 Radiation exposure for on-site workers calculated using

143 Reducing chronic UV radiation exposure for outdoor workers through sun-safet

144 sively retrograde approach, resulting in low radiation exposure for patients after intra-atrial baffl

145 Organ radiation exposure for the irreversible fatty acid amide

146 Radiation exposure for the primary operator was 95.2% lo

147 Radiation exposure from all diagnostic examinations and

148 Rising concerns of radiation exposure from computed tomography have caused

149 eshold model and corollary efforts to reduce radiation exposure from CT and nuclear medicine imaging

150 nephrolithiasis are at risk for significant radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging.

151 the risk of cataractogenesis associated with radiation exposure from GKRS.

152 as been increased concern over the impact of radiation exposure from medical imaging, as well as on t

153 agnostic imaging rates and cumulative annual radiation exposure from medical imaging.

154 There is increasing concern about radiation exposure from myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS)

155 Risks of radiation exposure from nuclear incidents and cancer rad

156 We investigated early childhood thyroid radiation exposure from nuclear testing fallout (supplie

157 Radiation exposure greater than 1500 cGy with any anthra

158 However, recent concerns about ionizing radiation exposure have led to a search for alternative

159 ematopoietic reconstitution following lethal radiation exposure have remained elusive.

160 esonance imaging (MRI), which do not involve radiation exposure, have also been used.

161 The major harms of LDCT are radiation exposure, high false-positive rates, and the p

162 many potential advantages over PET/CT (lower radiation exposure, higher soft-tissue contrast, and mul

163 However, we must keep in mind the risks of radiation exposure in a patient population characterized

164 ry-disease mortality associated with <0.5 Gy radiation exposure in a pooled cohort of 63,707 patients

165 ted with a small but significant increase in radiation exposure in both diagnostic and interventional

166 al long-term neuromuscular adverse effect of radiation exposure in Hodgkin's disease and other types

167 diet, accounts for only 5-12% of the natural radiation exposure in Italy.

168 dults account for 0.002-5.13% of the natural radiation exposure in Italy.

169 on and increases survival following ionizing radiation exposure in mice.

170 e ED and time in the wards if admitted), and radiation exposure in patients presenting to the ED with

171 dural characteristics associated with higher radiation exposure in patients undergoing percutaneous c

172 ecommending unnecessary follow-up imaging or radiation exposure in pregnancy without knowing the pati

173 at skeletal surveys may be modified to limit radiation exposure in the case of suspected nonaccidenta

174 these DIs may decrease unnecessary costs and radiation exposure in the disproportionately young traum

175 functioning and the implications of limiting radiation exposure in the four biologically distinct sub

176 er dose of radiation, the average background radiation exposure in the United States is 3 mSv/y, and

177 Overall radiation exposures in children with heart disease are r

178 Strategies to minimize radiation exposure include reducing the need for sequent

179 inappropriate use of MPI and imaging-related radiation exposure increased.

180 Radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer througho

181 and increased chromosomal aberrations after radiation exposure indicating a defect in DNA repair.

182 Radiation exposure induces cell and tissue damage, causi

183 damage and fibrosis, we investigated whether radiation exposure induces EndoMT in primary human intes

184 Ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure induces immunosuppression, which cont

185 es of somatic mutation characterize ionizing radiation exposure irrespective of tumour type.

186 tment failure, they are often imprecise, and radiation exposure is a potential health risk.

187 ion, our data supports the notion that space radiation exposure is a risk to endocrine alterations wi

188 female breast cancer following occupational radiation exposure is among that set of cancers eligible

189 The brain's response to radiation exposure is an important concern for patients

190 ough linkage of melanoma risk to ultraviolet radiation exposure is beyond doubt, ultraviolet-radiatio

191 after exposure to high-LET cosmic heavy ion radiation exposure is hindered due to scarcity of in viv

192 risk of benign thyroid tumors following such radiation exposure is much less well known.

193 Although radiation exposure is potentially carcinogenic, there ar

194 Radiation exposure is reported in mSv, a standardized me

195 UV radiation exposure is the primary risk factor for basal

196 issue injury in the lungs following high-LET radiation exposure is unknown.

197 Although MRE avoids ionizing radiation exposure, it remains costly.

198 For each radiation exposure level, readers' perception of image q

199 iation output of each tube, data sets at six radiation exposure levels (100%, 75%, 50%, 37.5%, 25%, a

200 s in the respective locations, while keeping radiation exposure levels below safety thresholds.

201 ean size-specific dose estimates for the six radiation exposure levels were 13.0, 9.8, 5.8, 4.4, 3.2,

202 puted tomographic (CT) data sets at multiple radiation exposure levels within the same patient and to

203 esize multidetector CT data sets at multiple radiation exposure levels within the same patient.

204 s-host disease, prolonged immunosuppression, radiation exposure, light skin color, sex, and T-cell de

205 nvironmental risk factors such as dioxin and radiation exposure may be linked to sarcomas, we chose 2

206 Although overdiagnosis, anxiety, pain, and radiation exposure may cause harm, their effects on indi

207 Ultraviolet radiation exposure may interact synergistically with cut

208 in a significant reduction in operator head radiation exposure (mean left temporal difference [exter

209 These findings, plus an absence of ionizing radiation exposure, mean that CMR should be more widely

210 The 2 primary study outcomes were radiation exposure measured in millisieverts (mSv) and m

211 With current radiation exposures (median, 3.4 mSv), breast shielding

212 CARTOUNIVU module resulted in low levels of radiation exposure: median total fluoroscopy time and ef

213 measurement of patient size combined with CT radiation exposure metrics may enable patient-specific d

214 asured in both groups using a second, silent radiation exposure monitoring device.

215 Since differences in radiation exposure narrow over time, the clinical signif

216 otoxic stress conditions (such as arsenic or radiation exposure), nor did FLVCR deletion result in al

217 patients (mean injected dose, 231 MBq), the radiation exposure of a (68)Ga-PSMA-617 PET/CT was ident

218 , interpretability, diagnostic accuracy, and radiation exposure of a computed tomography (CT) scanner

219 Most of the respondents were unsure about radiation exposure of CBCT when compared to other types

220 All 516 CT scans that involved direct radiation exposure of CRM devices (332 defibrillators, 1

221 As such, limiting the radiation exposure of special patients, such as pregnant

222 t played an important role in the associated radiation exposure of the affected populations.

223 We discovered that the effects of high-LET radiation exposure on progenitor cells occur in a p53-de

224 steoporosis or normal BMD without additional radiation exposure or cost.

225 have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation exposure or identification of extracolonic fin

226 ing insult induced by chemotherapy, ionizing radiation exposure or therapy, and infections (e.g. HIV-

227 95% CI, 1.00-1.10; P = .047), and history of radiation exposure (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.02-5.03; P = .04

228 Harms included radiation exposure, overdiagnosis, and a high rate of fa

229 Radiation exposure parameters and major and minor proced

230 Treatment with RTX before radiation exposure partially protected podocytes from SM

231 ocytes proportional to TP53 status (ionizing radiation exposure: patients with LFS, 2.71% [95% CI, 1.

232 The median cumulative radiation exposure per patient was lower in the CTA grou

233 cle arrest and increased apoptosis following radiation exposure (percent change 0% vs. 85%; P = 0.002

234 However, the increased radiation exposure potentially associated with transradi

235 ma-H2AX) as a bioindicator of the effects of radiation exposure, predominantly nonmalignant cells in

236 of clinical or microbiological markers, low-radiation exposure pulmonary CT imaging was used to moni

237 rs: age (r = 0.38; P < .001) and lifetime UV radiation exposure (r = 0.26; P < .001).

238 The radiation exposure rate to nursing staff during the peri

239 Substantial evidence has linked ionizing radiation exposure (RE) to oncogenesis.

240 Their condensation, triggered by radiation exposure, recently produced unprecedented patt

241 eral hepatic tumors while achieving a slight radiation exposure reduction.

242 n recent years, with the benefits of reduced radiation exposure, reduction of imaging time, and poten

243 greater than 25-fold reduction in total body radiation exposure relative to (89)Zr-desferrioxamine-5B

244 scan should be balanced with the additional radiation exposure required.

245 To measure professional radiation exposure, ring dose meters were worn by the su

246 The knowledge of ionizing radiation exposure risks among the medical staff is esse

247 5% CI, 1.3 to 2.6; P < .001) and therapeutic radiation exposure (RR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.3; P < .00

248 le of this effect, where cells shielded from radiation exposure see a significant reduction in surviv

249 first-line imaging test, is associated with radiation exposure, several complications resulting from

250 s that allow high-quality imaging with lower radiation exposure should be used when available to achi

251 Imaging using (18)F-TFB imparts a radiation exposure similar in magnitude to many other (1

252 d suppression of p53 in response to ionizing radiation exposure, suggesting that the mutant alleles e

253 ography was associated with lower cumulative radiation exposure than initial CT, without significant

254 Patients with IVT had lower radiation exposure than patients with nonischemic VT (to

255 Because it has a lower radiation exposure than PET/CT, combined PET/MR is expec

256 AD was associated with a 43% higher relative radiation exposure than procedures with NOPAD (P=0.009).

257 g injury (RILI) is a delayed effect of acute radiation exposure that can limit curative cancer treatm

258 ed with a clinically significant increase in radiation exposure that outweighs its benefits is unclea

259 management protocols can result in levels of radiation exposure that would be classified as harmful.

260 ether these islands are safe for habitation, radiation exposure through additional pathways such as f

261 oembolization, and its safety after internal radiation exposure through peptide receptor radionuclide

262 f cyclin D1, we infer that relative to gamma radiation exposure to (56)Fe radiation induced markedly

263 ng, continued care should be taken to reduce radiation exposure to both the patients and operators.

264 rticular concern is the potential for cosmic radiation exposure to compromise critical decision makin

265 nerate quality images as well as the risk of radiation exposure to healthy tissues during repeated PE

266 ts and patient management while reducing the radiation exposure to medical staff.

267 t studies examining the reduced occupational radiation exposure to medical staff.

268 To review the risk factors for increased radiation exposure to patients during percutaneous nephr

269 eras have demonstrated the ability to reduce radiation exposure to patients undergoing myocardial per

270 r patient selection could avoid unneccessary radiation exposure to poor responders.

271 sks of radiation exposure and the changes in radiation exposure to radiologists over time.

272 formed during (18)F-FPEB studies to minimize radiation exposure to research subjects.

273 ation procedures with little or no risk from radiation exposure to the fetus.

274 inical performance, with significantly lower radiation exposure to the operator.

275 amera technology can reduce the occupational radiation exposure to the staff of a nuclear cardiology

276 The amount of radiation exposure to the surgeon, theater nurse, and pa

277 isease phenotypes and biology, and to reduce radiation exposure to vulnerable populations such as chi

278 amage in susceptible tissues after high-dose radiation exposure, using (99m)Tc-duramycin as a phospha

279 2, low contrast) were performed for multiple radiation exposures, vendors, and vendor iterative recon

280 Radiation exposure was based on models.

281 Thyroid radiation exposure was calculated via an updated dosimet

282 Radiation exposure was compared by means of a phantom st

283 effect of the Bleeper Sv device on operator radiation exposure was consistent among various study su

284 Clonal expansion following high-LET radiation exposure was correlated with elevated progenit

285 Long-term, all-cause radiation exposure was lower for the CCTA group (24 vers

286 Operator radiation exposure was measured in both groups using a s

287 LE loss attributable to radiation exposure was projected by using a separate org

288 The radiation exposure was relatively low.

289 -10] versus 7 [4-14] muSv; P<0.001) operator radiation exposure was significantly lower in the Bleepe

290 The mean 6-month cumulative radiation exposure was significantly lower in the ultras

291 In the largest study population to assess radiation exposure, we found that high body mass index,

292 No differences in radiation exposure were found between the two groups.

293 Organ and whole-body radiation exposures were calculated using OLINDA softwar

294 and other radiologic outcome parameters (eg, radiation exposure) were analyzed.

295 l access site was not associated with higher radiation exposure when compared with femoral approach.

296 associated with greater operator and patient radiation exposure when performed by expert operators in

297 c parathyroid CT would have slightly greater radiation exposure with similar cost to sestamibi scinti

298 ominant causative agent is ultraviolet solar radiation exposure, with the majority of cases occurring

299 ars from when it was first reported that UVB radiation exposure would modulate immune signaling, the

300 Conversely, LE loss attributable to radiation exposure would need to decrease by 74-fold for