ライフサイエンスコーパス: response time

1 represent modifiable factors associated with response time.

2 rovide positive/negative judgment in a short response time.

3 their high sensitivity, portability and fast response time.

4 -day survival even in case of long ambulance response time.

5 ing the pulse duration with an instantaneous response time.

6 leads to a reduction in the photorefractive response time.

7 Newtons can be applied with a submillisecond response time.

8 receding 120 minutes was not associated with response time.

9 ostic factors, that is, witnessed status and response time.

10 is effect eliminates defects and reduces the response time.

11 sitivity, ultra-selectivity, as well as fast response time.

12 igh and low abilities), and average question response time.

13 tretchable graphene oxide coatings with fast response time.

14 -paying alternative and predicted choice and response time.

15 pressing gene with arbitrarily long or short response time.

16 tion, thereby improving device stability and response time.

17 hem, potentially accounting for the improved response time.

18 wider optimal AC frequency range, and faster response time.

19 ted with better stability, repeatability and response time.

20 compromising its sensitivity, stability and response time.

21 rs associated with physiologic monitor alarm response time.

22 requires frequent calibration and has a long response time.

23 alarm-level factors hypothesized to predict response time.

24 c responses and therefore exhibit very short response times.

25 rovide a quantitative account of choices and response times.

26 e, 80-150 Hz), which predicts trial-by-trial response times.

27 sensitivity but should also reduce movement response times.

28 g in transduction processes and the observed response times.

29 ng that is reflected in both performance and response times.

30 ghly 5.5-10.5 with good sensitivity and fast response times.

31 notype Phenotype Archives and improved query response times.

32 demonstrated high photoresponsivity and fast response times.

33 n processes that characterized participants' response times.

34 h levels of sensitivity (~0.005 Pa) and fast response times (~0.1 ms).

35 The electrode showed a fast response time ( 10 s) and a detection limit of 1.3 x 10(

36 a detection limit of 6 ng mL(-1) with short response times (15 min).

37 GO/VS-PANI/LuPc2-MFH biosensor showed a fast response time (1s) to the addition of glucose with high

38 toring and quasi-real-time data acquisition (response time: 20 +/- 5 s).

39 se concentrations of 1.67 muM-6.87 mM, short response time (3 s), a lower detection limit of 0.53 muM

40 bsystems listed in increasing order of their response times; (3) the matrix ATP hydrolysis mass actio

41 n a continuous-flow system exhibiting a fast response time, 4s, and a full recovery to the baseline

42 biosensor sensitivity (1164+/-332muAmM(-1)), response time (5.0+/-1.5s), and limit of detection (0.2+

43 rse's shift was associated with a 15% longer response time (6.1 minutes [95% CI, 2.8-9.3] in hour 2 v

44 d a sensitivity (66.2+/-2.6muAmM(-1)cm(-2)), response time (6.3+/-3.4s), and limit of detection (1.3+

45 a low detection limit (0.0625mg/L) and fast response time (61s).

46 The response time (6s for glucose and 12min for E. coli) wer

47 (5)), nanowatts detectability, and ultrafast response-time (90 ms) and recovery-time (210 ms).

48 With increasing response times, adjusted 30-day survival chances decreas

49 Perfusion, dynamic SvO2, and T2* response times after induced ischemia are highly correla

50 The sensor shows better selectivity and response time along with its real time applications, onl

51 The adjusted median response time among nurses was 10.4 minutes (95% CI, 5.0

52 t behavior that suffered from a 76% delay in response time and a 25% decrease in system bandwidth due

53 (SECM) probes because of their inherent fast response time and ease of miniaturization.

54 32 human participants indicated both faster response time and faster learning rate for value-congrue

55 ogrammable in any desired fashion, with fast response time and high efficiency.

56 ty perceptual contexts, as indexed by longer response time and higher decision boundaries.

57 ensor system that has high specificity, fast response time and is easily applicable by user for the d

58 nce was compared in terms of response value, response time and limit of detection (LOD) for each plat

59 ange, high sensitivity and selectivity, fast response time and low oxygen-, temperature- and pH- depe

60 local geochemistry are likely affecting the response time and magnitude.

61 The sensitivity, response time and the detection limit of the biosensor f

62 of a convolution between the DNA "switching" response time and the other frequency limited responses

63 A simple, rapid response time and ultrahigh sensitive electrochemilumine

64 ce to a threshold can explain task accuracy, response times and confidence, yet it is still unclear h

65 We report improved measurement response times and greater sensitivity across a suite of

66 tly lower diffusivities, suffer from lengthy response times and lower sensitivity, limiting the use o

67 The effects on response times and on frontal action selection mechanism

68 ss and voltage sensitivity, have microsecond response times and produce no photocurrent.

69 ess complexity included in the modeling, the response times and the mechanisms underlying the variati

70 dramatically reduced the precision of birds' response timing and abolished their ability to avoid jam

71 The improvement in response-time and recovery-time is attributed to the uni

72 1 call to emergency medical service arrival (response time) and survival according to whether bystand

73 s selectively with a comparable sensitivity, response time, and bandwidth of existing methods.

74 mple volume (muL scale), reduced cost, short response time, and high accuracy at low concentrations o

75 was evaluated further for storage stability, response time, and hysteresis.

76 In a given GRIR drug formulation, accuracy, response time, and reversibility of the GRIR functions a

77 The fast response time, and the ease of fabrication of these devi

78 functionalities of ferromagnets with higher response times, and having the information shielded agai

79 ave poor aqueous solubility and long analyte response times, and they demand a very high probe/thiol

80 The heterojunction device shows a fast response time ( approximately 45 ms) and a significantly

81 sensitivity ( approximately 0.018 kPa(-1) ), response time ( approximately 60 ms), and good mechanica

82 Response times are approximately 3x faster for the large

83 These longer response times are consistent with models of how visual

84 hanced through control of device interfaces, response times are moderately compromised.

85 fuel cell sensor was 10muM, with an average response time as short as 3min.

86 m disulfide photodetector can have intrinsic response times as short as 3 ps implying photodetection

87 ange between 10(-6) and 10(-2)molL(-1) and a response time below 20s, making the sensor as developed

88 n mice in vivo is governed by the overlap of response timing between these neurons and their targets.

89 d colour cues, but dependent on the baseline response time, both between subjects and across conditio

90 inally priming an action not only influences response times, but also influences reported sense of ag

91 but also reduces the cost and decreases the response time by 10-fold, indicating its potential as a

92 Decreasing ambulance response time by even a few minutes could potentially le

93 quired to deliver an AED ahead of median 911 response times by 3 minutes.

94 he anti-activator ExsD, while ExsD increases response times by decreasing the free ExsA concentration

95 The groups did not differ significantly in response times (cannabis-dependent, N=12; healthy-compar

96 ing for age, sex, emergency medical services response time, clustering of county, transport time to n

97 ns in the remapping process and exhibit long response times comparable to those of correct antisaccad

98 lower working memory performance, and longer response times compared with controls.

99 Intriguingly, response time costs associated with changing task-sets a

100 shown in a negative effect of variability on response time costs during distractor inhibition.

101 ium, protons and zinc, prolongs the synaptic response time course and increases single-channel open p

102 Some mitral cells closely followed the response time course of the beta-glomerulus, whereas man

103 e looming speed tuning of SC neurons, or the response time course, except at the lowest tested speed.

104 MP one of the important determinants for the response time course.

105 Herschel and Florence also meet several response time criteria that advocates of the expertise v

106 Differential response times (D scores) on the IAT as a surrogate for

107 After practice, response time decreased in all participants (while accur

108 premotor neurons changed such that auditory response times decreased, and vocal premotor lead times

109 according to spatially variable groundwater response times determined by geology and topography.

110 nce understanding of the neural mechanics of response time differences in the IAT: They speak against

111 Although the models captured response time distributions and accuracy data, EMG analy

112 ith high sensitivity (down to ~20 ppb), fast response time (down to ~1 s), and low power consumption

113 fers a large phase change while keeping fast response time due to the decoupling between phase change

114 t dentate gyrus volume predicts accuracy and response time during behavioural pattern separation wher

115 ted a severe reading impairment with delayed response times during reading aloud tasks, but not lexic

116 on, substantially improved both accuracy and response times during the earliest stage of learning pse

117 These response times establish, after accounting for odor tran

118 lf-lives are approximately equal to the gene response time, fluctuations can induce relatively regula

119 More errors and slower response times followed costimulation at above- or below

120 e quantum dots (QDs) often leading to a long response time for a photodetector.

121 ging from 2 to 10 for different SPEs), short response time for each measurement (only 2s) and low det

122 3 minutes faster than historical median 911 response times for each region independently.

123 Underweight AN showed slower response times for earlier versus delayed choices; this

124 decision-making as they result in different response times for incorrect choices in a perceptual dec

125 Response times for SAs were generally longer (>27 min),

126 In addition, frequency of failure to meet a response time goal of less than 20 seconds was significa

127 ssures of less than 1Pa and exhibits a short response time, good reproducibility, excellent cycling s

128 lower detection limit (3.87 mg/dL) and fast response time (>10s).

129 Intra-individual variability in response time has been proposed as an important endophen

130 violet detectors; however, a relatively long response time hinders practical implementation.

131 he relationship between EEG oscillations and response time in a spatial selective attention task.

132 g universal vaccine formulation, and improve response time in an emerging pandemic.

133 response time was reduced from 7 (the median response time in this study) to 5 minutes.

134 errors and broad distributions of erroneous response times in antisaccade.

135 of genotype on working memory performance or response times in either group.

136 Using a cache mechanism, mzAccess achieves response times in the millisecond range for typical liqu

137 es and 43 seconds relative to historical 911 response times in the region.

138 Doppler-based devices but suffer from slower response time, increased invasiveness, and require stabl

139 which correlated with the observed effect in response times, indicative of differences in top-down pr

140 enethiol vapor at 750 ppb, and the detection response time is <2 min.

141 o 100 mM with the detection limit of 1.5 mM; response time is 2-3 min.

142 The e-folding response time is 90-410 s.

143 Its response time is also better than the p-cresol sensor cu

144 W at room temperature (27 degrees C) and the response time is as short as 30 mus.

145 Response time is improved by incorporation of a hollow c

146 The response time is improved from 5.4 s to 53 mus at the ri

147 Importantly, the response time is limited by poroelastic mass transport,

148 perovskite photodetector with sub-nanosecond response time is presented.

149 he high sensitivity in combination with fast response time is unprecedented when compared to recent r

150 The response time is very short (</=10s) with a detection li

151 Learned response timing is thought to combine such plasticity wi

152 wide linear range of 4.0nM to 800muM with a response time less than 4s and detection limit (based on

153 lent sensitivity of 4.163 mA mM(-1)cm(-2), a response time less than 6s, and a linear range of 0.25-2

154 of quantification (LOQ) of 0.80microM and a response time less than 8s towards MG.

155 iniaturization, operational simplicity, fast response time (less than 5min), useful sensitivity.

156 a range of time dependent phenomena such as response times, long and medium term potential drifts, d

157 tremely robust (photogain > 1,000) and fast (response time < 1 ms) photoresponse allow us to study, f

158 er, the FET-type DRNCN biosensor had a rapid response time (<1 s) and showed excellent selectivity in

159 nsor possesses numerous advantages like fast response time (<15s), simple, low cost, highly selective

160 With their fast response time (<200 ms) and high reversibility, these pH

161 high-sensitivity (52 muA mM(-1)cm(-2)), low response time (<5s) and low detection limit (23.4 muM, S

162 mbination of both high responsivity and fast response times makes these photodetectors suitable for v

163 ex had (1) a more delayed reactive hyperemia response time, manifesting as an increase in time to pea

164 urther demonstrated that this improvement in response time occurs with little sacrifice in photorefra

165 sitivity in a range of 0.2-4.2 microM with a response time of <1 s.

166 odes made using 200 muM EDOT exhibit a 10-90 response time of 0.46 +/- 0.09 s versus 0.45 +/- 0.11 s

167 centration (400 muM) are slower with a 10-90 response time of 0.84 +/- 0.19 s, but display increased

168 The system has a response time of 1 ms with a temporal resolution down to

169 27.2 +/- 0.8 mV.dec(-1), a LOD = 2.3 muM, a response time of 1 s, a linear range of four logarithmic

170 -2)), a limit of detection of 16nM and a t50 response time of 1.4s.

171 The proposed sensor possesses a response time of 15s which is 8 times better than that r

172 ith a limit of detection of 0.5 microM and a response time of 15s.

173 le LOD value of 0.0127microM together with a response time of 1min.

174 with a sensitivity of 2.4+/-1.8 nA/microM, a response time of 20+/-13 s and a lower detection limit o

175 e range of detection (0.01-1.0 microM) and a response time of 250 s for bisphenol A (BPA) monitoring.

176 microM at a signal-to-noise ratio of 3 and a response time of 2s.

177 /-0.05 muA/muM cm(2)) and stable with a fast response time of 4 s; it could detect cholesterol ester

178 tion in ice cores and offering a 10-90% peak response time of 45 s and a combined uncertainty of 9%.

179 detection range of 9-1350 mg/dL glucose at a response time of 45 s and LOD of 22.2 mg/dL.

180 The proposed sensor had a response time of 45s, long shelf life (45 days) with goo

181 ide) - based sodium selective sensor, with a response time of 45s.

182 -1), limit of detection of 5 x 10(-7) M, and response time of 5 s in batch mode) and a miniaturized r

183 erol and total cholesterol respectively with response time of 5 s, along with high shelf life.

184 ns show prominent photoresponse, with a fast response time of 500 mus, faster than all the directly g

185 lowest detection limit of 0.001microg/l and response time of 5min.

186 f 12.044microA (ng per mL cm(-2))(-1) with a response time of 5min.

187 acid, a storage stability of 3 weeks, a fast response time of 6 s, and good, linear sensitivity over

188 n external quantum efficiency of 52.7% and a response time of 66 ms.

189 e optimum conditions for immobilization with response time of 72s .

190 ssure with sub-100 Pa detection limits and a response time of 90 ms is demonstrated.

191 The mechanical response time of a 100 nm long origami lever to an appli

192 photoresponsivity of >100 A W(-1) and a fast response time of approximately 100 mus.

193 We show real-time (response time of approximately 20 ms), large-area, norma

194 highly specific microcantilever sensor has a response time of approximately 2min and is reusable up t

195 d within concentrations of 0.03-50 mM with a response time of approximately 3 s.

196 s been obtained simitaneously with a dynamic response time of around 10 ms for both light on and off.

197 Moreover, the response time of biosensor was estimated in 7th second w

198 attosecond pulses, reveal a finite nonlinear response time of bound electrons of up to 115 attosecond

199 ntal response time useful for predicting the response time of cation-liquid crystal combinations.

200 tion of nutritional substrates, and reducing response time of electricity generation owing to fast ma

201 oximately 5 orders of magnitude) with a fast response time of few seconds and provides great potentia

202 Optimum response time of immobilized T. thioparus on agarose was

203 fied sample and an indicator solution with a response time of only approximately 90 s.

204 onductive gain of approximately 10(4) with a response time of several milliseconds.

205 s (k-1) decreased whereas an increase in the response time of solution P equilibration (Tc) was obser

206 We found that tRNS reduces the response time of subjects independent of the congruence

207 Response time of the anti-OTA/Protein-A/PSi-based immuno

208 an push the detection time to the biological response time of the bacteria.

209 The experimental results revealed that the response time of the developed propofol biosensors was 2

210 The response time of the device to temperature variations is

211 rs, i.e., sensitivity, a detection limit and response time of the FeS and conventional pyrroloquinoli

212 The medium consumption and the response time of the flow-through device are reduced by

213 Response time of the immunosensor toward OTA was in the

214 This condition also determines the response time of the network.

215 The response time of the photodetector is reduced to the sub

216 However, the response time of the polymer PDs are severely limited by

217 The response time of the sensor was within 60 s, and the rep

218 the channel size significantly improves the response time of the sensor.

219 f statistical optimization software based on response time of the system.

220 Response time of the unloaded server is about 90 s for a

221 matically quantify the density-of-states and response time of these states.

222 ion range between the LOD and 20 muM, with a response time of two minutes.

223 xcursion in lower Batatal strata indicates a response time of ~40,000 to 150,000 years, suggesting Ne

224 oxygenated and deoxygenated conditions, with response times of 2s and 5s, respectively.

225 Through this approach, response times of 399 mus are observed, opening the door

226 trinsic to the expressed receptors, and have response times of approximately 13s.

227 physiologic changes among patients, but the response times of nurses are slow.

228 ght that have shown promise in improving the response times of photosynthesis-related processes to ch

229 where irrelevant spatial cues influence the response times of subjects to relevant colour cues.

230 or visible and near-infrared light achieving response times of the order of 100 milliseconds, almost

231 igh as 400 S m(-1) , but they typically have response times on the order of 1 ms or longer.

232 ffer nanomolar (femtomole) detection limits, response times on the order of minutes, multiplexing thr

233 m the entire surface to the subcellular, and response times on the order of seconds.

234 ecule transport efficiency and reduce sensor response time, open-ended PSi nanopore membranes were us

235 r affordances only produce subtle effects on response time or on motor activity indexed by neuroimagi

236 erfere with analyte detection and the sensor response time over the long-term.

237 carpal tunnel syndrome demonstrated greater response time (P < 0.05), and reduced sensory discrimina

238 P = .02), Rapid Pace Walk (P = .03), Braking Response Time (P = .03), and identifying traffic signs (

239 rrelated with subsequent choice accuracy and response time, particularly in mazes affording sequentia

240 nd Measures: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, time receiving therapy, radiographic progressi

241 vance of graded glomerular responses and the response timing relative to odor sampling, these results

242 PQ had a similar effect on the ASH neuron response time (rising slope of the Ca(2+) transients), e

243 Target detection response time (RT) after a shift or hold of covert spati

244 The response time (RT), limit of detection (LOD), and linear

245 examine trial-by-trial relationships between response times (RTs) and different facets of electrical

246 Response times (RTs) were measured.

247 tical detection abilities due to their rapid response time (seconds to minutes), specificity to a tar

248 sures (initiation response time, suppression response time, suppression errors and overall score), co

249 d Hayling Test clinical measures (initiation response time, suppression response time, suppression er

250 f 0.8-200mM chloride and a diffusion-limited response time; sweat chloride levels corresponded to mea

251 On average across soil types, the response time (Tc) was 3.6 h, the desorption rate consta

252 from solid phase to solution, expressed as a response time (Tc).

253 larms may be a more important determinant of response time than short-term exposure.

254 which can achieve 4 times and 7 times faster response time than that of conventional single-layer LC

255 rt-term rewards became easier (i.e., shorter response times, tighter trajectories, less vacillation)

256 cardiac arrest, initial cardiac rhythm, EMS response time, time from collapse to call for EMS, and y

257 l previously reported improved durability of response (time to disease progression) in patients with

258 evaluate associations between exposures and response time to alarms that occurred while the nurse wa

259 We consider the reduction in response time to be non-specific to the Simon task, and

260 to planar electrodes for optimizing sensing response time to less than 1 min.

261 ive imaging systems requiring both ultrafast response time to measure photon time of flight and high

262 To help health policy makers gain response time to mitigate infectious disease threats, it

263 creasing the number of patients monitored on response time to simulated cardiac arrest.

264 mation from EEG signals and combines it with response times to build an estimate of the decision conf

265 Response times to disgust-evoking photographs were prolo

266 r, intensities of blue-enriched light speeds response times to left, but not right, hemifield visual

267 haviorally, TMS caused a relative slowing of response times to targets contralateral to stimulation d

268 was a statistically significant increase in response times to the ventricular fibrillation.

269 We carried out a study to compare response times to ventricular fibrillation across five p

270 observed in behavior and auditory brainstem response timing to cochlear synaptopathy.

271 Secondary outcomes included overall tumor response, time to imaging progression, overall survival,

272 cations, laboratory toxicity levels, imaging response, time to progression (TTP), 90-day mortality, a

273 f tissue CD30 expression level with clinical response, time to response, duration of response, progre

274 is reasonable in patients with prior durable responses (time to next therapy >/=3 years) and good tol

275 Response time typically shortens with practice, but whic

276 Here, we study in vitro the response time upon flow startup exhibited by red blood c

277 etween these quantities and the experimental response time useful for predicting the response time of

278 ival became statistically insignificant when response time was >13 minutes (bystander CPR vs no bysta

279 Response time was about 5-10s, and analysis time per sam

280 The response time was approximately 4 min.

281 The response time was as fast as 2.8 min.

282 Response time was associated with factors that likely re

283 icles upon pH change was reversible, and the response time was less than 1.0 s.

284 The response time was less than 2 min.

285 ients could potentially be saved annually if response time was reduced from 10 to 5 minutes and 119 p

286 ced from 10 to 5 minutes and 119 patients if response time was reduced from 7 (the median response ti

287 cascade via indirect negative feedback, the response time was significantly reduced.

288 Response times were faster after at-resonance costimulat

289 trated an immunity to distraction, such that response times were unaffected by increases in the numbe

290 e resulted in a 6-fold improvement in sensor response time when detecting a high molecular weight ana

291 We observed increased response times when gaze was directed away from the locu

292 ished vocabulary, tested by the accuracy and response times when participants decided whether a real

293 intrinsically limited by the transcriptional response time, which may restrict a cell's ability to ad

294 across the response selection and cognitive response time windows, providing neurophysiological char

295 Thus, a large antiviral T-cell response timed with virus exposure can limit viral trans

296 inally, the drugs had dissociable effects on response times, with citalopram enhancing behavioral inh

297 l pH mu-probes with excellent resolution and response times within a biologically relevant pH range w

298 The biosensor also showed a short response time (within 15s).

299 Cys), appreciable water solubility and rapid response time (within 2 min for Cys/Hcy).

300 rease the vigor of their response, subjects' response times would slow as the overall rate of punishm