戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (left1)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 ight into how in vitro and in vivo data obtained with KN-93 should be interpreted.
2 rts of belief representation in non-human primates using AL should be interpreted cautiously because of methodological an
3 neity across studies, meaning that results of meta-analyses should be interpreted with caution, and the fact that it was
4        These unadjusted estimates are subject to biases and should be interpreted with caution.
5                                 They are thus imperfect and should be interpreted as the best available evidence.
6 ting has limitations in its sensitivity and specificity and should be interpreted within the context of the clinical scen
7  with single-site recordings or single-site ACh application should be interpreted with some caution, since the results co
8                        This temperature-suicide association should be interpreted cautiously, and further evidence of the
9                                                Bradykinesia should be interpreted as arising from network dysfunction.
10                            Plasma citrulline concentrations should be interpreted according to the type of SBS.
11                                          Hence, conclusions should be interpreted in the light of this potential bias.
12                                  Operational considerations should be interpreted based on health system, governance, and
13  to protein structural changes, and shows that this content should be interpreted with caution as a glycation marker.
14 s that gene transfer studies based primarily on 2D cultures should be interpreted with caution and underscores the releva
15 evaluate the oxidative susceptibility of DMOs, but ESR data should be interpreted cautiously, as the great complexity of
16                         Our analysis revealed that ITC data should be interpreted in the context of chiral purity of the
17                                             The safety data should be interpreted in light of the small number of partici
18 on in children is relatively safe and effective, these data should be interpreted in the context of children's relative l
19 lation stratification and that population-level differences should be interpreted with caution.
20 h physiological responses to changing environmental drivers should be interpreted differently depending on the observatio
21                                               Our estimates should be interpreted as an illustration of how population he
22                                              These findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating and need to be
23                                              These findings should be interpreted cautiously given the self-reported natu
24                                              These findings should be interpreted tentatively, given that the individual
25 inherent limitations of a registry analysis, these findings should be interpreted with caution.
26 nsulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction, these findings should be interpreted with caution.
27                   These findings suggest that these markers should be interpreted with caution in patients with obesity.
28       If only within-area variability is used, both methods should be interpreted equally.
29 encing studies and that are not part of the core microbiome should be interpreted with caution.
30 all negative average association of humidity with mortality should be interpreted cautiously; the lag structure has uncle
31                                            This observation should be interpreted in the context of wide CIs and prematur
32 could be explained through other parallel policy changes or should be interpreted with caution due to small numbers.
33 due to multiple-testing, the secondary exploratory outcomes should be interpreted cautiously.
34 CI, 0.62 to 0.93); treatment effects for secondary outcomes should be interpreted with caution owing to a lack of prespec
35 s, suggesting that neighbourhood effects for these outcomes should be interpreted with care.
36 ast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive.
37 a is not obvious, and effects of 2-DG on cytokine responses should be interpreted cautiously.
38 sured confounders and, therefore, these comparative results should be interpreted with caution.
39 dates new testing methods, provides guidance on how results should be interpreted and applied, sets quality control range
40                                            However, results should be interpreted with caution given the exploratory natu
41 ack of prior research on these outcomes and stress, results should be interpreted with caution.
42       Due to the large variation among studies, the results should be interpreted cautiously and modestly.
43                                  Nonetheless, these results should be interpreted with caution because of moderate hetero
44                                               These results should be interpreted with caution given the high levels of h
45 lude small numbers in subgroups (meaning that these results should be interpreted with caution), that less severe outcome
46                                               These results should be interpreted with caution, due to excessive heteroge
47                          The results of this study, as RWD, should be interpreted with caution and in the context of exis
48 sterior) emissions, and hence conclusions from such studies should be interpreted with caution.
49 have important diagnostic and prognostic implications, they should be interpreted in the context of a patient's age and t
50 Since these subgroup analyses results were not powered they should be interpreted with caution.