ライフサイエンスコーパス: treatment outcome

1 sex, stage, baseline employment status, and treatment outcome).

2 on was used to study factors associated with treatment outcome.

3 signing therapeutic interventions to improve treatment outcome.

4 peutic modalities and a moderately effective treatment outcome.

5 n HBV-allergic patients and association with treatment outcome.

6 127309TC, OASL rs1169279CT polymorphisms and treatment outcome.

7 ond, logistic regression was used to predict treatment outcome.

8 ifferences in neural function are related to treatment outcome.

9 of fibrosis/cirrhosis, viral replication, or treatment outcome.

10 herapy and of common retreatment regimens on treatment outcome.

11 of the roles of moderators and mediators of treatment outcome.

12 standing of the neural underpinnings of PTSD treatment outcome.

13 prognostic marker of periodontal disease and treatment outcome.

14 was proposed to contribute to the favorable treatment outcome.

15 ately facilitate a more predictable, optimal treatment outcome.

16 f GCF MMP-8 levels predicting the site-level treatment outcome.

17 short intervals of >/=3 days directly affect treatment outcome.

18 er often has a negative effect on course and treatment outcome.

19 avirin (RBV), and explored associations with treatment outcome.

20 e and the maintenance period had compromised treatment outcome.

21 ize decreased concomitantly, irrespective of treatment outcome.

22 ndependently associated with an unsuccessful treatment outcome.

23 issue homeostasis, tumorigenesis, and cancer treatment outcome.

24 ion and did not affect the eventual positive treatment outcome.

25 vation and host cell death) is predictive of treatment outcome.

26 ion and as a modulator for the prediction of treatment outcome.

27 tification of SSTR density and assessment of treatment outcome.

28 ict 2-month culture conversion and long-term treatment outcome.

29 res to assess markers of risk, response, and treatment outcome.

30 r s syndrome) and show a significantly worse treatment outcome.

31 dies explore the role of miRNA in predicting treatment outcome.

32 nd maintenance is therefore vital to improve treatment outcome.

33 mutations affect WM disease presentation and treatment outcome.

34 (CNAs) and determine their associations with treatment outcome.

35 limited treatment options, resulting in poor treatment outcome.

36 risk factors typically associated with poor treatment outcomes.

37 ietary choline intake were not predictive of treatment outcomes.

38 arker for diabetes, periodontal disease, and treatment outcomes.

39 (CRS) have weak prognostic utility regarding treatment outcomes.

40 s therefore crucial for correctly predicting treatment outcomes.

41 side effects leading to poor compliance and treatment outcomes.

42 its effectiveness in improving breast cancer treatment outcomes.

43 res, optical coherence tomography (OCT), and treatment outcomes.

44 ng diabetic vitreous surgery, and predicting treatment outcomes.

45 terial reduction and biologically acceptable treatment outcomes.

46 ociated bacterial species, thereby improving treatment outcomes.

47 ble limitations in testing for moderators of treatment outcomes.

48 ith isoniazid resistance and tSCC or initial treatment outcomes.

49 lly in the brain to provide similar improved treatment outcomes.

50 paired cognitive task performance had poorer treatment outcomes.

51 on during treatment of CDI appear to explain treatment outcomes.

52 bute to medical science and to have improved treatment outcomes.

53 diagnosis system, and a prediction model for treatment outcomes.

54 ations are reproducibly associated with poor treatment outcomes.

55 have been introduced to improve solid tumor treatment outcomes.

56 g surgery is linked to a range of suboptimal treatment outcomes.

57 d to determine the impact of albumin dose on treatment outcomes.

58 d thromboembolic complications might improve treatment outcomes.

59 ts incidence and more reliable assessment of treatment outcomes.

60 of PD >3 mm, WHR, and obesity on periodontal treatment outcomes.

61 for more innovative interventions to improve treatment outcomes.

62 sion, trigger relapse and contribute to poor treatment outcomes.

63 or toxicological assays to accurately report treatment outcomes.

64 seline depression severity as a moderator of treatment outcomes.

65 choice for individual smokers might improve treatment outcomes.

66 ssible classification rates for differential treatment outcomes.

67 association between WMH accumulation and LLD treatment outcomes.

68 he negative effect of obesity on periodontal treatment outcomes.

69 are associated with poor quality of life and treatment outcomes.

70 within the same tumor, thereby complicating treatment outcomes.

71 t of late-life depression (LLD) and eventual treatment outcomes.

72 netics might improve their understanding and treatment outcomes.

73 tion of therapeutic interventions to improve treatment outcomes.

74 We captured adverse treatment outcomes.

75 r distribution, histological composition and treatment outcomes.

76 tory of a cancer and is thought to influence treatment outcomes.

77 n TEM and TCM cells that may influence tumor treatment outcomes.

78 h for targeting FLT3-ITD AML LSCs to improve treatment outcomes.

79 strategy for clinical evaluation to improve treatment outcomes.

80 cytotoxic treatment and thus for predicting treatment outcomes.

81 ost immunocompetence in a manner that limits treatment outcomes.

82 ntial to expand access and improve addiction treatment outcomes.

83 associated with immune dysfunction and poor treatment outcomes.

84 ell characterised in terms of occurrence and treatment outcomes.

85 ians and patients; a hallmark for successful treatment outcomes.

86 date cognitive marker of drug dependence and treatment outcomes.

87 and further refinement is needed to improve treatment outcomes.

88 ed tuberculosis case notification and better treatment outcomes.

89 rmed seed-based predictors and correlates of treatment outcomes.

90 erved biopsy results and previously reported treatment outcomes.

91 has great potential to improve long-term HIV treatment outcomes.

92 and to present new molecular data regarding treatment outcomes.

93 rus (HIV)/hepatitis C virus (HCV) real-world treatment outcomes.

94 mediators to children engaging with care, on treatment outcomes.

95 te the endophthalmitis clinical features and treatment outcomes.

96 F]-FDG-PET/CT as a biomarker for disease and treatment outcomes.

97 dren with TB over time and excellent overall treatment outcomes.

98 ticipant and study-level variables moderated treatment outcomes.

99 scents, a group with disproportionately poor treatment outcomes.

100 is and staging of NETs and the evaluation of treatment outcomes.

101 ing radionuclides, which may further enhance treatment outcomes.

102 n concentrations and may have a role in SSRI treatment outcomes.

103 the 204 patients, were highly predictive of treatment outcome; 5-year disease-free survival for MRD-

104 cal outcome and risk factors associated with treatment outcomes according to KRAS status in patient w

105 ignificantly associated with an unsuccessful treatment outcome (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.69; 95%

106 in HIV care but is associated with poor HIV treatment outcomes after release.

107 The results might be used to project treatment outcomes after surgical management of peri-imp

108 that basal oxidative stress status predicts treatment outcome among patients with ABC-DLBCL, but not

109 We analyzed HCV treatment outcomes among 255 HCV coinfected patients ini

110 The variability in treatment outcomes among patients receiving the same the

111 ices, and directly observed therapy improved treatment outcome and compliance.

112 kemia (ALL) in adults, evidenced by inferior treatment outcome and different genetic landscape, manda

113 vels could be used to predict the site-level treatment outcome and for longitudinal monitoring of the

114 trols and evaluate the moderating effects of treatment outcome and response.

115 ears after therapy and analyze its impact on treatment outcome and social reintegration.

116 igue (sFA) might have an impact on patients' treatment outcome and social reintegration.

117 Treatment outcomes and adverse effects were recorded.

118 These findings illustrate how positive treatment outcomes and autoimmunity development during P

119 suggesting multi-prong approaches to improve treatment outcomes and curative responses in patients.

120 ness annual household income predict adverse treatment outcomes and have been termed "catastrophic."

121 may carry a greater propensity for positive treatment outcomes and healing potential compared with c

122 Treatment outcomes and impacts of prior therapies were a

123 s nested within studies were used to examine treatment outcomes and moderators.

124 oire of first-line antibiotics with improved treatment outcomes and preserve last-resort antibiotics.

125 M may significantly affect the course of SUD treatment outcomes and that SUD treatment planning may b

126 ine the role of p16 in HPV-related favorable treatment outcomes and to investigate the mechanisms by

127 eatments are needed in order to improve PTSD treatment outcomes and to prevent symptom relapse.

128 tient-specific predictions about disease and treatment outcome, and argue that evolutionary models co

129 Immune mechanisms also affect treatment outcome, and certain chemotherapeutic drugs st

130 spectively, and impact disease presentation, treatment outcome, and overall survival.

131 ntify variables that were most predictive of treatment outcome, and used these variables to train a m

132 osity measurements, non-surgical periodontal treatment outcomes, and influencing factors in patients

133 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) treatment outcomes, and mother-to-child transmission (MT

134 s, shortening duration of therapy, improving treatment outcomes, and prevention are urgently required

135 ed in less than 1% of articles on the cancer treatment outcomes, and this has not changed in 30 years

136 The relations between treatment, outcomes, and renal function were investigate

137 Brain functions governing treatment outcome are not well characterized.

138 reatment ( approximately 35%); predictors of treatment outcome are therefore needed.

139 the implications of these discrepancies for treatment outcome are unknown.

140 With modern HIV therapeutics, HIV-cHL treatment outcomes are largely comparable to those of th

141 Newer approaches to improving treatment outcomes are needed to reduce the high morbidi

142 losis drugs and adjunct therapies to improve treatment outcomes are urgently needed.

143 yielded moderate accuracy for predicting the treatment outcome (area under the curve = 0.72).

144 asures included functional and morphological treatment outcomes as well as their risk allele associat

145 three distinct categories: 1) diagnosis and treatment outcome assessment, 2) implant treatment plann

146 o of the lengthy treatment duration and poor treatment outcomes associated with MDR/XDR tuberculosis

147 thy tuberculosis treatment duration and poor treatment outcomes associated with multi-drug resistant

148 the outcome to fully explain away a specific treatment-outcome association, conditional on the measur

149 ers indicated increased risk for compromised treatment outcome at baseline and during the maintenance

150 ical analysis was carried out to compare the treatment outcomes at the follow-up intervals.

151 stical analysis was performed to compare the treatment outcomes at the follow-up intervals.

152 reas LDL increased in patients regardless of treatment outcome, average LDL concentration was lower a

153 For each meta-analysis, the difference in treatment outcomes between meta-analysis of all trials a

154 t in major depressive disorder predicts poor treatment outcome, but ABCB1 genetic effects in patients

155 clusions appeared to be related to improving treatment outcomes by not including those at higher risk

156 and checkpoint inhibitors markedly improved treatment outcomes, curing more than 80% of the tumor-be

157 Treatment outcomes depend on adherence to the prescribed

158 gimens among women and men, and determine if treatment outcomes differ by sex.

159 The 95% CI of the estimated treatment outcome difference (-0.04% [95% CI -0.12 to 0.

160 but has not been investigated in relation to treatment outcome during CMV infection.

161 n are related to features of CMV disease and treatment outcomes during CMV infection in 291 solid org

162 a on the impact of patient stratification on treatment outcomes, European and American regulatory bod

163 CYP2R1 and CYP27B1 were not associated with treatment outcome even in genotype 1 or non-genotype 1 H

164 hs with subsequent unsuccessful tuberculosis treatment outcome (failure/death during treatment or sub

165 increasingly recognized as a determinant of treatment outcome for infections like tuberculosis.

166 either STAT3 or redox homeostasis to improve treatment outcomes for ABC-DLBCLs.

167 ring therapeutic interventions could enhance treatment outcomes for addiction.

168 e essential for reducing HIVDR and improving treatment outcomes for children living with HIV in LMICs

169 eed for early interventions that can improve treatment outcomes for children with MDR tuberculosis.

170 olones may reduce mortality risk and improve treatment outcomes for drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB)

171 ration of tuberculosis therapy and improving treatment outcomes for drug-susceptible tuberculosis and

172 ity to integrate the two genomes to optimize treatment outcomes for each individual cancer patient.

173 otease inhibitors (PIs) has greatly improved treatment outcomes for GT-1.

174 critical for assessing ART effectiveness and treatment outcomes for HIV-1-infected individuals, inclu

175 quinolone (FQ) resistance promise to improve treatment outcomes for individuals with multidrug-resist

176 te these cells have the potential to improve treatment outcomes for many hospital-treated infections.

177 ed the effects of treatment interruptions on treatment outcomes for MDR tuberculosis.

178 is needed to do the following: 1) assess the treatment outcomes for multiple-tooth recession defects,

179 ginal research investigations that evaluated treatment outcomes for OAL.

180 of the NRTIs used in second-line therapy and treatment outcomes for patients infected with HIV.

181 y later-generation agents promise to improve treatment outcomes for patients with multidrug-resistant

182 This model was used to predict treatment outcomes for prostate cancer with ADT, vaccina

183 Additional research is needed on treatment outcomes for specific oral sites.

184 rs28365143 genotype was not associated with treatment outcomes for the serotonin norepinephrine reup

185 s single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and treatment outcomes for three commonly used antidepressan

186 ed 25 variables that were most predictive of treatment outcome from 164 patient-reportable variables,

187 sease for testing the prospect of predicting treatment outcome from molecular data.

188 developed a tool to predict poor versus good treatment outcome (Global Assessment of Functioning [GAF

189 at baseline provided accurate predictions of treatment outcome (>/=92%).

190 23% (166/725) of patients with a defined treatment outcome had an adverse outcome.

191 ng that lesion penetration may contribute to treatment outcome has wide implications for TB.

192 mbinant hepatitis C viruses (HCVs) and their treatment outcomes have not been well characterized.

193 There was no difference in initial treatment outcomes; however, all cases of acquired-drug

194 hat allows us to create distinctly different treatment outcome (i.e., necrosis, repairable poration,

195 ergic deficits that have been linked to poor treatment outcomes, identifying these deficits as an imp

196 has been shown to improve tumor response and treatment outcome in a preclinical mouse model.

197 ding cognitive outcomes to the assessment of treatment outcome in ADHD, considering the complexity of

198 These findings suggest that poor treatment outcome in alcohol dependence does not simply

199 ) What should clinicians aim for in terms of treatment outcome in buprenorphine maintenance?

200 ecies manner to predict chemosensitivity and treatment outcome in canine OS.

201 atitis B virus (HBV) genotypes can influence treatment outcome in HBV-monoinfected and human immunode

202 ce and whether their phenotype is related to treatment outcome in patients with chronic hepatitis B a

203 hate pyrophosphatase (ITPase) gene (ITPA) on treatment outcome in patients with hepatitis C virus (HC

204 can be considered as proxy markers of end-of-treatment outcome in patients with MDR tuberculosis, alt

205 conversion, as prognostic markers for end-of-treatment outcome in patients with multidrug-resistant (

206 using (89)Zr-fresolimumab PET and to assess treatment outcome in patients with recurrent high-grade

207 t patients and healthy controls and assessed treatment outcome in patients.

208 data from 2001 to 2009 were used to examine treatment outcomes in a cohort of patients with schizoph

209 g ART below this threshold and its effect on treatment outcomes in a large South African cohort.

210 ng medication and thus may positively affect treatment outcomes in alcoholics.

211 ociation with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine treatment outcomes in an independent dataset.

212 armodafinil (A), results in better insomnia treatment outcomes in cancer survivors than CBT-I alone.

213 To evaluate treatment outcomes in children with acute lymphoblastic

214 We sought to define treatment outcomes in children with catecholaminergic po

215 Improving prediction of treatment outcomes in chronic hepatitis C (CHC) genotype

216 nds on analyzing the molecular correlates of treatment outcomes in clinical trials and in routinely t

217 serve as an independent biomarker to predict treatment outcomes in ERalpha-positive forms of this dis

218 ed that value information influences adverse treatment outcomes in humans even in the absence of an a

219 linical and biological factors predictive of treatment outcomes in major depressive disorder among tr

220 ng differences among etiologic subgroups and treatment outcomes in NAM.

221 To improve treatment outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

222 Risk factors for FKS mutations and treatment outcomes in patients receiving an echinocandin

223 cells and NK-cells, are associated with poor treatment outcomes in patients with chronic HCV.

224 ist to estimate objectively the risk of poor treatment outcomes in patients with first-episode psycho

225 mide, ethambutol, and second-line drugs with treatment outcomes in patients with MDR tuberculosis and

226 berculosis incidence and the risk of adverse treatment outcomes in patients with tuberculosis.

227 DES treatment outcomes in patients with versus without DM we

228 vitro resistance profiling was predictive of treatment outcomes in Ph(+) leukemia patients.

229 ed the effect of socioeconomic status on HIV treatment outcomes in settings with universal access to

230 8)F-FDG PET has been associated with patient treatment outcomes in several cancer types.

231 ects health in many ways and leads to poorer treatment outcomes in subjects who want to quit.

232 the value of PSMA-informed SRT in improving treatment outcomes in the context of biochemical failure

233 tage was strongly associated with poorer HIV treatment outcomes in this setting with universal health

234 l treatment strategies are needed to improve treatment outcomes in this T-ALL/LBL subset.

235 Treatment outcomes included changes in hemoglobin (Hb) A

236 Treatment outcomes included event-free survival (EFS), o

237 ment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate total score, treatment outcome index, and physical and functional wel

238 e of interest to correlate this with course, treatment, outcome, inflammation, and antigen.

239 mpairment in depression, its relationship to treatment outcome is not well understood.

240 ications and could also improve tuberculosis treatment outcomes, is hampered by chronic inflammation,

241 berculosis resistance mutations and M/XDR-TB treatment outcomes, limiting our current ability to expl

242 s included additional adherence and standard treatment outcome measures.

243 ein (CRP) or cytokine levels did not predict treatment outcome, nor were there correlations between c

244 complex can lead to new therapies to improve treatment outcome of AML, a disease where the long-term

245 how a patient's immune response affects the treatment outcome of HBV and HCV infection and how innat

246 as modeled in Gulo(-/-) mice diminished the treatment outcome of JQ1 for melanoma tumorgraft.

247 a novel combination of biomarkers to predict treatment outcome of patients with chronic periodontitis

248 ment of novel therapies for achieving better treatment outcome of PC.

249 Purpose To report the final results on treatment outcomes of a randomized trial comparing conve

250 stasis) in primary tumours could predict the treatment outcomes of adjuvant zoledronic acid.

251 racteristics, diagnostic investigations, and treatment outcomes of all reported cases of AEF.

252 The aim of this study is to evaluate treatment outcomes of ball attachment-retained mandibula

253 In this study, we report on treatment outcomes of coinfected patients up to 18 month

254 Although the cost of poor treatment outcomes of depression is staggering, we do no

255 treated; however, clinical presentation and treatment outcomes of noninfant botulism in children are

256 romising therapeutic approach to improve the treatment outcomes of patients with malignant brain tumo

257 etween this serum protein and the antibiotic treatment outcomes of patients with melioidosis.

258 To evaluate treatment outcomes of patients with pancreatic cancer ov

259 logic features, laboratory examinations, and treatment outcomes of patients with purpuric drug erupti

260 ave been proven to significantly improve the treatment outcomes of various malignancies, resistance h

261 red eleven of 232 (90.9%) children had known treatment outcomes, of whom 163 (77.2%) achieved cure or

262 o improve classification of disease, predict treatment outcomes or improve treatment selection.

263 , treatment adherence, treatment completion, treatment outcome, or viral endpoints.

264 s of its assumed predictive value for end-of-treatment outcome, particularly in patients with drug-su

265 posite biomarker that may help drive general treatment outcome prediction for optimal treatment selec

266 disorder (PD) to generate individual subject treatment outcome predictions.

267 ent in place of empirical treatment, improve treatment outcomes, prevent amplification of resistance,

268 m these classes were hypothesized to improve treatment outcomes relative to single-agent VEGF pathway

269 However, treatment outcomes remain suboptimal with relapses frequ

270 1 and BRCA2 germline mutation status affects treatment outcome remains elusive.

271 Efficacy endpoints included Treatment Outcome Score (TOS, maximum score = 100; minim

272 Treatment outcomes, side effects, and reasons for refusi

273 sure improved the prediction of individuals' treatment outcomes significantly better than a clinical

274 Children and adolescents have poorer HIV treatment outcomes than adults.

275 mear-positive and MDR TB patients had poorer treatment outcomes than the general TB population.

276 amydia, with preliminary evidence of similar treatment outcomes to those in traditional services.

277 hope comes from fresh approaches to improve treatment outcomes using a range of adjunct host-directe

278 ndividual difference (e.g., impulsivity) and treatment outcome variables.

279 Treatment outcome was assessed by measuring aided speech

280 baseline MMP-8 levels to predict categorical treatment outcomes was analyzed with receiver operating

281 The effect of patterns of interruptions on treatment outcomes was assessed through multivariate log

282 tween adiposity measurements and periodontal treatment outcomes was observed mainly for moderate-to-d

283 month and 6 month conversion with successful treatment outcome, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 9

284 with this approach to evaluating maintenance treatment outcomes, we developed the Multi-state Outcome

285 Five planned potential predictors of treatment outcome were assessed, along with six addition

286 the impacts of different HCV RNA cutoffs on treatment outcome were evaluated.

287 Treatment outcomes were available for 197 patients treat

288 Primary treatment outcomes were corrected distance visual acuity

289 Treatment outcomes were defined as successful if the pat

290 y whole-blood lumefantrine concentration and treatment outcomes were determined in 105 Ugandan childr

291 Treatment outcomes were evaluated according to antimicro

292 Baseline patient characteristics and treatment outcomes were recorded and an independent radi

293 ment ALT elevation (POAE), and its impact on treatment outcomes, were investigated.

294 n phase appear to have worse microbiological treatment outcomes when compared with daily therapy.

295 eline L159F in genotype 1 did not affect the treatment outcome with LDV/SOF.

296 el" gyr mutations significantly predict poor treatment outcomes with a hazard ratio of 2.6 (1.2-5.6).

297 To report 2-year treatment outcomes with intravitreal aflibercept for neo

298 rinotecan-based chemotherapy, and correlated treatment outcomes with KRAS mutation status.

299 g-resistant breast tumors, thereby improving treatment outcomes without detectable toxicities.

300 h adverse human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment outcomes, yet their joint effect is not known.