ライフサイエンスコーパス: vegetative state

1 hree whose behavioural diagnosis suggested a vegetative state.

2 ths and 2 women who remained in a persistent vegetative state.

3 inimally conscious state and 1 as being in a vegetative state.

4 ctures) virtually synonymous with persistent vegetative state.

5 were severely impaired, and 3 (1%) were in a vegetative state.

6 nalized, to maintain them in the N(2)-fixing vegetative state.

7 ly responding to commands despite being in a vegetative state.

8 nse in a patient who was behaviorally in the vegetative state.

9 t fulfilling the criteria for a diagnosis of vegetative state.

10 were moderately or severely disabled or in a vegetative state.

11 diagnosis, eight died and one remained in a vegetative state.

12 such as sleep, drug-induced anaesthesia and vegetative states.

13 sabled (39% vs 10%), survive in a persistent vegetative state (13% vs 2%), or have died (39% vs 7%).

14 ients had a CPC of 4.6 (0.7) (4 = persistent vegetative state; 5 = death).

15 nts versus 52.0% among 179 medical patients; vegetative state, 6.2% versus 1.7%; lower severe disabil

16 .9% among 188 patients in the medical group; vegetative state, 8.5% versus 2.1%; lower severe disabil

17 nverts the reproductive shoot apex to a more vegetative state, a phenotype that is similar to that se

18 s and no increase in the number of deaths or vegetative states among the patients given pegorgotein,

19 clinical methods to diagnose patients in the vegetative state and about the length of time before rec

20 er of the central nervous system, leads to a vegetative state and death within 3-5 years once clinica

21 ing persons with disorders of consciousness (vegetative state and minimally conscious state).

22 ng arguments over misdiagnosis of persistent vegetative state and raising false hopes for neurologica

23 The vegetative state and the minimally conscious state are d

24 eatment effect was similar for patients in a vegetative state and those in a minimally conscious stat

25 and disorders of consciousness such as coma, vegetative state, and minimally conscious state are clea

26 nd in pathological conditions, such as coma, vegetative state, and minimally conscious state.

27 When death, vegetative state, and severe disability at 6 months were

28 d that a significant number of patients in a vegetative state are covertly aware and capable of follo

29 lation treatments have been disappointing in vegetative state but occasionally improve minimally cons

30 who fulfilled all clinical criteria for the vegetative state but produced repeated evidence of cover

31 ts referred to the study with a diagnosis of vegetative state did in fact demonstrate neural correlat

32 More important, 1 patient, who had been in a vegetative state for 12 years before the scanning and su

33 iousness did not differentiate patients in a vegetative state from patients in a minimally conscious

34 Mutants ultimately arrested at a terminal vegetative state harboring shoot meristems that were gro

35 Vegetative state has a poor prognosis for recovery of aw

36 Interest in the persistent vegetative state has focused on the accuracy of diagnosi

37 er wakefulness nor awareness; a patient in a vegetative state has wakefulness without awareness; and

38 deprived of interleukin-3 survive in a more vegetative state, in which the cells are smaller, have l

39 current medical understanding of persistent vegetative state, including the requirements for patient

40 A diagnosis of vegetative state is made if a patient demonstrates no ev

41 The vegetative state is often described clinically as loss o

42 e existence of normal sleep in patients in a vegetative state is still a matter of debate.

43 Greater clarity regarding the persistent vegetative state, less apprehension of the presumed myst

44 ulted in lower mortality and higher rates of vegetative state, lower severe disability, and upper sev

45 ers and patients, (2) clinical entities (eg, vegetative state, minimally conscious state), (3) clinic

46 led (n = 13), severely disabled (n = 12) and vegetative state (n = 12); and controls.

47 covery Scale-Revised indicated coma (n = 2), vegetative state (n = 3), minimally conscious state with

48 o met the diagnostic criteria for either the vegetative state (n = 7), the minimally conscious state

49 , and 8 to 9 points for severe disability to vegetative state or coma.

50 Outcomes were categorized as persistent vegetative state or death vs. awakening.

51 on of pain, as is the case for patients in a vegetative state or end-stage Alzheimer's disease.

52 nd may therefore lead to the misdiagnosis of vegetative state or minimally conscious state in patient

53 Treatment decisions for patients in vegetative state or minimally conscious state should fol

54 , in the assessment of patients diagnosed as vegetative state or minimally conscious state.

55 t who may be misidentified as remaining in a vegetative state or one of the similar conditions formul

56 sponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS; formerly vegetative state) or in a minimally conscious state (MCS

57 ic electroencephalogram (EEG, attesting to a vegetative state) or were too ill to travel.

58 Diffuse spasticity, dementia, vegetative state, or death ensues.

59 Outcome was poor (severe disability, vegetative state, or death) in 31 of 52 patients in the

60 me was poor (defined as severe disability, a vegetative state, or death) in 57 percent of the patient

61 disability] versus poor [severe disability, vegetative state, or death]) at greater than or equal to

62 outcome was poor outcome, defined as death, vegetative state, or severe disability (Glasgow Outcome

63 zations had poor outcomes, defined as death, vegetative state, or severe disability at 6 months.

64 epsilon4 had an unfavourable outcome (dead, vegetative state, or severe disability) compared with 16

65 a report of a single patient in a persistent vegetative state, Owen et al. claimed that the presence

66 sability, and 10.2% among those in a coma or vegetative state (P<0.001 for all comparisons).

67 in function in minimally conscious state and vegetative state patients.

68 For patients with permanent vegetative states, physicians should offer and recommend

69 are and management of patients in persistent vegetative state (PVS) has been the subject of sustained

70 To study five patients in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) with different behavioural featur

71 fulfilling the behavioural criteria for the vegetative state retain islands of preserved cognitive f

72 non-traumatic aetiology) with a diagnosis of vegetative state showed no significant activation in res

73 arnt since Jennett and Plum coined the term 'vegetative state', the assessment process remains largel

74 ologies of wakefulness: coma, the persistent vegetative state, the 'locked-in' syndrome, akinetic mut

75 ingers regarding the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state, the judicial processes involved, and t

76 delines on the management of patients in the vegetative state, the views of physicians in the USA and

77 rary to the diagnostic criteria defining the vegetative state, three patients (1 traumatic, 2 non-tra

78 n tomato as they gradually transition from a vegetative state to a terminal flower.

79 allowed a patient who was assumed to be in a vegetative state to communicate.

80 hat AGL22 is involved in the transition from vegetative state to flowering but here we show that AGL2

81 We enrolled 119 consecutive patients: 72 vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness state (VS/UWS)

82 A cohort of 127 patients in vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/U

83 om 73 patients in minimally conscious state, vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome and c

84 nts in minimally conscious state compared to vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome encom

85 ew York: five minimally conscious state, one vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, one

86 1 patients (26 minimally conscious state, 19 vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, six

87 ional MRI data acquired from 18 patients (11 vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome, VS/U

88 patients in a minimally conscious state and vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome.

89 en patients in minimally conscious state and vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome.

90 Salzburg: 10 minimally conscious state, five vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome; New

91 the system into either a stable flowering or vegetative state upon floral induction.

92 Fifty-two patients--19 in a vegetative state (VS), 27 in a minimally conscious state

93 ate of wakeful unawareness, referred to as a vegetative state (VS).

94 minimally conscious state [MCS] and 43 in a vegetative state [VS]).

95 ttempt to define the structural basis of the vegetative state we have undertaken a detailed neuropath

96 (1 in a minimally conscious state and 1 in a vegetative state) were also able to guide their attentio

97 ix in a minimally conscious state, five in a vegetative state) were studied to correlate the electrop

98 cess by which a dormant spore returns to its vegetative state when exposed to suitable conditions.

99 te-matter tracts that connect them cause the vegetative state, which is wakefulness without awareness

100 In contrast, for most patients in a vegetative state, while preserved behavioural sleep was

101 ogical, sleep wake patterns in patients in a vegetative state, while there were near-to-normal patter

102 some patients in behaviourally unresponsive vegetative states who demonstrated evidence of covert aw