ライフサイエンスコーパス: wait

1 , androgen deprivation therapy, and watchful waiting).

2 l variability in decisions about how long to wait.

3 ical complete response, managed by watch and wait.

4 layer, where the enzymatic substrate lays in wait.

5 dney in the United States, and many will die waiting.

6 Conclusion Waiting 11 weeks after RCT did not increase the rate of

7 American Heart Association guidelines advise waiting 5 to 7 days before operating on P2Y12 inhibitor-

8 liver offer (inter-quartile range, 0-2) and waited a median 33 days before removal from the wait-lis

9 months in 2015; high urgency status patients waited a median of 2 days for a suitable liver.

10 eceived a median 1 pediatric liver offer and waited a median of 33 days.

11 Foraging modalities (e.g. passive, sit-and-wait, active) and traits are plastic in some species, bu

12 complex/cyclosome by a kinetochore-derived "wait anaphase" signal known as the mitotic checkpoint co

13 otic cells are fused with interphase cells, "wait anaphase" signals are diluted, resulting in prematu

14 Here we report that "wait anaphase" signals are indeed able to diffuse outsid

15 e-free survival were noted between watch and wait and surgical resection (88% [95% CI 75-94] with wat

16 their corresponding HRP-antibodies laying in wait and the immune-target measurand complex flows by ca

17 we mapped the intrinsic neural correlates of waiting and dissociated it from stopping, both fundament

18 ney transplant candidates spend over 5 years waiting and often die before undergoing transplantation.

19 s with the subthalamic nucleus in modulating waiting and stopping and their importance across dimensi

20 engthy and burdensome process, imposing long waits and multiple clinic visits on patients.

21 does not increase continuously but exhibits wait-and-jump steps.

22 Adoption of a wait-and-see approach, reserving appendicectomy for thos

23 27.8-45.2) overall, 26.7% (14.2-41.0) in the wait-and-see group, 41.2% (25.8-55.9) in the surgery gro

24 % [95% CI: 70.1%, 82.1%]) either underwent a wait-and-see policy or were discharged after the initial

25 54 (35%) patients had no immediate therapy (wait-and-see strategy), 47 (31%) had immediate surgery,

26 treatment algorithm-consisting of an initial wait-and-see strategy, non-mutilating surgery, and minim

27 rank p=0.17; wait-and-see vs surgery p=0.12; wait-and-see vs chemotherapy p=0.13).

28 chemotherapy group (overall log-rank p=0.17; wait-and-see vs surgery p=0.12; wait-and-see vs chemothe

29 idence regarding the safety of the watch-and-wait approach by comparing oncological outcomes between

30 A watch-and-wait approach is advisable for asymptomatic patients.

31 e were offered management with the watch-and-wait approach, and patients who did not have a complete

32 apy, followed by observation via a watch-and-wait approach, has emerged as a management option for pa

33 clinical response, a nonoperative watch-and-wait approach.

34 s leads to easy access to patients in office waiting areas, emergency departments, or hospital wards.

35 patients consecutively recruited from clinic waiting areas.

36 wait." Since the initial report of watch and wait as a treatment strategy for patients with low-grade

37 exceeding transplant criteria, we propose to wait at least 6 months before enlistment; however, once

38 number of adult heart transplant candidates waiting at the most urgent status 1A has increased over

39 ents with rectal cancer managed by watch and wait avoided major surgery and averted permanent colosto

40 o stochastic and deterministic components of waiting behavior in rats; they find that mPFC biases wai

41 nical complete response managed by watch and wait between March 10, 2005, and Jan 21, 2015, across th

42 re randomly allocated to the intervention or waiting control groups.

43 de therapeutic relief to DMD patients as the wait for additional therapies continues.

44 ps of patients who may not have an option to wait for an allograft.

45 period infection, yet those who decline must wait for another offer that might harbor other risks or

46 vestigators to submit a data access request, wait for Data Access Committee review, download each dat

47 that spindle compartments in close proximity wait for one another to align all chromosomes before ent

48 d information more strongly when they had to wait for rewards for a longer time.

49 or satellites; ab initio indication) and not wait for the appearance of recurrence.

50 t for adult members to stay in the group and wait for their chances to advance.

51 o have nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and will wait for transplantation longer even when listed at a co

52 id not undergo transplantation and those who waited for transplants from deceased donors.

53 higher risk of recurrent biliary event while waiting for a delayed CCY compared with patients who und

54 About 99 000 people are waiting for a kidney in the United States, and many will

55 Over 100 000 patients are waiting for a kidney transplant, yet 3159 kidneys were d

56 tients and may be advantageous compared with waiting for a negative XM deceased donor.

57 the likelihood of a composite outcome while waiting for a transplant or after transplantation.

58 , maximize the number of donors for patients waiting for allografts, and enable better prediction of

59 Yet bystander CPR while waiting for an ambulance was associated with a more than

60 It is difficult to justify preferentially waiting for an improved HLA-matched DBD kidney when a po

61 21.9 to 65.6 h) for patients who bled while waiting for angiography (p < 0.001).

62 19.7 h) for patients who did not bleed while waiting for angiography and 27.9 h (IQR: 21.9 to 65.6 h)

63 and in revealing potential pathogens without waiting for colony formation.

64 Patients in the United States waiting for kidney transplantation die in increasing num

65 ct patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) waiting for liver transplantation (LT) is still ongoing.

66 For adults with T1 HCC and waiting for LT, there were only two nonrandomized compar

67 ows physicians to better select HCC patients waiting for LT.

68 Patients waiting for OLT in the United States from 2002 to 2012 w

69 ing their position for several seconds, (iv) waiting for the prey to enter the mouth, and (v) closing

70 main unable to meet the needs of individuals waiting for transplants, it is necessary to identify rea

71 In the time-critical diagnosis of sepsis, waiting for up to 24h to produce sufficient DNA for anal

72 ts were the presence or absence of a sit-and-wait foraging spider and actively foraging toad crossed

73 ther 98 patients were added to the watch-and-wait group via the registry.

74 icantly better improvement compared with the waiting group (n = 147) in the following defined primary

75 had the longest routine waiting times (most wait >13 weeks) in contrast to adult centres (most wait

76 By contrast, patients managed by watch and wait had significantly better 3-year colostomy-free surv

77 they face extended emergency department (ED) waits, higher thresholds for admission to an acute bed,

78 s is the paucity of information on maternity waiting homes and transport as mechanisms to link women

79 Waiting impulsivity has a preclinical basis as a predict

80 ld often be at capacity, forcing patients to wait in the operating room.

81 We contrast the benefits of acting and waiting in two ecosystems where restoration can mitigate

82 ; p < 0.0001), listed patients at our center waited less time for transplantation (645 vs. 1045 days;

83 the Pain Resource Nurse program (n=12) or to wait list control (n=11).

84 There was no mortality on the pediatric wait list for last 4 years.

85 rocedure to expand the organ pool and reduce wait list mortality; however, technical and logistic iss

86 pharmacologic options versus sham treatment, wait list, or usual care, or of 1 nonpharmacologic optio

87 A randomized wait list-controlled trial was conducted with 129 women

88 revealing an association between higher SMD, waiting list (comparator) (beta = -0.33 [95% CI, -0.55 t

89 Among patients on the waiting list (n = 1876) who died (n = 446; 24%), 272 (61

90 significant comorbidities, activated on the waiting list after 2007, or unsensitized at activation.

91 derwent lung transplant, and two died on the waiting list after 9 and 63 days on ECMO, respectively.

92 he life course of patients on the transplant waiting list and after LT.

93 ved a KT and were censored, 1876 were on the waiting list at any time.

94 trol group) and controls who remained on the waiting list but did not receive a transplant (waiting-l

95 survival (ITTS) metric as the percentage of waiting list candidates surviving at least 1 year after

96 e less likely to experience dropout from the waiting list compared with those aged 18 to 24 years (ad

97 ate prolonged exposure treatment (N=36) or a waiting list condition (N=30) and underwent a second sca

98 ate prolonged exposure treatment (N=36) or a waiting list condition (N=30).

99 elated symptom reductions (compared with the waiting list condition) demonstrated 1) greater dorsal p

100 Two-centre randomised waiting list controlled trial with 46 adults with persis

101 r transplantation rates and lower numbers of waiting list deaths.

102 plant recipients returning to the transplant waiting list following first graft failure.

103 l patients (n = 866) newly registered on the waiting list for heart transplantation between January 2

104 Consecutive patients referred or on the waiting list for heart transplantation from March 2013 u

105 months; 86% of the patients allocated to the waiting list for high-intensity CBT started treatment by

106 The waiting list for kidney transplantation is long.

107 pients (OTRs); however, most patients on the waiting list for organ transplant in the United States a

108 e criteria to accept elderly patients on the waiting list for RT?

109 the medical-therapy group were assigned to a waiting list for surgery.

110 All patients were on a waiting list for therapist-led CBT (treatment as usual).

111 to verum acupuncture, sham acupuncture, and waiting list groups.

112 Unfortunately, the kidney transplant waiting list has ballooned to over 100,000 Americans.

113 market and transplant tourism exist, and the waiting list has not been eliminated.

114 Unfortunately, many patients die on the waiting list hoping for a chance of survival.

115 f-help demonstrated modest benefits over the waiting list in reducing OCD symptoms (adjusted mean dif

116 13,346 adults placed on the lung transplant waiting list in the United States between 2005 and 2011.

117 ability of liver transplant and death on the waiting list in the United States varies greatly by dona

118 gitudinal trajectory of physical function on waiting list mortality (=death or delisted for being too

119 ver transplantation and its association with waiting list mortality.

120 re matched with controls who remained on the waiting list or received a transplant from a deceased do

121 nabling improved organ accessibility for the waiting list patients and a better prediction of antibod

122 Nevertheless, mortality on the waiting list remains significantly higher than after tra

123 Mortality on the waiting list was 18% in 2015, 4% of patients were delist

124 uld substantially reduce the nation's kidney waiting list while providing many more donors the opport

125 antation (LT) are often treated while on the waiting list with locoregional therapy (LRT), which is a

126 rience significant functional decline on the waiting list, despite modest wait time and low baseline

127 ivariate analyses, adjusting for time on the waiting list, maintenance on immunosuppression after tra

128 CBT was compared with a control (usual care, waiting list, or attention control) in individuals with

129 re enlistment; however, once included on the waiting list, priority strategies should be implemented

130 From the UK adult kidney transplant waiting list, we selected crossmatch positive living don

131 , yet a lack of organs means many die on the waiting list.

132 from the first point of active status on the waiting list.

133 donors with ESRD never gained access to the waiting list.

134 competing risks of death or removal from the waiting list.

135 omorbidity score at the time of entering the waiting list.

136 their patients about likely outcomes on the waiting list.

137 ysical function worsened per 3 months on the waiting list: -0.38 kg in grip strength, -0.05 meters/se

138 A wait-list control group was instructed to maintain their

139 ned to a manualized 8-week MBCT program or a wait-list control group.

140 study of children on the US liver transplant wait-list from 2007 through 2014 using national transpla

141 in left prefrontal cortex compared with the wait-list group (P < .05, family-wise error corrected);

142 e rehabilitation program, while those in the wait-list group served as control subjects.

143 omly assigned to either an intervention or a wait-list group.

144 tely 10% of children on the liver transplant wait-list in the United States die every year.

145 nalysis, myocarditis was not associated with wait-list mortality (hazard ratio 1.3, 95% confidence in

146 dren with myocarditis were at higher risk of wait-list mortality (hazard ratio 2.1; 95% confidence in

147 myocarditis is independently associated with wait-list mortality (or becoming too sick to transplant)

148 stratification systems is required to reduce wait-list mortality among children.

149 Wait-list mortality or delisting due to worsening clinic

150 patterns and their contribution to pediatric wait-list mortality.

151 carditis does not confer additional risk for wait-list or post-transplant mortality.

152 ted a median 33 days before removal from the wait-list.

153 rimary outcome was death or delisting on the wait-list.

154 on and treatment with care-as-usual (CAU) or waiting-list control for depressive and/or anxiety disor

155 d 169 BCSs to either Internet-based CBT or a waiting-list control group.

156 iting list but did not receive a transplant (waiting-list-only control group).

157 r-transplant control group and 47.1% for the waiting-list-only control group; 76.3% for recipients wi

158 -cytometric cross-match versus 65.0% for the waiting-list-or-transplant control group and 47.1% for t

159 received a transplant from a deceased donor (waiting-list-or-transplant control group) and controls w

160 A total of 47,591 adults wait-listed for LT from HCV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), an

161 is an independent predictor of mortality in wait-listed kidney transplant candidates.

162 kidneys would provide a survival benefit to wait-listed patients.

163 We analyzed trends in liver transplant (LT) wait-listing (WL) to explore potential impact of effecti

164 When CBT was compared with wait-listing/no treatment, CBT significantly improved pr

165 re still more rarely referred or accepted to waiting lists and, if enlisted, have less chances of act

166 During the last 20 years, waiting lists for renal transplantation (RT) have grown

167 er randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible

168 ly sensitized renal transplant candidates on waiting lists, and the presence of donor-specific alloan

169 obability of the short trial increased, mice waited longer before switching from the short to long lo

170 y sensitized patients is more effective than waiting longer between match-runs for transplanting high

171 13 weeks) in contrast to adult centres (most wait <12 weeks).

172 Of the 129 patients managed by watch and wait (median follow-up 33 months [IQR 19-43]), 44 (34%)

173 time it was used was 59.1% (38.2%), and 34% waited more than 72 hours prior to low tidal volume vent

174 a single center and randomized to watch and wait (n = 9), cyclophosphamide treatment only (n = 9), M

175 potential recipients who must continue their wait on the transplant list.

176 explanation should also include the costs of waiting per se, which are paid even when the benefits ar

177 A wait period may be required depending on the clinicopath

178 In Norway, the required waiting period has been 1 year.

179 A longer waiting period may be associated with higher morbidity a

180 federal law in 1994 that imposed a temporary waiting period on a subset of states.

181 A short waiting period was not associated with mortality.

182 Waiting period was not associated with recurrent cancer

183 r the last treatment session or a comparable waiting period, respectively.

184 Handgun waiting periods are laws that impose a delay between the

185 We estimate the impact of waiting periods on gun deaths, exploiting all changes to

186 ide further support for the causal impact of waiting periods on homicides by exploiting a natural exp

187 We find that waiting periods reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%.

188 We show that waiting periods, which create a "cooling off" period amo

189 eillance for low-risk lesions and a watchful waiting policy with intervention when invasive local rec

190 adult mouse liver by using a "Percoll-Plate-Wait" procedure.

191 pants were adults recruited from the general waiting room who understood 1 of the 3 languages and wer

192 ling, staff temperament, office cleanliness, waiting room, and insurance.

193 asured within the treatment room, within the waiting room, and outside the building.

194 ve patients with ALS using tablet devices in waiting rooms (Knowledge Program).

195 nducted from June 1 to July 30, 2015, in the waiting rooms of the outpatient internal medicine reside

196 ative-intent prostatectomy and in a watchful waiting setting, possibly by facilitating micrometastati

197 Post-Share 35 recipients waited significantly less time until transplantation (10

198 ents without initial therapy, ie, "watch and wait." Since the initial report of watch and wait as a t

199 powerstroke state of the leading head in the waiting state of myosin, further increases the rate of A

200 Given these changes, is watch and wait still an acceptable treatment recommendation for a

201 ensory systems, species that adopt a sit-and-wait strategy are thought to rely on visual cues primari

202 controversy exists about the duration of the wait that leads to complications.

203 We therefore test the hypothesis that a wait time "sweet spot" exists with a lower risk for HCC

204 analysis comparing RWT and EWT with current wait time (CWT) from government and societal perspective

205 ced wait time (RWT) (by half) and eliminated wait time (EWT), and perform a cost-effectiveness analys

206 model the starting age for IBI with reduced wait time (RWT) (by half) and eliminated wait time (EWT)

207 either too weak or too intense, or when the wait time after conditioning was too short).

208 decline on the waiting list, despite modest wait time and low baseline MELD; decline in physical fun

209 h) and 2 access-to-care metrics (appointment wait time and no-show rate) were tracked.

210 It has been postulated that short wait time before liver transplant (LT) for hepatocellula

211 savings of $20.28 per patient, reduction of wait time by 5 days per patient, and decreased the no-sh

212 umors with aggressive biology, but prolonged wait time could result in a shift to more aggressive tum

213 y eliminate unnecessary appointments, reduce wait time for treatment, lower costs, and reduce patient

214 A wait time of 24 hours may represent a threshold defining

215 8 months (n = 343) versus 4.5% and 9.8% with wait time of 6 to 18 months (n = 397), respectively (P =

216 When only pre-LT factors were considered, wait time of less than 6 or greater than 18 months (HR,

217 ce at 1 and 5 years were 6.4% and 15.5% with wait time of less than 6 or greater than 18 months (n =

218 performed modeling the cost-effectiveness of wait time reduction for IBI.

219 The minimum wait time required for sensitization development was 30

220 s undergoing hip fracture surgery, increased wait time was associated with a greater risk of 30-day m

221 tem (PHS) high infectious risk donors, (iii) wait time, and (iv) living donor transplantation.

222 Planned outcome measures included wait time, clinic and telehealth volume, number of no-sh

223 Wait time, defined as time from initial HCC diagnosis to

224 Organ Procurement Organization, blood group, wait time, DR antigens, and prior offer history to provi

225 robability of each complication according to wait time.

226 apparent for older patients (aged >65 years; waiting time 730 vs. 1357 days nationally; p < 0.001), w

227 Increasing waiting time before second transplants was associated wi

228 s of the interpuff interval (IPI), i.e., the waiting time between successive puffs, are found to be w

229 The median waiting time for a deceased donor kidney in 2013 was 3.5

230 ys more relevant information than the median waiting time for a given transplant center.

231 dy was to determine the relationship between waiting time for a second transplant and outcomes after

232 Median waiting time for an elective liver transplant was 4,4 mo

233 characteristics, contrasted with the median waiting time for that candidate's donation service area.

234 cs problem of the first-passage time, or the waiting time for the first encounter.

235 s in larger populations are due to a shorter waiting time for the right mutations to arise.

236 (hazard ratio [HR], 4.8; P < 0.001), pre-LT waiting time of 120 days or less (HR, 2.6; P = 0.01) and

237 ces of the analytical parameters such as pH, waiting time of aluminum-DEMAX complex, amount of reagen

238 ions thereafter requires a surprisingly long waiting time of approximately 10(3) s, much longer than

239 The waiting time to form a crystal in a unit volume of homog

240 Mean waiting time was 62 days for PDLT and 9 days for LLT.

241 We studied whether acute PVR (adenosine and waiting time) and late PVR (at repeat) are explained by

242 ors; P < 0.001), received KT earlier (median waiting time, 2.8 months vs 21.5 for nondonors; P < 0.00

243 The associations between waiting time, defined as duration of dialysis between fi

244 y the tradeoff between fleet size, capacity, waiting time, travel delay, and operational costs for lo

245 behavior in rats; they find that mPFC biases waiting time, while M2 is ultimately responsible for tri

246 To use population-based wait-time data to identify the optimal time window in wh

247 om 3 LT centers with short, medium, and long wait times (median of 4, 7, and 13 months, respectively)

248 short (<6 months) or very long (>18 months) wait times and an increased risk for HCC recurrence post

249 rts of medical care being delayed because of wait times for appointments (difference-in-differences e

250 tion, but it was also associated with longer wait times for appointments, which suggests that challen

251 n Protocol were queried to assess changes in wait times for elective general surgical procedures and

252 workshop project rollouts, mean (SD) patient wait times for elective general surgical procedures decr

253 Although wait times for hip fracture surgery have been linked to

254 hether lean processes can be used to improve wait times for surgical procedures in Veterans Affairs h

255 Wait times for transplant for patients listed with a Mod

256 This was a 3-fold decrease from wait times in FY 2012 (P = .02).

257 the United States, and the current delay and wait times prevent Veterans Affairs institutions from fu

258 to accurately represent the distribution of wait times to stabilize choice preferences despite trial

259 CV+ organs experienced significantly shorter wait times to transplantation, 485 days (interquartile r

260 The risk of complications increased when wait times were greater than 24 hours, irrespective of t

261 In FY 2014, mean (SD) wait times were half the value of the previous FY at 12.

262 ave positive short- and long-term effects on wait times, clinical throughput, and patient care and sa

263 neys to children and stagnation in pediatric wait times.

264 xibility was instituted to reduce scheduling wait times.

265 1.71, 95% CI 1.62-1.78) and with the longest waiting times (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.34-1.49).

266 Paediatric centres had the longest routine waiting times (most wait >13 weeks) in contrast to adult

267 rvice outcomes found teledermatology reduced waiting times and could result in earlier assessment and

268 oryless, leading to exponential inter-burrow waiting times and depths.

269 ma's D, can be decomposed into components of waiting times between coalescent events and of tree topo

270 den on secondary care but also decrease long waiting times for referral to secondary care.

271 trum disorder (ASD); however, there are long waiting times for this program.

272 fluent areas that typically have appointment waiting times of 2-3 days the most likely to have patien

273 leases during the action potential upstroke, waiting times of SCR events after the upstroke are narro

274 eledermatology services consistently reduced waiting times to assessment and diagnosis, and patient s

275 In contrast, practitioners (mis)perceived waiting times to have a greater impact on patient satisf

276 Published waiting times were used to model the mean starting age f

277 Variation in workload, waiting times, access, staffing and diagnostic approach

278 accuracy and concordance, measures of time (waiting times, delay to diagnosis), and enablers and bar

279 of consumer electronics to cut lengthy test waiting times, giving patients on the spot access to pot

280 health care without substantial shortages or waiting times.

281 both the fraction of transplanted pairs and waiting times.

282 cardiac death (DCD) liver as a solution for waiting times.

283 ts the number of transplants and the average waiting times.

284 channels, and which occur after much longer waiting times.

285 roving organ access and minimizing candidate waiting times.

286 Watchful waiting (tincture of time) appeared to be central to the

287 The time waited to start treatment and percentage of appointments

288 ntain invaluable biomedical information just waiting to be uncovered using modern scientific approach

289 wed as incendiary devices with hair triggers waiting to detonate.

290 regulatory role of RNAi in fungi has had to wait until the recent identification of different endoge

291 as this is the time to intervene rather than waiting until more severe symptoms develop.

292 he question "Did we make the right choice in waiting until now to ask your consent?" three of 60 (5%)

293 n both designs, unbiased estimation requires waiting until screening stabilizes plus the maximum prec

294 gestation or to expectant management (i.e., waiting until the spontaneous onset of labor or until th

295 rived one-to-one paired cohorts of watch and wait versus surgical resection using propensity-score ma

296 resection (88% [95% CI 75-94] with watch and wait vs 78% [63-87] with surgical resection; time-varyin

297 nefit of heart transplantation compared with waiting while accounting for the estimated risk of a giv

298 tcomes between patients managed by watch and wait who achieved a clinical complete response and those

299 atients varies widely, ranging from watchful waiting with intensified antithrombotic therapy to early

300 odies by vaccination, nor is it practical to wait years for a desired response.