ライフサイエンスコーパス: waiting time

1 ciation event to the next association event (waiting times).

2 ns, and a particular aging dependence on the waiting time.

3 cteristics, pretransplant HCC management and waiting time.

4 sex, current panel reactive antibodies, and waiting time.

5 system based on medical urgency rather than waiting time.

6 system based on medical urgency rather than waiting time.

7 s a key variable in determining priority and waiting time.

8 reduced cold ischemia injury, and decreased waiting time.

9 ic-donor transplantation may be explained by waiting time.

10 fewer rejection episodes) and elimination of waiting time.

11 incidence of delayed function, and a shorter waiting time.

12 ed to outcome, but is a major determinant of waiting time.

13 r levels of sensitization but no increase in waiting time.

14 L) criteria in centers with at least 8-month waiting time.

15 ocked in 20 of 20 experiments, regardless of waiting time.

16 roving organ access and minimizing candidate waiting times.

17 cipients has been used to alleviate the long waiting times.

18 executed, whereas a few experience very long waiting times.

19 list candidates who already have the longest waiting times.

20 health care without substantial shortages or waiting times.

21 5% in period II, along with increased median waiting times.

22 nt rates, shorter waiting lists, and shorter waiting times.

23 both the fraction of transplanted pairs and waiting times.

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

25 cipating providers without generating longer waiting times.

26 onvenience experienced by transportation and waiting times.

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

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

29 ging of the living donor, and deceased-donor waiting times.

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

31 evalent (65%), followed by clinic-based (eg, waiting times) (33%) and psychosocial (eg, stigma) (27%)

32 eparation (16 minutes), travel (66 minutes), waiting time (37 minutes), treatment time (43 minutes),

33 so experienced shorter waiting times (median waiting time, 69 days vs. 98 days and 94 days at medium-

34 within 6 weeks) or routine surgery (routine waiting time, 7-12 months).

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

36 ars in patients' driving distances (58%) and waiting times (83%) for specialist care or surgery, wait

37 % increase in QALY, a 12% decrease in median waiting time, a 39% increase in the likelihood of transp

38 ortant output data consisted of the "average waiting time," a proxy for unit efficiency, and the "max

39 proxy for unit efficiency, and the "maximum waiting time," a surrogate for patient equity.

40 lassy states are distinguished with evolving waiting time: a first one, dominated by long-range scree

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

42 eks to treatment group who passed the 4-week waiting time according to clinical safety assessment.

43 Waiting time after loco-regional therapy is currently th

44 ewer 0-antigen mismatches, and had a shorter waiting time (all P < 0.01) compared with SCD kidney rec

45 ing expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys by waiting time alone.

46 Significantly longer waiting times among rural patients wait-listed for heart

47 the experimental resolution problem using a waiting time analysis.

48 This technique decreases pediatric waiting time and allows adult recipients to receive righ

49 Strategies to reduce transplant waiting time and avoidance of sensitization in all poten

50 m (181-270 days), or long (>270 days) median waiting time and calculated the ratio of pediatric-quali

51 quiring a set of 2D spectra evenly spaced in waiting time and dividing the area of the spectra into v

52 namic admission policy that looks at current waiting time and expected ICU length of stay allows for

53 or certain HLA matches, increased points for waiting time and for pediatric patients, and extended th

54 have led to a marked improvement in overall waiting time and in rates of living donation in this pat

55 ts with advanced disease, have led to longer waiting time and increased medical acuity for transplant

56 ar below the growing need, leading to longer waiting time and more deaths while waiting.

57 s the applicability of IITx, and reduces the waiting time and mortality on the waiting list with outc

58 Before transplant, cyclophosphamide reduced waiting time and mortality to levels in nonsensitized pa

59 pulation data can be applied to estimates of waiting time and probabilities of donor compatibility.

60 Although the shorter waiting time and the ability to use living-donor kidneys

61 ype 1 diabetic patients because of the short waiting time and use of living kidney donors.

62 Living donor transplantation may limit the waiting time and, as a result, may decrease the progress

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

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

65 ry studies have not comprehensively compared waiting times and determinants of deceased donor kidney

66 Waiting times and discomfort during procedure were main

67 d types, blood type O candidates have longer waiting times and higher pretransplantation mortality, w

68 Consequently, waiting times and mortality on the waiting list are incr

69 High-volume centers have shorter waiting times and perform more transplantations for less

70 current shortage of organs causes prolonged waiting times and poorer intention-to-treat (ITT) surviv

71 It allows for shorter post-treatment waiting times and provides a less invasive approach comp

72 kidneys have worse outcomes, differences in waiting times and wait-list mortality have led to variat

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

74 he cadaveric donor pool, decreases recipient waiting time, and decreases pretransplant morbidity.

75 ty of deceased organ donors, prolongation of waiting time, and increasing number of patients dying aw

76 1.71, 95% CI 1.62-1.78) and with the longest waiting times (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.34-1.49).

77 tients, living and cadaver donor, the median waiting times are 220 days for non-African-Americans and

78 Waiting times are influenced by allocation schemes, and

79 upply and increased demand for donor livers, waiting times are progressively lengthening, which may l

80 Compared with areas with short waiting times, areas with long waiting times had a lower

81 advanced heart failure, medical urgency and waiting time as heart transplantation allocation criteri

82 reduced by as much as 160 days whereas adult waiting time at status 2B was increased by at most 20 da

83 adolescence, and differential deceased donor waiting times based on pediatric priority allocation pol

84 rmative model can quantitatively account for waiting times based on the computation of decision confi

85 nformation that they were provided about FB, waiting time before and after FB, and the FB environment

86 Increasing waiting time before second transplants was associated wi

87 n individual cell lineages, we calculate the waiting time before tumorigenesis in the presence of var

88 fluorescence microscopy (VFM) to detect the waiting times before the onset of R18 redistribution, no

89 score defines priorities for allocation with waiting time being most influential.

90 The average waiting time between a referral and being seen in a publ

91 With the difference in median waiting time between blood groups increasing from 44 day

92 nto B recipients leads to an equalization of waiting time between blood groups with similar patient a

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

94 The disparity in waiting time between the DSAs grew from 3.26 years (rang

95 tion can be estimated by the analysis of the waiting time between two neighboring bond events.

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

97 The waiting times between docking and fusion are distributed

98 Follow-up time began at 92 days (to avoid waiting-time bias); deaths before 92 days were excluded

99 andatory share rule had an increased average waiting time but no increase in sensitization or HLA mis

100 xpense of patient equity prolonging surgical waiting time by as much as 21 days.

101 distributions for the number of lineages and waiting times by plotting them over time.

102 complications of diabetes, body mass index, waiting time, cold ischemic time, delayed graft function

103 es this with greater patient equity (maximum waiting time could be shortened by 4 days compared to th

104 is associated with HLA sensitization, longer waiting time, decreased rate of retransplant, and decrea

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

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

107 ion dynamics from the data and transform the waiting time dimension into frequency space.

108 we derived semi-analytical estimates for the waiting time distribution to fixation.

109 andomness, r(F,[ATP]), is accounted for by a waiting-time distribution, psi(1)(+)(t), [for the transi

110 enching intensities to equivalent cumulative waiting time distributions.

111 neral by analyzing discrete jump models with waiting time distributions.

112 setting up queues that generate very uneven waiting-time distributions for different tasks.

113 s for gene regulation lead to nonexponential waiting-time distributions for gene switching and transc

114 e correlated nature of mobility patterns and waiting-time distributions of individual agents.

115 Dwell-time distributions, waiting-time distributions, and distributions of pause d

116 The numbers of bond lifetime and waiting time events estimated by the HMM are much more t

117 benefits of living kidney donation: shorter waiting time, expansion of the organ donor pool, and imp

118 In the context of urgent listing and a short waiting time, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation seems

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

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

121 ngineering that can substantially reduce the waiting time for a graft.

122 With urgent listing, the median waiting time for a heart was 7.5 days (range 1.5-22 days

123 heir potential donor pool and shortens their waiting time for a kidney transplantation.

124 The median waiting time for a new patient appointment decreased fro

125 In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which

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

127 te was 29%, 15%, and 19%, whereas the median waiting time for a second transplant was 32, 90, and 81

128 Prolonged waiting time for a second transplant was associated with

129 plant activity by 2.2% and reduce the median waiting time for a transplant.

130 91 days compared to 734 days nationally; the waiting time for African-Americans was 647 days compared

131 The system reduced waiting time for all B recipients, even shorter than for

132 roduced in 2002, decreased the importance of waiting time for allocation priorities; the number of ac

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

134 f medication and/or drugs and an anticipated waiting time for an HLA match longer than 6 months.

135 Satisfaction scores were higher for waiting time for appointment but lower for personal mann

136 sms can be developed to avoid increasing the waiting time for blood group O recipients, we would supp

137 Waiting time for children at status 2B was reduced by as

138 expand the organ donor pool and decrease the waiting time for deceased donor kidney transplantation.

139 The waiting time for deceased donor renal transplantation in

140 Waiting time for dual-kidney transplantation was 440 +/-

141 In addition, waiting time for HCC patients to receive a deceased dono

142 ficant and worsening geographic disparity in waiting time for kidney transplant across the DSAs.

143 est that prior organ donors experience brief waiting time for kidney transplant and receive excellent

144 ssociation between body mass index (BMI) and waiting time for kidney transplantation to identify pote

145 nel-reactive antibody (PRA), prolong patient waiting time for kidney transplantation.

146 We evaluated whether longer waiting time for LTx candidates increases mortality.

147 The cadaveric renal transplant median waiting time for non-African-Americans was 391 days comp

148 the independent association between BMI and waiting time for orthotopic liver transplantation as a s

149 Waiting time for PAK was significantly shorter than for

150 ative scarcity of cadaver donors, the median waiting time for patients in the United States increased

151 Large geographic variation in waiting time for pediatric deceased donor kidney transpl

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

153 The optimized waiting time for the absorbance recording is set at 35mi

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

155 In contrast, the median waiting time for the four patients receiving the extra s

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

157 model for end-stage liver disease scores and waiting time for transplant.

158 There were no differences in waiting time for transplantation, despite smaller body s

159 analytical modeling, we compared the average waiting time for transplantation, overall survival gains

160 nly the high risk patients and accept longer waiting times for a matching donor here.

161 esponse diminished to undesirable level when waiting times for appointment and on gastroscopy day exc

162 Waiting times for appointment and on gastroscopy day, an

163 We measured the availability of and waiting times for appointments in 10 states during two p

164 Waiting times for both diagnostic and screening services

165 Waiting times for breast cancer surgery have increased i

166 the continuing organ shortage and increasing waiting times for cadaver kidney transplantation, dual-k

167 Prolonged waiting times for cadaveric livers, however, may lead to

168 Waiting times for diagnostic mammography ranged from les

169 times (83%) for specialist care or surgery, waiting times for emergency department care (82%), and t

170 Patients were referred earlier with shorter waiting times for hospital appointments with the new Sco

171 The median waiting times for patients with blood groups B or O were

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

173 of recipients or donors, and might lengthen waiting times for resident patients or increase the ille

174 ical demand for anaesthesia and unacceptable waiting times for scanning.

175 taffing availability, as well as appointment waiting times for screening and diagnostic mammography s

176 Waiting times for screening mammography ranged from less

177 it-liver allografts has dramatically reduced waiting times for small children and has improved patien

178 We derive and solve equations for the mean waiting times for spontaneous transitions between quasis

179 The waiting times for suitable lungs average 412 days, with

180 was less likely at institutions with longer waiting times for surgery with reconstruction.

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

182 ss to the kidney transplant waiting list and waiting times for transplant candidates have been extens

183 The model shows the complicated effects of waiting times for treatment on the survival outcomes, an

184 We present a waiting time formula for computing the sensitivity of an

185 dication for transplantation existed; median waiting time from date of listing until transplant incre

186 f estimated post-transplant survival, adding waiting time from dialysis initiation, conferring priori

187 munity-onset stroke had significantly longer waiting times from symptom recognition to neuroimaging (

188 Correlation analyses of single-turnover waiting times further reveal activity fluctuations of in

189 In conclusion, wait-list size, waiting times, geographic region and OPO competition see

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

191 this retrospective analysis included median waiting time, graft and patient survival rates, and the

192 mulations carried out at low forces but long waiting times (> or = 500 ps, < or = 10 ns) show that, g

193 as with short waiting times, areas with long waiting times had a lower ratio of pediatric-quality kid

194 come, delays can cause anxiety, and surgical waiting time has been suggested as a quality measure.

195 didates has increased since 2002, and median waiting time has increased since 2006.

196 didate ratio remained associated with longer waiting time (hazard ratio, 0.56 for areas with <2:1 ver

197 calculated and data were pooled to construct waiting time histograms.

198 t of the shortest-processing-time in average waiting time; however, it balances this with greater pat

199 This model has three waiting times: (i) the time until a mutated cell is prod

200 The need for RRT has increased along with waiting time in OLTX patients.

201 micros, >10,000 times shorter than the mean waiting time in the unfolded state (the inverse of the f

202 ccess, has increasingly been shown to reduce waiting times in primary care.

203 to the French experience, pretransplantation waiting times in the 11 U.S. regions vary considerably.

204 r lifetimes, steady state polarizations, and waiting times in the folded and unfolded states.

205 the mechanical rotation of the rotor and the waiting-time interval determined by the chemical transit

206 Waiting time is a key criterion for heart donor allocati

207 Prolonged waiting time may emerge as a significant risk factor wit

208 Diagnosis at listing, waiting time (mean, 1.3 months), graft ischemic time (me

209 high-volume centers also experienced shorter waiting times (median waiting time, 69 days vs. 98 days

210 times of 5 years or less but persisted with waiting times more than 10 years among kidney and nonkid

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

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

213 hich to schedule their cases, with a maximum waiting time of 2 weeks, to achieve an average wait of 1

214 zed recipients, with an average reduction in waiting time of 34 months (from 86 to 52 months).

215 After a median waiting time of 8 months, 166 patients were transplanted

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

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

218 The MELD scores and waiting time of liver transplant recipients differed by

219 hether the MELD score at transplantation and waiting time of liver transplant recipients differs by t

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

221 Rates were greatest for patients with waiting times of 5 years or less but persisted with wait

222 er than for blood group A recipients (median waiting times of A2/A2B to B transplants=182 days vs. B

223 MELD scores and waiting times of liver transplant recipients.

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

225 n reported previously typically involve long waiting times of several months while cells from the rec

226 Waiting time on dialysis has been shown to be associated

227 oarding time in the emergency department and waiting time on the transfer list.

228 number of patient examinations, and patient waiting times on the basis of average annualized paramet

229 asons: this patient cohort has longer median waiting times on the renal transplant list; African-Amer

230 differences in long-term outcomes related to waiting time or center volume.

231 the importance of younger donors and shorter waiting times over human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matchin

232 ndependent effect of screening on transplant waiting times, patient survival, and graft survival.

233 Mean waiting time, pretransplant treatment, tumor variables,

234 , original liver disease, pretransplantation waiting time, previous abdominal surgery, United Network

235 ty, hepatitis C virus (HCV) positivity, long waiting times, prior sensitization, paucity of live dono

236 In the waiting-time protocol, the cantilever is held at a fixed

237 Waiting times reduced from 12.3 to 9.4 weeks.

238 se disparities by comparing outcomes in long waiting time regions (LWTR, regions 5 and 9) and short w

239 me regions (LWTR, regions 5 and 9) and short waiting time regions (SWTR regions 3 and 10) by analyzin

240 post-VAD and transplantation complications, waiting time, renal dysfunction, and patient age substan

241 Longer waiting times resulting in transplantation at later stag

242 e (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.57-3.37, p < 0.001) and waiting times (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20-2.57, p = 0.004).

243 ation have a high mortality rate due to long waiting times, scarcity of appropriate size donor organs

244 primarily on liver disease severity and that waiting time should not be a major determining factor.

245 ur and the observation of a crossover in the waiting times statistics.

246 naive patients and approximately 50% shorter waiting time than recommended in the current guidelines.

247 Each induction was performed after a waiting time that exceeded twice the duration of induced

248 olated levels of economic penalties for long waiting times, the crossover point at which the DR cost

249 In DSAs with longer waiting times, there were significantly more patients su

250 ends on the duration of the stretching, the "waiting time." This ubiquitous phenomenon is called agin

251 iii) are Levy processes in which distance or waiting-time (time-between steps) distributions have inf

252 n medical criteria (Child-Turcotte-Pugh) and waiting time to a system based solely on medical urgency

253 ated the influence of anti-HLA antibodies on waiting time to cardiac transplantation in LVAD recipien

254 Waiting time to deceased donor kidney transplant varies

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

256 motherapy only (n = 88), after adjusting for waiting time to HSCT (5.7 months).

257 Waiting time to liver transplantation (LTx) has dramatic

258 To evaluate the effect of maternal age on waiting time to pregnancy, the authors reviewed hospital

259 The degree of sensitization and waiting time to retransplantation increased with DR MM a

260 For example, the median waiting time to transplant for candidates listed from 19

261 luding older donor age, older recipient age, waiting time to transplant over 2 years, diabetes, and e

262 Median waiting time to transplantation for white patients was 7

263 cess to transplantation seem to exist-median waiting time to transplantation ranges between 305 and 1

264 The Kaplan-Meier estimate of median waiting time to transplantation was 284 days (95% confid

265 Waiting time to transplantation was significantly reduce

266 hese regimens on anti-HLA alloreactivity and waiting time to transplantation were then determined by

267 ecent changes in organ allocation may reduce waiting time to transplantation, more reliable and valid

268 ary myeloid malignancies after adjusting for waiting time to transplantation.

269 During the same periods, waiting times to a scheduled new-patient appointment rem

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

271 The median waiting times to cadaveric renal transplantation were al

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

273 erformed to identify DSA predictors for long waiting times to kidney transplantation.

274 ities to different beneficial mutations; (2) waiting times to the first and the last substitutions of

275 Median waiting times to transplant for adult patients were 1,16

276 Median waiting times to transplant were obtained from Kaplan-Me

277 of the unfolding of its modules and that the waiting times to unfold are exponentially distributed.

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

279 onal variation at the single-locus gene, the waiting time until a gene duplication is incorporated go

280 P= .03) significantly shortened the expected waiting time until the first ED return visit for violenc

281 The median waiting time varied between the 58 DSAs from 0.61 to 4.5

282 Recipient waiting time was 116 days in the first 90 patients and 6

283 dian United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) waiting time was 242 days (range 4-454 days) for the pat

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

285 Median waiting time was calculated for each of the 58 donor ser

286 V (vs Ag/AgCl) was applied, and the optimum waiting time was observed to be 20 min.

287 Prolongation in transplant waiting time was related to serum IgG anti-HLA class I a

288 Waiting time was significantly shortened.

289 The impact on waiting time was variable.

290 he PV reconnection rate, after 30 minutes of waiting time, was not significantly different.

291 ing age at transplant, weight at transplant, waiting time, weight mismatch, postoperative days on ven

292 (PSC), age, history of cholecystectomy, and waiting time were not independent predictors.

293 of active wait-listed candidates and median waiting times were immediately reduced.

294 Donor organs used in DSAs with long waiting times were more likely hepatitis C positive and

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

296 ure is strong, the rate-limiting step is the waiting time while existing beneficial mutations sweep t

297 for African-Americans by halving the overall waiting time while still achieving comparable graft and

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

299 ys from non-heart beating donors has reduced waiting times without compromising early outcomes.

300 antation (LT) has been developed from a long waiting time (WT) training set and then validated in a s