ライフサイエンスコーパス: bowel wall

1 Imaging typically shows a thickening of the bowel wall.

2 zed into distinct layers or plexi within the bowel wall.

3 long distances between the high tie and the bowel wall.

4 rated network of neurons and glia within the bowel wall.

5 onal innervation of the smooth muscle of the bowel wall.

6 s of neurite extension within the developing bowel wall.

7 e distance from the high vascular tie to the bowel wall (100 v 99 mm, P = .605) was equivalent.

8 expression than in carcinomas limited to the bowel wall (3.4 [2.1-5.9] vs 1.9 [1.7-2.4], p=0.007), an

9 Bowel-wall abnormalities were seen on 31% of CT images (

10 ry findings (n = 4), mesenteric hematoma and bowel wall abnormality (n = 2), mesenteric hematoma only

11 sound, as well as the normal features of the bowel wall and contiguous structures.

12 ments were obtained over time from the small-bowel wall and the aorta.

13 rest yielded time-enhancement curves for the bowel wall and the aorta.

14 Ultrasound can be used to evaluate the bowel wall and the elements that surround it without the

15 ange between the vascular compartment of the bowel wall and the lumen while a blood pool tracer was a

16 orrelations between VAS score and MR imaging bowel wall arterial phase enhancement after contrast mat

17 imens were prepared with a defect within the bowel wall as the source of a bleeding.

18 Increased bowel-wall attenuation on unenhanced 64-section multidet

19 Increased bowel-wall attenuation on unenhanced images was signific

20 not only of inflammatory involvement of the bowel wall but also in terms of how the bowel in its tur

21 g of maximal enhancement of the normal small-bowel wall by using contrast material-enhanced multi-det

22 uld differentiate inflammatory from fibrotic bowel wall changes in both animal models of colitis and

23 e (4.9 +/- 0.1 vs 4.6 +/- 0.1, P: <.005) and bowel wall conspicuity (4.6 +/- 0.2 vs 4.2 +/- 0.2, P: <

24 roved reader confidence in the assessment of bowel wall conspicuity and the ability of CT colonograph

25 enhancement on overall reader confidence and bowel wall conspicuity.

26 from intraluminal bacterial gas entering the bowel wall due to increased mucosal permeability caused

27 restricts murine ENS precursors to the outer bowel wall during migration.

28 P < .0001), arterial signal (P = .0005), and bowel wall echotexture (P < or = .0200) between patients

29 ssociated splanchnic circulation congestion, bowel wall edema, and impaired intestinal barrier functi

30 Among the strangulated cases, reduced bowel wall enhancement (odds ratio, 3.9; 95% CI: 1.3, 12

31 lation in the multivariate analysis: reduced bowel wall enhancement (odds ratio, 7.8; 95% confidence

32 Diagnostic performance of decreased bowel wall enhancement and confidence in the diagnosis w

33 oves the diagnostic performance of decreased bowel wall enhancement as a sign of ischemia complicatin

34 dovascular revascularization were persistent bowel wall enhancement at initial CT and CRP level less

35 ild-reported VAS score and (a) the degree of bowel wall enhancement in the arterial phase at contrast

36 as between change in VAS score and change in bowel wall enhancement in the arterial phase at contrast

37 adding unenhanced images improved decreased bowel wall enhancement sensitivity (observer 1: 46.3% [1

38 lar contrast medium allowed visualization of bowel wall enhancement that was obscured by intraluminal

39 A time-intensity curve of the contrast bowel wall enhancement was created with measurement of p

40 Decreased bowel wall enhancement was evaluated with contrast-enhan

41 ore that combines three CT findings (reduced bowel wall enhancement, a closed-loop mechanism, and dif

42 of mechanical SBO, on the basis of decreased bowel wall enhancement.

43 Decreased segmental bowel-wall enhancement was the most accurate 64-section

44 ese results indicate that MT is sensitive to bowel wall fibrosis as occurs in Crohn strictures.

45 I) PET/MR enterography for the assessment of bowel wall fibrosis in Crohn disease.

46 associated with histopathologically assessed bowel wall fibrosis in participants with Crohn disease,

47 s that include soft-tissue thickening of the bowel wall, free fluid, periintestinal soft-tissue stran

48 nstrate whether the tumor was limited to the bowel wall in 16 patients (89%).

49 phenotype; adverse transmural effects on the bowel wall; increased risk of neoplasia development; wor

50 f intestinal epithelial cells may compromise bowel wall integrity and be a mechanism for bacterial or

51 Z) signatures and localized to a fibrotic CF-bowel wall interface within the stricture.

52 patial resolution for assessing the depth of bowel wall invasion.

53 n abnormally enhanced, thin mucosal layer of bowel wall involving fluid-filled, dilated, poorly opaci

54 l factor (SCF), but the source of SCF in the bowel wall is unclear and controversy exists about wheth

55 gnosed when the cancers are localized to the bowel wall, it is likely that widespread implementation

56 blast activation protein (FAP) expression in bowel wall layers was analyzed immunohistochemically for

57 ial gas under pressure to percolate into the bowel wall layers, particularly the submucosa (29).

58 a and an 18-gauge needle in 10 patients with bowel-wall lesions.

59 ed mucosal permeability caused by defects in bowel wall lymphoid tissue.

60 bowel loops with a thin, enhancing layer of bowel wall mucosa.

61 iautomatic determination of inner hyperdense bowel wall (mucosal) mean iodine density, normalized to

62 Pathologic examination showed bowel wall necrosis and massive panniculitis of the rect

63 matic hernia, with ultrasound signs of acute bowel wall necrosis.

64 and potentially life-threatening transmural bowel wall necrosis.

65 planchnic circulation congestion, leading to bowel wall oedema and impaired intestinal barrier functi

66 -selectin (31.2% +/- 25.7) in vessels in the bowel wall of segments with ileitis were higher than in

67 e hand, and of the muscularis propria of the bowel wall on the other, it might be valid to consider i

68 inomas of the rectum that extend through the bowel wall or with lymph nodes positive for tumor.

69 eatitis, hemorrhage, portal vein thrombosis, bowel wall perforation, or dehydration.

70 hich is often polymicrobial, hemorrhage, and bowel wall perforation/abscess formation.

71 Colonic wall thickness (P >/= .06), bowel wall perfusion (P >/= .85), and clinical disease a

72 The mean +/-SD bowel wall perfusion in the study and control groups wer

73 ysician in consensus evaluated the following bowel wall PET/MR enterography biomarkers: signal intens

74 tents that breach the mucosal barrier of the bowel wall, resulting in granuloma formation and chronic

75 crotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in neonates or bowel wall rupture in older children.

76 Bowel wall SWV helps distinguish acutely inflamed from f

77 Nine transcutaneous bowel wall SWV measurements were obtained from the colon

78 Mean bowel wall SWVs were significantly higher for fibrotic v

79 let and was linked to the contraction of the bowel wall that drove pellet propulsion.

80 characterized by the presence of gas in the bowel wall that is associated with multiple entities.

81 mputed tomography scan results demonstrating bowel wall thickening (>5 mm) and/or fat stranding consi

82 ome PI vs percentage of benign): soft-tissue bowel wall thickening (51.2% vs 13.3%, P = .0167), free

83 appendageal fat stranding (n = 10), adjacent bowel wall thickening (n = 4) or compression (n = 2), an

84 signs of small bowel inflammation were fund: bowel wall thickening (n=21), submucosal edema (n=8), se

85 large amount of retained stool in the colon, bowel wall thickening and infiltration of peri-colonic f

86 Although small-bowel wall thickening is a common manifestation of Crohn

87 Hospitalization for diarrhea associated with bowel wall thickening occurred in 5.5% of the patients r

88 should undergo evaluation of the abdomen for bowel wall thickening of >4 mm, the hallmark of NEC.

89 Bowel wall thickening often is absent.

90 tween malignant and benign etiology in large-bowel wall thickening on computed tomography (CT) images

91 = 2), mesenteric hematoma only (n = 4), and bowel wall thickening only (n = 4).

92 r risk of GIP was observed for patients with bowel wall thickening or bowel obstruction on CT scan.

93 itoneal thickening or enhancement, and small-bowel wall thickening or distortion demonstrated positiv

94 itoneal thickening or enhancement, and small-bowel wall thickening or distortion.

95 d 23-96 years) with inflammatory or ischemic bowel wall thickening underwent US.

96 Bowel wall thickening was often absent.

97 Bowel wall thickening was present at US in 14 of the 102

98 ween patients with inflammatory and ischemic bowel wall thickening were significant.

99 ed tomography of her abdomen showed diffused bowel wall thickening without evidence of bowel obstruct

100 paper are to explain the definition of small-bowel wall thickening, analyze the patterns of involveme

101 inflammatory cell infiltration, ulceration, bowel wall thickening, and granuloma formation.

102 ical features of IBD, such as the following: bowel wall thickening, enhancement, comb sign, stricture

103 The statistical analysis identified bowel wall thickening, intestinal stricture, and lymphad

104 imaging findings of these episodes included bowel wall thickening, lymphadenopathy, and focal masses

105 inal wall soft tissue contusion, free fluid, bowel wall thickening, mesenteric stranding, mesenteric

106 and associated findings such as soft-tissue bowel wall thickening, periintestinal soft-tissue strand

107 Bowel wall thickening, stricture, and enlarged mesenteri

108 Among the patients with bowel wall thickening, the distal and terminal ileum wer

109 rentiation between ischemic and inflammatory bowel wall thickening.

110 ased review of the different causes of small-bowel wall thickening.

111 tiating ischemic, vascular, and inflammatory bowel wall thickening.

112 A maximal bowel wall thickness (BWT) >6 mm in T2 was associated wi

113 The primary outcome was difference in bowel wall thickness (BWT) for endoscopic improvement vs

114 Patient age (P = .0022), bowel wall thickness (P = .0001), and color Doppler flow

115 using the Limberg index on the basis of (a) bowel wall thickness and (b) size and extent of Doppler

116 P-selectin-targeted US imaging, by measuring bowel wall thickness and perfusion, and by using a clini

117 Bowel wall thickness and superior mesenteric artery bloo

118 Patients with intestinal murmurs had greater bowel wall thickness of the sigmoid and descending colon

119 The mean bowel wall thickness ranged from 1.2 to 3.2 mm in the co

120 Small-bowel wall thickness was not a significant factor after

121 Intestinal blood flow and bowel wall thickness were measured using ultrasound.

122 susception and the inner fat core, the outer bowel wall thickness, and the presence or absence of lym

123 The two groups differed regarding bowel wall thickness, echogenicity, and perfusion in son

124 Findings of bowel wall thickness, wall echotexture, location of bowe

125 difference between inflammatory and ischemic bowel wall thicknesses was not significant (P = .49).

126 e mean time to peak enhancement of the small-bowel wall was 49.3 seconds +/- 7.7 (standard deviation)

127 The MT ratio in the bowel wall was calculated.

128 hat is, diverticulae) due to weakness in the bowel wall, which can become infected and inflamed causi

129 ctic acid level secondary to ischemia of the bowel wall with CT scan findings aid in establishing the