ライフサイエンスコーパス: donor selection

1 /Mcm1p-binding sites, DPS1 and DPS2, control donor selection.

2 ctivating the left arm of chromosome III for donor selection.

3 t TUP1, but not SSN6, is required for proper donor selection.

4 e findings have significant implications for donor selection.

5 plementation of genetic testing for these in donor selection.

6 phabeta should be prioritized over HLA-DR in donor selection.

7 cidence of relapse after h-HSCT and optimize donor selection.

8 nd demonstrate feasibility of evidence-based donor selection.

9 preimplantation biopsy clinical practice in donor selection.

10 en intensity, chemotherapeutic bridging, and donor selection.

11 utilization rate of hBMI donors and improve donor selection.

12 and 5 are usually not taken into account in donor selection.

13 ted with modifications in both recipient and donor selection.

14 y become a feasible, additional criterion in donor selection.

15 current practices in live liver donation and donor selection.

16 e of anticoagulation, and strict patient and donor selection.

17 tantial implications for prognostication and donor selection.

18 donor-related variables may be useful during donor selection.

19 engraftment and should be considered in HCT donor selection.

20 to avoid futile transplants and rationalize donor selection.

21 ease susceptibility, transplant outcome, and donor selection.

22 The latter can be minimized with careful donor selection.

23 transplantation is highly influenced by good donor selection.

24 e incorporated into algorithms for unrelated donor selection.

25 eventually use KIR genotype information for donor selection.

26 t selection (70 patients, 11%) or because of donor selection (78 patients, 12%), group A.

27 Differences among facilities emerged in donor selection (age, cold ischemia time, intensive care

28 hat KIR genotyping should be included in the donor selection algorithm for haploidentical transplanta

29 This study supports a donor selection algorithm whereby patients who lack a cl

30 idated, IFNL4 genotype could be added to the donor selection algorithm.

31 nform decision making and the development of donor-selection algorithms.

32 ematopoietic stem-cell transplantation, from donor selection and conditioning regimen to graft-versus

33 Despite substantial advances in donor selection and conditioning regimens and greater av

34 ctice for patient selection, timing of HSCT, donor selection and conditioning, peri- and post-HSCT ma

35 factors, which is important for mating-type donor selection and for the biased gene conversion obser

36 icity of various HLA antigens may help guide donor selection and identify mismatches to avoid for pat

37 -resolution class I typing may help optimize donor selection and improve outcome.

38 kidney transplant outcome will allow better donor selection and more educated informed consent when

39 Donor selection and optimization of immunosuppression ma

40 Donor selection and organ allocation must follow specifi

41 This may have implications for donor selection and organ utilization.

42 ssociation of this change with recipient and donor selection and outcomes remains to be elucidated.

43 erstanding of HCV pathogenesis and influence donor selection and patient management.

44 eactivity could be of crucial importance for donor selection and patient outcome.

45 Screening for iciHHV-6 could guide donor selection and post-HCT risk stratification and tre

46 gs highlight potential markers for improving donor selection and post-transplant management.

47 this pattern in the light of improvements in donor selection and post-transplant supportive care.

48 ce of minimizing these risks through careful donor selection and preoperative planning, as biliary co

49 In conclusion, improving donor selection and preservation is warranted if the all

50 ly flagged as R+, with significant impact on donor selection and prophylaxis administration.

51 A four-step evaluation protocol was used for donor selection and satisfactory results of all tests in

52 ncentrates through a combination of improved donor selection and screening, effective virucidal techn

53 ignificant new source of grafts, but careful donor selection and short cold ischemia are mandatory.

54 However, criteria for patient and donor selection and the most effective transplant proced

55 ne globulin; transplantation for bone marrow donor selection and transfusion support for highly alloi

56 ne matching is expected to improve unrelated donor selection and transplant outcome.

57 f genetic testing can be valuable for kidney donor selection and transplant recipient management.

58 methods for HLA class II loci have improved donor selection and treatment outcome in unrelated donor

59 into account comorbidities, disease status, donor selection, and effective nontransplant therapies.

60 ction, use of high-resolution HLA typing for donor selection, and improved supportive care treatment.

61 arizes FDA regulatory changes, principles of donor selection, and recommended laboratory screening pr

62 Advances in preparative regimens, donor selection, and supportive care should improve the

63 s and laboratory assays to streamline plasma donor selection, and the durability of nAb responses, ar

64 Preoperative imaging and donor selection are cardinal components of adult-to-adul

65 The mechanisms of donor selection are different for the two mating types.

66 nt reduction of recipient weight and careful donor selection are therefore crucial in order to decrea

67 l therapy can be further improved by optimal donor selection based on phenotypic and genotypic proper

68 By employing CD16 as a donor selection biomarker, we harness Vdelta2 T cells ch

69 e explored the mechanism of alpha2p-directed donor selection by examining the effects on donor prefer

70 Genetic findings can inform donor selection, considerations in conditioning intensit

71 ute to this poor pancreas use include strict donor selection criteria and the requirement for short c

72 e that, with careful consideration, existing donor selection criteria can be expanded to include cert

73 Donor selection criteria for adult-to-adult living donor

74 n donor safety and recipient challenges, the donor selection criteria remain considerably disparate.

75 nts included liberalization of recipient and donor selection criteria, improved surgical techniques,

76 Donor selection criteria, laparoscopic port positions, a

77 outcome marker to evaluate our living kidney donor selection criteria.

78 he process of cell type determination and in donor selection during mating interconversion.

79 he mechanisms of silencing and may relate to donor selection during mating-type interconversion.

80 ell biology and underscore the importance of donor selection for allogeneic cell therapies.

81 nt in family planning after chemotherapy and donor selection for assisted reproduction.

82 There are also limited data on recipient and donor selection for HCV viremic liver and kidney allogra

83 py, risk of treatment-related complications, donor selection for hematopoietic stem cell transplantat

84 This new algorithm may be a tool in donor selection for hematopoietic stem cell transplantat

85 monstrate its potential to refine and expand donor selection for HLA-alloimmunized patients.

86 sideration of KIR3DL1-mediated inhibition in donor selection for HLA-matched HCT may achieve superior

87 Our finding may be useful in donor selection for liver transplantation with HCV, and

88 ed surveillance, familial screening to guide donor selection for transplantation, and changes in ther

89 urther research is needed to explore optimal donor selection, FT preparation, route, timing, and numb

90 Living kidney donor selection has become more liberal with acceptation

91 an include tailoring conditioning intensity, donor selection, immunosuppression management, donor lym

92 allenge for heart transplantation, affecting donor selection, immunosuppression, and posttransplant m

93 uman diseases and is an important factor for donor selection in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell tr

94 ponse to viral pathogens and malignancy, for donor selection in allogeneic hemopoietic cell transplan

95 IR2DL2/L3-associated diseases as well as for donor selection in allogeneic stem cell transplantation.

96 nd provides objective selection criteria for donor selection in LDLT.

97 counsel prospective rLT candidates and guide donor selection in this technically challenging recipien

98 Donor selection is dictated by cell type: mat2 is the pr

99 Careful donor selection is necessary to minimize complications a

100 more information regarding COVID-19-positive donor selection is needed.

101 Donor selection limits the application of living donor l

102 This approach to donor selection may allow wider geographic sharing of ca

103 or which pre-emptive diabetes management and donor selection may be warranted.

104 tify mismatches for MICA-129, and compatible donor selection may improve outcome for this small but h

105 time under different allocation policies and donor selection mechanisms for candidates on the wait li

106 inions related specifically to recipient and donor selection of HCV viremic liver and kidney allograf

107 ults caution the use of genotyping alone for donor selection or leukemia-relapse prognostication beca

108 ntation (HCT) could have potential impact on donor selection or monitoring of patients.

109 uestionnaire about critical steps, including donor selection, pancreas processing, pancreas perfusion

110 novel therapeutic targets for improvement of donor selection, peritransplant management and kidney pr

111 y, current surgical technique, recipient and donor selection, postoperative care, immunosuppression,

112 icantly by recipient race/ethnicity and sex, donor selection practices do not seem to be the dominant

113 ive liver donor survey provides insight into donor selection practices that may aid standardization b

114 ing refinement of the surgical technique and donor selection process, UTx is now an established solut

115 urate adjunct to organ allocation and living donor selection process.

116 es the need for better evidence to guide the donor selection process.

117 e of "healthy" controls designed to simulate donor selection processes has identified higher risk of

118 dentity was protected through a double-blind donor selection protocol.

119 on, modification of conditioning regimes and donor selection should be considered carefully.

120 These results suggest that donor selection should consider the presence of antibodi

121 To validate current donor selection strategies based on previous internation

122 where the advances in immunosuppression and donor selection strategies have led to a decline in acut

123 ontexts, supporting its potential utility in donor selection strategies.

124 Aiming to develop a donor selection strategy to improve transplant outcome,

125 Here, we utilized a targeted donor selection strategy to isolate a large panel of hum

126 Improved donor selection, tailored conditioning regimens, and bet

127 lantation is related to the recipient's age, donor selection, the conditioning regimen and the extent

128 recipient HLA class I can be used to inform donor selection to improve outcome of unrelated donor he

129 Alternative donor selection using haploidentical donors and posttran

130 effect of detecting renovascular disease on donor selection was determined in 74 of the 78 patients.

131 A questionnaire on donor selection was sent to 41 centers worldwide.

132 To support an empirical approach to donor selection, we developed a tool that simultaneously

133 Clinicians lack criteria for donor selection when HLA-C-mismatched donors are a patie

134 and adherence to national policies on blood donor selection with focus on voluntary donations, and c

135 The use of serum analysis in donor selection would have reduced the total number of r