ライフサイエンスコーパス: interpatient

1 A wide range of interpatient absorbed doses was delivered to normal orga

2 ence in CD19-mediated signaling unfolds both interpatient and intraclonal diversity in CLL.

3 bevacizumab is high in mRCC, with remarkable interpatient and intrapatient heterogeneity.

4 ing has become increasingly used to evaluate interpatient and intrapatient tumor heterogeneity.

5 Interpatient and intrapatient variabilities in apparent

6 sporin (Neoral) exhibited significantly less interpatient and intrapatient variability than tacrolimu

7 Interpatient and intrapatient variability was similar (i

8 PK studies showed wide interpatient and intrapatient variability.

9 s nonmalignant immune cells with significant interpatient and intrapatient variability.

10 We show that a unified model of interpatient and intratumor heterogeneity describes hist

11 atient cohorts demonstrated the intercancer, interpatient, and intratumoral heterogeneity of interact

12 arises years before disease onset, displays interpatient autoantigen variability, and is associated

13 ap prediction in osseous regions and reduced interpatient bias variation in femur-adjacent VOIs.

14 Improved bioavailability and reduced interpatient biovariability are therefore desirable for

15 sivity in NF1, resulting in intrapatient and interpatient cNF tumor burden heterogeneity, that is, th

16 In this interpatient comparison, data support the use of THW in

17 rwent both standard and low-dose CT allowing interpatient comparison.

18 Interpatient comparisons were also made and showed that

19 Furthermore, interpatient differences in 5 gene variants (NRAS, HRAS,

20 Interpatient differences in both decay rates were signif

21 Reflecting the interpatient differences in contrast enhancement, resect

22 deployment to elucidate the genomic basis of interpatient differences in drug response and disease ri

23 This study helps explain interpatient differences in efficacy and safety followin

24 provide insights into mechanisms underlying interpatient differences in intracellular accumulation o

25 rovide new insight into the genomic basis of interpatient differences in intracellular TGN accumulati

26 This diagnostic study delineated interpatient differences in RAS variants present in thyr

27 Interpatient differences in RAS, BRAF V600E, and TERT pr

28 harmacology of drugs, potentially leading to interpatient differences in response.

29 w is to discuss genetic factors that lead to interpatient differences in the pharmacokinetics and pha

30 The interpatient differences in these variants were discrimi

31 However, large interpatient disparities in the pharmacokinetics of TmAb

32 Quantitative detection of interpatient disparities of RAS variants (ie, NRAS, HRAS

33 Both intra- and interpatient diversification at the plasmid and transpos

34 The interpatient diversity of the clones from Botswana was h

35 ombinants were both remarkable for their low interpatient diversity, less than 1% for the full genome

36 llenged by high intratumor heterogeneity and interpatient diversity.

37 tients were treated with tipifarnib using an interpatient dose-escalation scheme.

38 fficacious, they are difficult to use due to interpatient dose-response variability and the risks of

39 get carboplatin AUC was 10 mg/ml x min, with interpatient escalation in increments of 25%.

40 showed that steady-state occurred by day 7, interpatient exposure was more variable than intrapatien

41 ear mixed model that is ideal to control for interpatient gene expression profile variation, such as

42 Deep sequencing revealed interpatient gp350 sequence variation but conservation o

43 Intra- and interpatient group statistics were descriptive.

44 onclusion, our findings identify substantial interpatient heterogeneity and distinct patterns of dysr

45 me patients, we show that compaRe can reveal interpatient heterogeneity and recognizable phenotypic p

46 Cellular and interpatient heterogeneity and the involvement of differ

47 f CTCs has exposed dramatic intrapatient and interpatient heterogeneity and their evolution over time

48 We hypothesise that GARD will reveal interpatient heterogeneity associated with opportunities

49 Interpatient heterogeneity exists in tissue cell populat

50 ded to clarify the relevance of the observed interpatient heterogeneity in clonal constitution.

51 l thrombocythemia (ET) manifests substantial interpatient heterogeneity in rates of thrombosis, hemor

52 Interpatient heterogeneity in the absolute degree of tur

53 RET+ cell lines effectively recapitulate the interpatient heterogeneity observed in response to RET i

54 he proteome atlas highlights intertissue and interpatient heterogeneity of injected proteins with pot

55 Stem cell assays reveal interpatient heterogeneity of JMML LSCs, which are prese

56 e-invasive and metastatic urothelial cancer (interpatient heterogeneity) probably contribute to varia

57 h they were derived, illustrating intra- and interpatient heterogeneity, and can be genetically modif

58 is cancer cell-intrinsic and independent of interpatient heterogeneity.

59 while exhibiting intrapatient similarity and interpatient heterogeneity.

60 r establishing a high degree of quantitative interpatient integral map pattern correspondence irrespe

61 associated with anxiety, it explained 24% of interpatient MCS variability.

62 a single strain the complete process of (i) interpatient microevolution, (ii) intrapatient respirato

63 dimensions are complementary, capture major interpatient molecular differences and are delimited by

64 lassification only accounts for up to 10% of interpatient molecular differences.

65 Whether interpatient pharmaco-kinetic differences in dexamethaso

66 ty was demonstrated but with high intra- and interpatient pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variabi

67 oposide is feasible and dramatically reduces interpatient pharmacokinetic variability.

68 OPTICAP is an interpatient protocol sequence randomized noninferiority

69 Emerging approaches such as multimodal and interpatient registration are discussed, alongside metri

70 hed (intrapatient) samples and in unmatched (interpatient) samples from rectal cancer patients after

71 microevolution both at the intrapatient and interpatient scenarios.

72 ional, misaligned movements and serves as an interpatient self-calibration index.

73 DNA sequence analyses showed interpatient specific mutations (2 to 3 bp).

74 ncontrast cardiac MRI, facilitating detailed interpatient strain analysis and allowing precise tracki

75 kable variability and redundancy, intra- and interpatient, suggesting ongoing parallel adaptive diver

76 antigen-specific clones with both intra- and interpatient TCR similarities.

77 Interpatient transcriptional heterogeneity was evident,

78 licated by treatment-emergent resistance and interpatient transmission of cefiderocol-resistant A. ba

79 B typing demonstrated in vivo, in vitro, and interpatient transmission stability yet revealed that th

80 enhanced capacity for human infection and/or interpatient transmission.

81 Interpatient variabilities in genomic variants may refle

82 Discrimination of interpatient variabilities in RAS in combination with BR

83 Analysis of variance revealed that interpatient variability (1.2-2.0x10(-3) mm2/sec) was si

84 ve the LLQ in most patients (93%), with wide interpatient variability (3.50-2,990 pg/mL).

85 seem to contribute significantly to the high interpatient variability (49%) in the clearance of this

86 the exposure profile of the drug showed low interpatient variability and a small peak:trough ratio o

87 piridol pharmacology, we observed unexpected interpatient variability and postinfusion peaks in appro

88 n of transporter substrates while decreasing interpatient variability and reversing tumor drug resist

89 ients using ultrafiltration to determine the interpatient variability and, therefore, whether individ

90 Reasons for its wide pretreatment interpatient variability are not well understood.

91 characteristic of Tac is the high intra and interpatient variability associated with its use.

92 studies of vesnarinone revealed significant interpatient variability at any given dose level.

93 d for adjacent biopsies, was larger than the interpatient variability for individuals with a history

94 e some pharmacological limitations including interpatient variability in antithrombotic effects in pa

95 MCL showed large interpatient variability in basal levels, and elevated l

96 e was normalized to body-surface area (BSA), interpatient variability in Cl(S/F) was reduced from 20%

97 Interpatient variability in Cmax,ss and AUCtau,ss was es

98 Interpatient variability in community structure exceeded

99 Interpatient variability in HCY exposure at a given CY d

100 I) pharmacokinetic (PK) properties show high interpatient variability in hemophilia A patients.

101 e results suggest a strong genetic basis for interpatient variability in hyperbilirubinemia and amino

102 This study was conducted to test whether interpatient variability in neurocognitive outcomes can

103 From evidence of interpatient variability in normal tissue sensitivity to

104 The high degree of interpatient variability in parameter estimates suggests

105 ly fails even under perfect adherence due to interpatient variability in pharmacological parameters.

106 etion are important determinants of the wide interpatient variability in plasma free dobutamine and d

107 There was marked interpatient variability in plasma PZA concentrations at

108 There was a large interpatient variability in RBC MTXPG levels (median 35

109 a suggest that host factors may also predict interpatient variability in response to aromatase inhibi

110 Recognition that there is a great deal of interpatient variability in response to these antiplatel

111 been associated with a significant degree of interpatient variability in response to treatment.

112 ggesting activities potentially relevant for interpatient variability in response to treatment.

113 There was marked interpatient variability in the degree of platelet aggre

114 There was a large interpatient variability in the dosimetry parameters.

115 This may contribute to interpatient variability in the risk of CsA-induced neph

116 nt with a narrow therapeutic index and large interpatient variability in the therapeutic dose.

117 nset of action, fewer interactions, and less interpatient variability in their antithrombotic effects

118 e limited by their calibration range and the interpatient variability in their dose-response curves.

119 To elucidate interpatient variability in thioguanine nucleotide (TGN)

120 ML7710 captured interpatient variability in TPMAL uptake and prompted FG

121 administered monthly HBIg, intrapatient and interpatient variability in trough antibody to HBsAg (an

122 and TERT promoter variants can elucidate the interpatient variability in tumors and facilitate a defi

123 across 418 liver biopsies and evaluated the interpatient variability of 18 drug targets.

124 imicrobial pharmacokinetics, and significant interpatient variability of antimicrobial concentrations

125 However, we show a striking interpatient variability of its deposition in this patie

126 Large interpatient variability of measurable immunosuppressant

127 r after transplantation explained 19% of the interpatient variability of PCS 3 months after transplan

128 However, interpatient variability of percentage of HbF (%HbF) res

129 There was a high degree of interpatient variability of plasma alitretinoin concentr

130 Food and film coating apparently increased interpatient variability of the maximum observed plasma

131 However, significant interpatient variability of the response to clopidogrel

132 nterleukin-4 receptor subunit alpha, with an interpatient variability producing heterogeneity in resp

133 e for body size or disease does not diminish interpatient variability sufficiently to obviate plasma

134 ay translate to less intestinal toxicity and interpatient variability than the SN-38 prodrugs thus fa

135 There is also considerable interpatient variability that was not explained by the c

136 Vmax>pt overlapped between the 2 groups, and interpatient variability was greater for HER2+ than HER2

137 Marked interpatient variability was noted for which KIs were ef

138 Wide interpatient variability was noted in vorinostat disposi

139 A large interpatient variability was observed on clearance (coef

140 dren with first-dose PK studies, substantial interpatient variability was observed, plus a novel oral

141 A linear mixed-effects model controlling for interpatient variability was then used to assess differe

142 Lack of data reproducibility, high interpatient variability, and the absence of disease-dep

143 fferences in disease profiles are not due to interpatient variability, but rather, to unique disease

144 an those without, but because of significant interpatient variability, defining an effective general

145 Despite significant interpatient variability, exposure to vandetanib increas

146 CD8(+) T lymphocyte response, despite marked interpatient variability, increased overall with STI.

147 There was significant interpatient variability, which correlated with plasma c

148 mized for each patient indicated substantial interpatient variability.

149 and maximum plasma concentration with marked interpatient variability.

150 drug-drug interactions that may account for interpatient variability.

151 both radiopharmaceuticals with considerable interpatient variability.

152 3-14 d postimlifidase dose, with substantial interpatient variability.

153 durations of modern CT scanners, as well as interpatient variability.

154 ting in an inconclusive diagnosis because of interpatient variability.

155 anti-HLA antibodies, although with important interpatient variability.

156 heterogeneity and readily evident intra- and interpatient variability.

157 Organ dosimetry showed substantial interpatient variability.

158 years; IQR, -8.9% to 1.2%), indicating large interpatient variability.

159 min ranged from 1.2 to 59.0, with intra- and interpatient variability.

160 on in ARVD/C is progressive with substantial interpatient variability.

161 on, dose-proportional exposure, and moderate interpatient variability.

162 with increasing patient age, there is great interpatient variability.

163 um 57 mins), although there was considerable interpatient variation (20 to 175 mins with cisatracuriu

164 Interpatient variation across the entire CMV genome was

165 veiled that glycerophospholipids showed high interpatient variation and were strongly affected by pre

166 ths posttransplant but there was significant interpatient variation as to when peak levels occurred.

167 We demonstrate previously unappreciated interpatient variation in HIV protease processing effici

168 material, provides a possible mechanism for interpatient variation in host-stromal response to invad

169 AO as comodifiers explained up to 47% of the interpatient variation in ICARS progression.

170 based on body surface area results in marked interpatient variation in pharmacokinetics, toxic effect

171 or number, differences in receptor activity, interpatient variation in pharmacological dose-response

172 There was marked interpatient variation in plasma concentrations of PZA.

173 Such interpatient variation in T-cell kinetics may be reflect

174 Intra- and interpatient variation of PZ ADCs was determined by mean

175 The effect of interpatient variation on the assessment of prostate can

176 these paired comparisons, we can exclude the interpatient variation that is present in plasma samples

177 PZ ADCs show significant interpatient variation, which has a substantial effect o

178 s greater than in HT29 cells but with marked interpatient variations and proficiently glucuronidated

179 Interpatient variations are relevant for prognosis and t

180 as used to determine the significance of the interpatient variations in ADCs.

181 ases promoter activity and may contribute to interpatient variations in hRFC expression and effects o

182 Interpatient variations in serum clearance rates were ob

183 Interpatient variations in serum clearance rates were ob

184 d stromal cells showed both intrapatient and interpatient variations, with no uniform distribution ov