戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1     Two target lesions were randomized in an intrapatient (1:1) manner to double-blind crisaborole/ve
2                                              Intrapatient absorbed doses were significantly correlate
3                                 Whether this intrapatient accumulation of escape mutations translates
4 to these questions showed that there was low intrapatient agreement for uncomfortable experiences (ka
5  overexpressed (2%) IGF1R levels; inter- and intrapatient analyses of IGF1R transcript and protein le
6 f clinical expressivity in NF1, resulting in intrapatient and interpatient cNF tumor burden heterogen
7 ally, the study of CTCs has exposed dramatic intrapatient and interpatient heterogeneity and their ev
8 s of the scale of microevolution both at the intrapatient and interpatient scenarios.
9       In patients administered monthly HBIg, intrapatient and interpatient variability in trough anti
10 trating immune and stromal cells showed both intrapatient and interpatient variations, with no unifor
11           JCV VP1 substitutions are acquired intrapatient and might favor JCV brain invasion through
12 rose significantly; in IM there was a median intrapatient change from baseline of +7.6 ng/mL (-0.6 to
13 outh and throat pain reduction with doxepin (intrapatient changes of 4.1 for doxepin-placebo arm and
14 ter adjustments were made for correlation of intrapatient clonal variation, mixed-model analysis indi
15                                         When intrapatient clustering effects were considered, (18)F-D
16 CE MR imaging enhancement fraction (baseline intrapatient coefficient of variation [CV]=8.6%), volume
17 nt from the others in a given individual) in intrapatient comparative analysis (IPCA) of nevi may hel
18                                              Intrapatient comparative analysis is of major importance
19          Prospective longitudinal study with intrapatient comparison of 83 very symptomatic cases wit
20                        Purpose To perform an intrapatient comparison of bowel labeling, opacification
21                              We performed an intrapatient comparison of pretherapeutic dosimetry with
22                                              Intrapatient comparison showed an increased target lesio
23                                Inpatient and intrapatient comparison was based on posttreatment (177)
24 rapy agent (177)Lu-rhPSMA-10.1, providing an intrapatient comparison with (177)Lu-PSMA-I&T in patient
25                                              Intrapatient comparisons for days 0-69 versus steady sta
26 Although work is ongoing, recently published intrapatient comparisons of (18)F-fluciclovine with (11)
27                                              Intrapatient comparisons showed similar horizontal furca
28                                      Despite intrapatient concordance in PD-L1 and TMB, variation in
29                 This randomised, open-label, intrapatient-controlled, phase 3 trial was conducted at
30 ralateral areas of unaffected skin served as intrapatient controls, and differences in blood flow and
31 l proportional hazards models accounting for intrapatient correlation in bilateral cases.
32                                              Intrapatient CV of Tac AUC0-24 improved after converting
33                                         Mean intrapatient difference between 3- and 6-mo 2-h OGTT in
34                                              Intrapatient differences were significant with lanadelum
35 ation of HER2 status including assessment of intrapatient disease heterogeneity not captured by stand
36                                  The average intrapatient distance per individual variable site, 27%,
37                                              Intrapatient diversity and divergence over time was dete
38 0) copy/ml of plasma increase in viral load, intrapatient diversity increased by 1.4% (P = 0.028).
39                                              Intrapatient diversity was found both at the extrapulmon
40                                  The greater intrapatient diversity, divergence, and diversification
41 ek and then further to 320 mg/week during an intrapatient dosage-escalation phase.
42                                              Intrapatient dose escalation from 0.025 mg to 0.2 mg was
43                 A phase I/II trial, using an intrapatient dose escalation of arginine butyrate combin
44                                      We used intrapatient dose escalation of oral rilzabrutinib over
45 he initial dose level was 100 mg/m(2)/d with intrapatient dose escalation to a maximum dose of 300 mg
46 nts started at a dose of 300 mg/m(2)/d, with intrapatient dose escalation to a maximum dose of 500 mg
47  was performed in cohorts of three patients; intrapatient dose escalation was also permitted.
48  relapsed or refractory CLL or NHL underwent intrapatient dose escalation with each agent.
49            Strategies such as randomization, intrapatient dose escalation, and real-world eligibility
50 as administered by continuous infusion in an intrapatient dose escalation, from 500 mg/(kg/day) escal
51 ion for 3 weeks followed by a week gap, with intrapatient dose escalation.
52  PET data were obtained for 13 patients with intrapatient dose escalation.
53                                              Intrapatient dose escalations were allowed to a maximum
54           Fractionated dosing of CTL019 with intrapatient dose modification optimizes safety without
55 weekly for 4 weeks; in all other cohorts, an intrapatient dose-escalation schedule was used with incr
56                          In AR and BKVN, the intrapatient drift was highly significant versus STA or
57                               We included an intrapatient escalation of FUS delivery to assess the fe
58 th backfilling for dose escalation was used (intrapatient escalation to highest safe dose permitted)
59 40 microg/m2/h every 3 weeks with subsequent intrapatient escalations or reductions in 10-microg/m2/h
60 V-1 infection, prospective studies examining intrapatient evolution during HIV-2 infection have been
61 ough numerous studies have characterized the intrapatient evolution of viral sequences during HIV-1 i
62 interpatient exposure was more variable than intrapatient exposure, and variability of exposure did n
63 is value was equivalent to that reported for intrapatient full-length env variation.
64                                  To evaluate intrapatient full-length gag variability, we derived the
65                               Mean values of intrapatient gag nucleotide variation obtained by pairwi
66  diverse clinical isolates, and investigated intrapatient genomic diversity and evolution.
67 f preclinical models in capturing inter- and intrapatient genomic heterogeneity.
68                       We observed inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity and phenotypic changes over t
69 d and expanded our understanding of LSCs and intrapatient heterogeneity in AML using improved xenotra
70     (68)Ga-PSMA response of TTV(bone) showed intrapatient heterogeneity in most patients.
71              Our analysis showed significant intrapatient heterogeneity in PDTO growth dynamics, with
72                                              Intrapatient heterogeneity in response was studied using
73                      Furthermore, inter- and intrapatient heterogeneity necessitates personalized tre
74                                              Intrapatient heterogeneity of estrogen receptor (ER) exp
75 ut (18)F-BMS-986229 uptake, highlighting the intrapatient heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression.
76                                 The level of intrapatient heterogeneity varied between patients, as d
77 original parent tumors and inter- as well as intrapatient heterogeneity.
78 gh in mRCC, with remarkable interpatient and intrapatient heterogeneity.
79 cated at different sites show a considerable intrapatient heterogeneity.
80  "viral reconstruction" to better understand intrapatient HIV-1 evolution and to determine the clonal
81 ow-frequency drug resistance mutations in an intrapatient HIV-1 population.
82                                              Intrapatient HIV-1 recombinants comprising sequences tha
83 quences made it possible to document complex intrapatient HIV-1 recombinants that were composed of al
84                                              Intrapatient intermetastatic heterogeneity (IIH) has bee
85      We also present a new method to extract intrapatient lesion saliency (ugly duckling criteria) on
86                        The greatest range of intrapatient mean nucleotide variation for individual pr
87 individual patients, which suggested minimal intrapatient molecular heterogeneity.
88 sive disease showed a higher variance of the intrapatient mutational spectrum and a higher frequency
89     We sought to compare clinically derived, intrapatient paired models of initial platinum response
90 ed in HBV-reactivated patients with a median intrapatient prevalence of 73.3% (range, 27.6%-100%) sup
91 e mutation was detected in 8.1% of patients (intrapatient prevalence range, 0.11%-47.5% for primary m
92 ape mutation was found in 53.2% of patients (intrapatient prevalence range, 0.16%-100%).
93 p codons were detected in 19.3% of patients (intrapatient prevalence range, 1.6%-47.5%) and occurred
94 tients carrying such mutations, their median intrapatient prevalence was 4.6% (range, 2.5%-11.3%; P<0
95  show an exponential distribution pattern of intrapatient QS diversity in this study population in wh
96                        We introduce Measured Intrapatient Radiomic Variability (MIRV), a novel metric
97        We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, intrapatient randomized, placebo-controlled trial involv
98 aim of this study was to document the normal intrapatient range of scan-to-scan variation in blood-po
99 Furthermore, although there is evidence that intrapatient recombination may occur frequently, recombi
100                                  We assessed intrapatient reliability of LV mass measurements in 183
101 ess of (i) interpatient microevolution, (ii) intrapatient respiratory variation, and (iii) isolation
102 or mTOR was significantly higher in matched (intrapatient) samples and in unmatched (interpatient) sa
103  were isolated from individuals with greater intrapatient sequence diversity and were associated with
104                     Phylogenetic analysis of intrapatient sequence sets showed distinct clustering of
105 stematic analysis of pairwise comparisons of intrapatient sequences, both within and between each sam
106           CAV progression was assessed using intrapatient sequences: baseline ICA, interval PET/CT wi
107 APK1/3 and other activities while exhibiting intrapatient similarity and interpatient heterogeneity.
108 risk of metastatic disease; however, a large intrapatient study is warranted for further validation.
109 phase 2a, single-center, vehicle-controlled, intrapatient study was designed to further characterize
110 pared with manual measurement (P < .004); at intrapatient subanalysis, this difference was related to
111 inent lesions was measured as SUVmax Average intrapatient SUVmax (<SUVmax>pt) was compared between HE
112                                     Overall, intrapatient tacrolimus CV was higher in AAs versus non-
113 A) with 39 521 concentrations used to assess intrapatient tacrolimus CV.
114 transplant recipients; little is known about intrapatient tacrolimus variabilities impact on racial d
115                                         High intrapatient tacrolimus variability has been associated
116                  These data demonstrate that intrapatient tacrolimus variability is strongly associat
117                                              Intrapatient tacrolimus variability was assessed using t
118 ciated with younger recipient age and higher intrapatient tacrolimus variability.
119 to assess changes in molecular signatures of intrapatient target lesions treated with topical therape
120                                              Intrapatient TF variance with altered loading (> 20% var
121                                              Intrapatient treatment response heterogeneity is under-r
122  In the advanced disease setting, inter- and intrapatient tumor heterogeneity is increasingly recogni
123 creasingly used to evaluate interpatient and intrapatient tumor heterogeneity.
124                             Interpatient and intrapatient variabilities in apparent clearance were su
125 ring median calcineurin inhibitor levels and intrapatient variability (IPV) in a multicenter, retrosp
126                                       A high intrapatient variability (IPV) in tacrolimus exposure is
127    Recently, researchers have focused on Tac intrapatient variability (Tac IPV) as a novel marker to
128                                Both high TAC intrapatient variability and low TAC time in therapeutic
129   Patients with CV >44.2% and TTR <40% (high intrapatient variability and low TTR) had a high risk of
130  patients with CV >44.2% and TTR >=40% (high intrapatient variability and optimal TTR), while the lat
131                       There was considerable intrapatient variability for both agents.
132  treated with Gengraf had a higher degree of intrapatient variability for cyclosporine trough concent
133                               The inter- and intrapatient variability in cyclosporine (CsA) pharmacok
134  using validated questionnaires, calculating intrapatient variability in drug exposure and applying e
135  variability in community structure exceeded intrapatient variability in serial samples.
136 ed immunologic risk associated with high TAC intrapatient variability is due to time outside of thera
137  potentially influential factors: inter- and intrapatient variability of attenuation coefficients and
138    The main outcome measure is the change in intrapatient variability of AUC0-24 expressed as coeffic
139                 Thus, strategies that reduce intrapatient variability of CsA exposure over time may l
140                                          The intrapatient variability of dose calculations was less t
141                                              Intrapatient variability of PK parameters was significan
142  this study was to investigate the change in intrapatient variability of Tac AUC0-24 after converting
143                                    A reduced intrapatient variability of Tac Cmin, a surrogate marker
144                                         High intrapatient variability of tacrolimus relates to a wors
145                                   Inter- and intrapatient variability of the bias was assessed for ea
146 in the form of Neoral showed less inter- and intrapatient variability than tacrolimus, although this
147 xhibited significantly less interpatient and intrapatient variability than tacrolimus, for area under
148  functional role during the life cycle, NS5B intrapatient variability was low.
149              Results: Significant inter- and intrapatient variability was observed with respect to th
150                                   Inter- and intrapatient variability was observed, and the median cu
151                             Interpatient and intrapatient variability was similar (intraclass correla
152 milar risk to patients with CV <44.2% (lower intrapatient variability).
153      PK studies showed wide interpatient and intrapatient variability.
154 mune cells with significant interpatient and intrapatient variability.
155 l thresholds show significant interassay and intrapatient variability.
156                               Visit-to-visit intrapatient variation in blood-pool and liver SUVs had
157  our patient cohort, the reference range for intrapatient variation in blood-pool and liver SUVs is -
158                                     Although intrapatient variation of segments of gag have been dete
159 eference range in our patient population for intrapatient variation was -0.8 to 0.9 for blood pool SU
160                      For the lungs, in which intrapatient variation was higher for the pediatric coll
161  were identified as systematically affecting intrapatient variation, and no factors were identified a
162  Most small AAAs showed linear growth; large intrapatient variations in interval growth rates were in
163 t body compartments and to better understand intrapatient viral dissemination.
164 r previous study that prospectively examined intrapatient viral evolution in HIV-1-infected individua

 
Page Top