ライフサイエンスコーパス: nausea

1 ast cell densities as compared those without nausea.

2 constipation (OIC), sedation, dizziness, and nausea.

3 y represent a useful correlate of emesis and nausea.

4 mmodation to treat postprandial distress and nausea.

5 ly predicted susceptibility or resistance to nausea.

6 to identify individuals more susceptible to nausea.

7 was gastrointestinal adverse events such as nausea.

8 stratified by sex and presence or absence of nausea.

9 pain, upper respiratory tract infection, and nausea.

10 alopecia, diarrhoea, decreased appetite, and nausea.

11 of the patients were pruritus, fatigue, and nausea.

12 rse reactions include headache, insomnia and nausea.

13 nderstanding and therapeutically controlling nausea.

14 complained of cramp-like abdominal pain and nausea.

15 -5 Gastroparesis Clinical Symptom Index) for nausea (1.8 vs 1.0; P = .005), vomiting (1.6 vs 0.5; P =

16 olriamfetol doses included headache (21.5%), nausea (10.7%), decreased appetite (10.7%), nasopharyngi

17 Other grade 3 to 4 toxicities included nausea (11%), dehydration (11%), electrolyte abnormality

18 .8%), infusion-related reaction (20.5%), and nausea (11.4%).

19 0% and 11.1% vs 7.1% and 6.2% with placebo), nausea (12.4% and 9.1% vs 5.1% and 7.3%), and vomiting (

20 re diarrhoea (in 160 [85%] of 189 patients), nausea (130 [69%]), vomiting (125 [66%]), and an increas

21 e 20 mug group group and fatigue (14 [38%]), nausea (16 [43%]), and joint pain (17 [46%]) in the 40 m

22 up), constipation (16 [8%] vs 19 [9%] vs 0), nausea (16 [8%] vs 18 [9%] vs five [5%]), and injection-

23 patients), fatigue (18 [32%] patients), and nausea (17 [30%] patients).

24 6%] of 35), thrombocytopenia (22 [63%]), and nausea (17 [49%]) in group 3.

25 rgent adverse events in all 32 patients were nausea (17 [53%]), diarrhoea (16 [50%]), and fatigue (16

26 1 [35%] patients), back pain (38 [22%]), and nausea (19 [11%]).

27 roup and 4/368 [1.1%] in moxifloxacin group; nausea: 19/368 [5.2%] in lefamulin group and 7/368 [1.9%

28 The most common adverse events were nausea (21 [17%] of 122 patients), nasopharyngitis (18 [

29 ), infusion-related reaction (38 [21%]), and nausea (23 [13%]).

30 were fatigue (31 [42%]; two [3%] grade >=3), nausea (25 [34%]; one [1%] grade >=3), diarrhoea (23 [32

31 ] of 49 patients), diarrhoea (27 [55%]), and nausea (25 [51%]).

32 0 patients vs 20 [15%] of 131 patients), and nausea (27 [21%] of 130 patients vs 15 [11%] of 131 pati

33 e most commonly reported adverse events were nausea (27%) and headache (23%).

34 dverse events (TEAEs) were diarrhea (48.8%), nausea (29.5%), neutropenia (28.7%), fatigue (27.9%), an

35 ommon adverse events in the 94 patients were nausea (30 [32%]) and headache (26 [28%]).

36 e pain (36%), sleep (35%), stress (31%), and nausea (30%).

37 23%] of 240), fatigue (47 [20%] of 240), and nausea (32 [13%] of 240).

38 The most common adverse events were nausea (36 [11%] of 314 for the bictegravir group vs 76

39 events (TEAEs) were diarrhea/colitis (36%), nausea (36%), fatigue (31%), and rash (31%).

40 , with diarrhea (44%), blurred vision (41%), nausea (37%), and fatigue (30%) being the most commonly

41 , aspartate aminotransferase increase (39%), nausea (38%), alanine aminotransferase increase (28%), a

42 most common drug-related adverse events were nausea (39 [7%] vs 18 [7%]), headache (16 [3%] vs 12 [5%

43 e comparator), headache (7.5% vs. 7.0%), and nausea (4.8% vs. 5.3%).

44 ] in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group), nausea (45 [12%] vs 52 [14%]), headache (57 [15%] vs 46

45 nts included mild gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea [47%], diarrhea [36%], vomiting [21%]).

46 ment was well tolerated, with fatigue (81%), nausea (48%), and anorexia (33%) being the most frequent

47 imiting G1-2 dry mouth (66%), transient G1-2 nausea (48%), G3-4 thrombocytopenia (10%) and G3 anemia

48 iting G1-G2 dry mouth (66%), transient G1-G2 nausea (48%), G3-G4 thrombocytopenia (10%), and G3 anemi

49 erse events within 48 hours of any dose were nausea (50 mg, 10 of 488 [2.0%]; 25 mg, 12 of 478 [2.5%]

50 t or pain: 66 [6%] vs 40 [3%], respectively; nausea: 50 [4%] vs 24 [2%]; and vomiting: 32 [3%] vs 17

51 mptoms (ie, a great deal or a lot) including nausea, 52.3% (57 of 109), loss of appetite, 50.5% (49 o

52 cluded fatigue (27%), neutropenia (12%), and nausea (6%).

53 astrointestinal-related disorders, primarily nausea (65 [12%] of 556 reported adverse events in the c

54 nts with solriamfetol were headache (10.1%), nausea (7.9%), decreased appetite (7.6%), anxiety (7.0%)

55 (79%), neutropenia (76%), fatigue (74%), and nausea (71%).

56 mon nonhematologic adverse events (AEs) were nausea (75%), fatigue (70%), anorexia (64%), vomiting (4

57 [69%] of 147 patients), fatigue (82 [56%]), nausea (77 [52%]), alopecia (64 [44%]), conjunctivitis (

58 ncluded abdominal pain (in 18% of patients), nausea (8%), ascites (3%), fatigue (3%), gastric stenosi

59 A2M reduced (P < 0.05) some symptoms (nausea: A2M 8 +/- 3 mm compared with CON 15 +/- 3mm; fec

60 omprising self-limiting conditions including nausea, abdominal pain, and FMT-related diarrhea.

61 orded vomiting frequency and symptom scores (nausea, abdominal pain, postprandial fullness, and bloat

62 nd twice the rate of the placebo group) were nausea, akathisia, dizziness, and sedation.

63 ts (2 cases of transient xerostomia and 1 of nausea, all grade 1 or 2), as well as PSA response (any

64 Mild nausea and asymptomatic increases in gamma-glutamyl tran

65 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, brain damage, nausea and cardiac disease.

66 ts in a series of digestive ailments such as nausea and diarrhea.

67 nabinoids can alleviate chemotherapy-induced nausea and emesis and chronic pain.

68 well as abdominal distention associated with nausea and liquid stools; in addition, she had an 8-mont

69 The most common adverse event was nausea and most common serious adverse event was worseni

70 e IV criteria; and, 2) relationships between nausea and mucosal inflammation as defined by antral and

71 dary aim was to assess relationships between nausea and other gastrointestinal symptoms, non-gastroin

72 AIMS: There are few effective treatments for nausea and other symptoms in patients with gastroparesis

73 ding the relationship between peri-traumatic nausea and prospective risk for developing posttraumatic

74 mined the association between peri-traumatic nausea and PTSD symptom development in three independent

75 ly and clinically meaningful improvements in nausea and reduced vomiting, compared with placebo, in p

76 ext 3 weeks, patient experienced progressive nausea and sharp epigastric pain and laboratory studies

77 The most common adverse events were nausea and urinary tract infection.

78 se reaction in 5 participants receiving NAC [nausea and vomiting (3), anaphylaxis (1), pain at drip s

79 Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a significant toxicity of

80 sk of postoperative infection, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), or other complications.

81 grade 3 rash [n=1] in cohort 4, and grade 2 nausea and vomiting [n=1] and grade 4 immune-mediated he

82 Similar to most tetracyclines, transient nausea and vomiting and low-magnitude increases in liver

83 tely in patients in whom there is absence of nausea and vomiting and no signs of severe ileus or gast

84 itive antagonists, used in the management of nausea and vomiting associated with radiation and chemot

85 Patients with nausea and vomiting at baseline (n = 101) had an even gr

86 a randomized trial of patients with chronic nausea and vomiting caused by gastroparesis or gastropar

87 most common therapeutic target to manage the nausea and vomiting during cancer therapies and in the t

88 erious adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea and vomiting in four participants during pregnanc

89 ics are used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer.

90 Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) is a common condi

91 perative multimodal analgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, early diet advancement,

92 chemotherapy with high chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting risk (32.4% [n = 106795]).

93 Postoperative nausea and vomiting was reported in 48 patients (7.8%) i

94 Grade 3 or 4 nausea and vomiting was the most common adverse event (t

95 Mild to moderate nausea and vomiting were the most frequent treatment-eme

96 For radiation-induced nausea and vomiting, adjustments were made to anatomic r

97 Patients reported mild nausea and vomiting, and endoscopy revealed only minor s

98 with advanced cancer: pain, breathlessness, nausea and vomiting, and fatigue.

99 penia, neutropenia, oesophagitis, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, and mucositis were significantly wo

100 ion procedure (aspiration during intubation, nausea and vomiting, and venous injury or compromise).

101 for high fever, lack of appetite related to nausea and vomiting, headache and significant malaise.

102 erative awareness with recall, postoperative nausea and vomiting, medical complications, and death.

103 ; 0: no pain; 10: the most pain imaginable), nausea and vomiting, sedation, minimal alveolar concentr

104 t should be considered when symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, weight loss, melena, hematemesis an

105 ly in the second trimester, symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, weight loss, melena, hematemesis an

106 n approved for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

107 tients with low risk of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

108 R1, also called NK1R) can reduce symptoms of nausea and vomiting.

109 to prematurely stop drug due to significant nausea and vomiting.

110 lastic agents or who experience breakthrough nausea and vomiting; a recommendation to administer dexa

111 ir growth abnormal" in afatinib, but not in "nausea" and "vomiting" listed on drug labels.

112 ellyfish, he experienced erythema, wheezing, nausea, and abdominal pain.

113 to combat cancer but also to alleviate pain, nausea, and anxiety, many of which target GPCRs.

114 vents were fatigue, diarrhea, muscle spasms, nausea, and bruising.

115 ere gastrointestinal (diarrhoea, flatulence, nausea, and constipation) occurring in 16 (13%) patients

116 Fatigue, nausea, and decreased appetite were common and were typi

117 ession; nonhematologic AEs included fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea.

118 hows neurological symptoms, such as fatigue, nausea, and dizziness, the implications for brain struct

119 ted adverse events were insomnia, diarrhoea, nausea, and dizziness.

120 grade) included fatigue, diarrhea, asthenia, nausea, and dizziness.

121 o 2 toxicities, especially thrombocytopenia, nausea, and elevation of liver enzymes.

122 Headache, nausea, and fatigue were also more common among patients

123 headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, fever, nausea, and fatigue.

124 Vomiting, nausea, and headache were the only treatment-emergent ad

125 ated to capivasertib were diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, and rash.

126 the SAGE-217 group were headache, dizziness, nausea, and somnolence.

127 (50%), elevated AST (50%), and constipation, nausea, and thrombocytopenia (42% each).

128 for symptomatic grade 2 or greater fatigue, nausea, and vomiting adverse events (AEs).

129 Stomach pain, nausea, and vomiting were the most common adverse events

130 ation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting).

131 ful disorders and specific symptoms of pain, nausea, and vomiting.

132 es, infection, anxiety/depression, diarrhoea/nausea, and weight gain.

133 vents was balanced between groups, including nausea, anorexia, and musculoskeletal pain, most of mild

134 notransferase (n = 2), diarrhea (n = 1), and nausea/anorexia (n = 1).

135 on an evaluation of the centrality indices, nausea appears to be a structurally important node in al

136 needed to determine the mechanistic role of nausea as an intermediate phenotype of PTSD risk.

137 ariability, was closely related to both this nausea-associated anatomical variation and the functiona

138 Nausea-associated responses to agonists of identified ar

139 symptom (among photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea) at 2 hours after taking the medication.

140 with migraine (photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea) at 2 hours.

141 PES was defined as pain and/or nausea beyond 6 hours after TACE that required intraveno

142 n (69%), proteinuria (51%), and diarrhea and nausea (both 36%); hypoalbuminemia was reported in 24% o

143 uroanatomical differences and the functional nausea-brain network were closely related to sympathetic

144 veal the basic organization of area postrema nausea circuitry and provide a framework toward understa

145 n report cannabis use during pregnancy, with nausea cited as their primary motivation.

146 Nausea comparison and safety evaluation were secondary a

147 weeks) were fatigue, peripheral neuropathy, nausea, constipation, anorexia, diarrhea, and vomiting.

148 frequently than the placebo group, included nausea, constipation, dizziness, vomiting, somnolence, f

149 in nausea severity and if susceptibility to nausea could be predicted using machine learning.

150 on drug-related adverse events were fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, anorexia, vomiting, peripheral sensory

151 Common adverse events (>30%) included nausea, diarrhea, constipation, febrile neutropenia, fat

152 last's known profile (common adverse events: nausea, diarrhea, headache, and nasopharyngitis).

153 vs eight [2%] in the late-switch group) and nausea (eight [2%] vs five [1%]).

154 stomatitis, myalgia or arthralgia, vomiting, nausea, fatigue, and peripheral neuropathy, whereas edem

155 palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, nausea, fatigue, and vomiting.

156 Common grade 1 or 2 toxicities were nausea, fatigue, neutropenia, alopecia, dizziness, and d

157 (11 [5%]), QT prolongation (five [2%]), and nausea (five [2%]) in the quizartinib group, and febrile

158 rtension (eight [13%]), fatigue (five [8%]), nausea (four [7%]), neutropenia (four [7%]), and vomitin

159 sules vs four [8%] while receiving placebo), nausea (four [8%] vs two [4%]), and exacerbation of diar

160 (P = .0099) and a significant increase in of nausea-free days at week 4 (28.8% increase on tradipitan

161 0.4) (P < .0001), as well as an increase in nausea-free days at week 4 (32.3% improvement on tradipi

162 miting (grade 3: 47 [3%] vs five [<1%]), and nausea (grade 3: 26 [2%] vs two [<1%]).

163 as gastroparesis, a syndrome predominated by nausea (>90% of cases) and vomiting (>80% of cases).

164 ut adverse effects, in particular emesis and nausea, have curbed their clinical utility.

165 AEs of nausea, headache, constipation, dizziness, and somnolenc

166 uently reported adverse events were fatigue, nausea, headache, insomnia, and rash.

167 s included anemia, leukopenia, pancytopenia, nausea, hyperbilirubinemia, hypophosphatemia, and anorex

168 e events (eg, lethargy, diarrhoea, rash, and nausea) improved during the first 3 months of de-escalat

169 We calculated relative risks of nausea improvement using stratified Cochran-Mental-Haens

170 ria in 22 (31%), flank pain in 21 (30%), and nausea in 17 (24%).

171 presents as chronic diarrhea, bloating, and nausea in addition to malabsorption symptoms such as wei

172 grade 3 diarrhea in six patients and grade 3 nausea in one; no patient experienced grade 4 diarrhea,

173 nt study were to assess: 1) the frequency of nausea in patients with functional dyspepsia (FD) and ir

174 (8%) of 26 patients treated with placebo and nausea in seven (14%) patients treated with pegbelfermin

175 driven by a higher incidence of drug-related nausea in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine gro

176 TRYUMPH cohort (N = 1846), patient reported nausea in the ED was significantly associated with incre

177 d at GMH, was used as a surrogate marker for nausea in the initial GMH cohort; nausea was then direct

178 ne (n = 101) had an even greater decrease in nausea in when given tradipitant (reduction of 1.4) comp

179 tment-emergent adverse events were transient nausea (in 15 [28%] patients receiving apomorphine subli

180 ommon treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (in 31 [63%] of 49 patients), fatigue (26 [53%]),

181 erase (114 [60%]) in the ceritinib group and nausea (in 97 [55%] of 175 patients), vomiting (63 [36%]

182 t-emergent adverse events were diarrhoea and nausea (in nine [53%] patients each).

183 adverse drug reactions (No./total No.) were nausea (iron isomaltoside: 1/125; ferric carboxymaltose:

184 Nausea is a common symptom in youth with chronic abdomin

185 Nausea is a highly individual and variable experience.

186 ependent cohorts suggest that peri-traumatic nausea is a prospective predictor of PTSD symptom develo

187 Nausea is an adverse experience characterised by alterat

188 Nausea is associated with increased mucosal mast cell de

189 Nausea is common in children and adolescents with pain-a

190 Susceptibility to nausea is difficult to predict, but machine learning has

191 ition is that the symptoms such as vomiting, nausea, loss of appetite and abdominal growth are mistak

192 tion in average meal size and independent of nausea/malaise.

193 To investigate nausea mechanisms, we built an area postrema cell atlas

194 51.2% in the nicotine-replacement group) and nausea more frequently in the nicotine-replacement group

195 ommon treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea, myelosuppression, and fatigue.

196 mptoms in the first month of cancer therapy: nausea (n = 109; 84.5%), loss of appetite (n = 97; 75.2%

197 tandard treatment groups, respectively, were nausea (n = 13 and n = 6), rash (n = 4 and n = 1), hiccu

198 arrhea (n = 18; 53%), fatigue (n = 16; 47%), nausea (n = 13; 38%), and decreased appetite (n = 12; 35

199 ts attributed to X-82 were diarrhea (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), fatigue (n = 5), and transaminase elevat

200 (n = 78 [54.9%]), myalgia (n = 69 [48.6%]), nausea (n = 65 [45.8%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthes

201 e most frequent being hyperglycemia (n = 6), nausea (n = 7) and vomiting (n = 7).

202 action (n=20 [43%]), dizziness (n=17 [37%]), nausea (n=17 [37%]), and cough (n=16 [35%]).

203 ), fatigue (n=14), hyponatraemia (n=10), and nausea (n=8).

204 in the placebo group had 640 adverse events (nausea [n = 67], diarrhea [n = 84], vomiting [n = 20], a

205 co-trimoxazole group had 696 adverse events (nausea [n = 89], diarrhea [n = 52], vomiting [n = 28], a

206 ose-limiting toxicities (intractable grade 2 nausea [n=1] and grade 3 rash [n=1] in cohort 4, and gra

207 ertigo, dizziness, false feelings of motion, nausea, nystagmus, magnetophosphenes, and electrogustato

208 While nausea often develops following exposure to trauma, litt

209 ly for therapeutic benefits without inducing nausea or emesis.

210 ted of grade 1/2 fatigue (87.1%) and grade 1 nausea or vomiting (67.7%) during follow-up.

211 ; group B, n = 1), pain (group A, n = 2) and nausea or vomiting (group A, n = 1).

212 tients), autoimmune toxicities (five [15%]), nausea or vomiting (two [6%]), and seizures (two [6%]).

213 , followed by anemia 15% (95% CI 3-31%), and nausea or vomiting 14% (95% CI 4-27%).

214 The presence of nausea or vomiting after the onset of oral refeeding was

215 Nausea or vomiting occurred more frequently in the sertr

216 s, and leukopenia; fever and at least two of nausea or vomiting, rash, aches and pains, positive tour

217 and >30% reduction in PTH) and self-reported nausea or vomiting.

218 e-limiting toxicity, most commonly anorexia, nausea, or fatigue.

219 include heartburn, regurgitation, dysphagia, nausea, or vague epigastric pain depending on the hernia

220 enia, diarrhea, fever, myalgias/arthralgias, nausea, or vomiting (P < .05) at admission.

221 al hyperemia, lip swelling, cold sweats, and nausea presented later.

222 dverse events (TEAEs) across all groups were nausea (range 5% [5/93] for 10 mg once daily to 12% [22/

223 we discovered excitatory neurons that induce nausea-related behaviors, with one neuron type mediating

224 The central processing of nausea remains poorly understood, although numerous infl

225 The area postrema is implicated in some nausea responses and is anatomically privileged to detec

226 The most common adverse events were nausea (rimegepant n=11 [2%]; placebo n=3 [<1%]) and uri

227 ng tradipitant had a significant decrease in nausea score (reduction of 1.2) at week 4 compared with

228 The mean nausea score on the Visual Analogue Scale (score 0-10) w

229 The average nausea score was 1 or less at week 4 in 32.9% of patient

230 Increasing nausea scores positively correlated with shape variation

231 erences were noted in IV fluid requirements, nausea/sedation scores, days to open bowels, length of H

232 We investigated the role of these factors in nausea severity and if susceptibility to nausea could be

233 atomical and functional brain biomarkers for nausea severity may permit objective identification of i

234 Nausea severity relates to underlying subcortical morpho

235 unctional brain network linked to increasing nausea severity was identified implicating the thalamus,

236 tamen; a functional brain network related to nausea severity was identified, which included the thala

237 as change from baseline to week 4 in average nausea severity, measured by the Gastroparesis Core Symp

238 In the GMH internal validation, nausea significantly predicted 1 month (p = 0.009; n = 6

239 The most common adverse events were nausea, somnolence, and dry mouth (reported in 0.4 to 4.

240 e most commonly reported adverse events were nausea, somnolence, and dry mouth.

241 arning neural network was trained to predict nausea susceptibility, or resistance, using resting ANS

242 objective means to develop models predicting nausea susceptibility.

243 sleep disturbances, drowsiness or tiredness, nausea, sweating, and being restless or overactive) did

244 The severity of nausea that individuals experience is related to the und

245 Nausea, the unpleasant sensation of visceral malaise, re

246 s are potential biomarkers in trials of anti-nausea therapies.

247 hyperglycaemia (five [16%] of 32 patients), nausea (three [9%]), and increased alanine aminotransfer

248 aspartate aminotransferase (two [<1%]), and nausea (two [<1%]).

249 identification of individuals susceptible to nausea, using artificial intelligence/machine learning;

250 ve most common adverse events (dissociation, nausea, vertigo, dysgeusia, and dizziness) all were obse

251 icated colonoscopic polypectomy with rigors, nausea, vomiting and right upper quadrant pain.

252 We pooled the prevalence of diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, as well as liver f

253 Mild nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were the only side effect

254 than 5%, 4%, and 3% of patients experiencing nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, respectively.

255 stive symptoms at diagnosis, combinations of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

256 included anemia, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

257 ding abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and flatulence.

258 sistent unwellness marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associ

259 s treated with lopinavir-ritonavir developed nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea, and 3 developed abnor

260 Nausea, vomiting, constipation, and headache were more c

261 ch a patient experienced grade >= 2 TEAEs of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and asthenia.

262 welling of the legs or feet, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, melena, or hematochezia.

263 cal signs generally include fever, headache, nausea, vomiting, muscle pain, lack of appetite, and ras

264 The most frequent toxic effects were nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea; an asymptomatic increase

265 erences between treatment arms with postdose nausea, vomiting, or other adverse events.

266 e peripheral nervous system, such as chronic nausea, vomiting, pain, and hypertension.

267 cope, focal neurologic deficits, chest pain, nausea, vomiting, unintentional weight loss, or recent t

268 nts, most commonly (>= 25%) fatigue (33.3%), nausea/vomiting (33.3%), and infusion-related reaction (

269 Common adverse events included nausea/vomiting (97%) and lack of appetite (54%).

270 % (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.2%-8.2%), nausea/vomiting 7.8% (95% CI, 7.1%-8.5%), and abdominal

271 ropenia [54% vs 23%; P < .001] and grade 3/4 nausea/vomiting [20% vs 11%; P = .03]), while rates of g

272 the higher levels of pain, gas/bloating, and nausea/vomiting compared to the Normal group.

273 Nausea/vomiting or sore throat/nose occurred in 17 of th

274 Women reporting nausea/vomiting were less likely to be adherent in both

275 ntestinal (GI) symptoms, including diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and abdominal pain, as well as liver en

276 zziness, drowsiness, psychomotor impairment, nausea/vomiting, and constipation.

277 er countries in subgroup analyses, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and liver abnormalities were more preva

278 AEs included myelosuppression, fatigue, and nausea/vomiting.

279 Nausea was also associated with a wide variety of indivi

280 Lastly, nausea was associated with elevated self-report scores f

281 Nausea was associated with increased mean (21.4 vs. 17.5

282 n the REACH cohort (N = 758), peri-traumatic nausea was associated with PTSD symptom severity at the

283 ng harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group.

284 Nausea was reported by 78% and was equally prevalent in

285 tide groups were gastrointestinal in nature: nausea was reported in 26 (20%) who received 0.5 mg sema

286 The proportion of patients with no nausea was significantly higher in the olanzapine group

287 2 (69%) of 250 in the sitagliptin group, and nausea was the most common adverse event with oral semag

288 Dropout rate was 8.3%, and nausea was the most frequently reported side effect.

289 marker for nausea in the initial GMH cohort; nausea was then directly assessed in the internal valida

290 ain networks associated with the severity of nausea were investigated.

291 Anemia and nausea were the main toxic effects in patients who recei

292 eripheral neuropathy, fatigue, alopecia, and nausea were the most common treatment-related adverse ev

293 rointestinal events, mainly mild-to-moderate nausea, were more common with oral semaglutide than with

294 Gastrointestinal disorders, most commonly nausea, were the most frequently reported adverse events

295 led jellyfish product (100g), he experienced nausea, wheezing, and erythema and had visited our hospi

296 e, aprepitant did not reduce the severity of nausea when reduction in VAS score was used as the prima

297 was mostly similar between groups except for nausea, which occurred less frequently in patients given

298 e learning model predicted susceptibility to nausea with an overall accuracy of 82.1%.

299 er incidence of transient mild diarrhoea and nausea with resmetirom.

300 most frequently reported adverse events were nausea with semaglutide, reported in 77 (21%) patients w