ライフサイエンスコーパス: pretransplantation

1 matopoietic compartments that were deficient pretransplantation.

2 s (WKY, RT1(l)), or WKY rats were fed col(V) pretransplantation.

3 patients underwent liver transplantation and pretransplantation abdominal MR imaging within 90 days.

4 nderwent a neurocognitive assessment battery pretransplantation and 6 months posttransplantation, inc

5 and F2-isoprostanes were assessed at 1 week pretransplantation and at 1 week and 2 months posttransp

6 Pretransplantation and post-transplantation clinical var

7 cing to determine gut microbiota composition pretransplantation and post-transplantation.

8 differentiated memory T cells were measured pretransplantation and posttransplantation and correlate

9 tients transplanted for AIH to determine how pretransplantation and posttransplantation characteristi

10 g/undetectable CMV-IE1-specific T cells from pretransplantation and posttransplantation identified th

11 tions is provided covering the technical and pretransplantation and posttransplantation monitoring of

12 ortality and may benefit from more intensive pretransplantation and posttransplantation monitoring.

13 performance status score was used to compare pretransplantation and posttransplantation outcomes.

14 MELD scores of 40 or higher but come at high pretransplantation and posttransplantation resource util

15 Pretransplantation and posttransplantation sera were tes

16 ty was assessed by cloning and sequencing in pretransplantation and posttransplantation serum samples

17 easing/undetectable CMV-IE1-specific T cells pretransplantation and posttransplantation were at great

18 Treatment was generally well tolerated pretransplantation and posttransplantation, with a low r

19 Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score pretransplantation and the number of acute rejections we

20 eukemia (AML), the separate contributions of pretransplantation- and transplantation-related therapy

21 Pretransplantation anti-major histocompatibility complex

22 Donor pretransplantation antibody levels had less of a correla

23 er transplantation are affected primarily by pretransplantation antibody levels in the recipient and,

24 Recipient pretransplantation antibody levels were correlated with

25 f this technology, (b) the interpretation of pretransplantation antibody testing in the context of va

26 ion therapy with WBI and thymic irradiation, pretransplantation antithymocyte globulin, and immunoads

27 The authors constructed a 50-point Pretransplantation Assessment of Mortality (PAM) score t

28 Samples were collected pretransplantation, at +1, +2, and +3 months posttranspl

29 We studied serum and urine suPAR from pretransplantation banked samples from 86 well-character

30 els were significantly greater compared with pretransplantation baseline values (P =<0.03).

31 Compared with the pretransplantation baseline, the number of dystrophin-po

32 creasing to values that were 19.5% less than pretransplantation baseline.

33 nd returned to values that were within 5% of pretransplantation baseline.

34 n-2 messenger RNA expression was detected in pretransplantation biopsies from 69 donor grafts.

35 The study evaluated the relationship of pretransplantation BK virus (BKV)-specific donor and rec

36 Pretransplantation BKV serostatus was available for 192

37 Women with low pretransplantation BMD and a history of pretransplantati

38 after adjusting for age at transplantation, pretransplantation body mass index, and use of tacrolimu

39 Mean inpatient costs were equivalent pretransplantation by age but significantly higher postt

40 fore, alloHSCT recipients should be screened pretransplantation by HEV serology and RNA.

41 ospective study of 167 patients referred for pretransplantation cardiac evaluation.

42 sts between treatment centers with regard to pretransplantation care, and transplantation protocols f

43 The level of pretransplantation CCL2 inversely correlated (P < 0.0001

44 After controlling for pretransplantation CD4(+) cell count and HIV RNA levels,

45 The combination of advanced donor age and pretransplantation cellular sensitization increases the

46 Pretransplantation cellular sensitization may interact w

47 lysis evaluated the effect of prelisting and pretransplantation characteristics on mortality.

48 Pretransplantation characteristics, including age, diagn

49 frequent preceding high-dose HCT, and higher pretransplantation Charlson comorbidity scores.

50 Our data show that type and intensity of pretransplantation chemotherapy with alkylating agents a

51 ignificantly increased with the intensity of pretransplantation chemotherapy with mechlorethamine (re

52 This study is the first to demonstrate pretransplantation circulating anti-PLA2R antibodies in

53 Integrating pretransplantation clinical variables into a single scor

54 of Mortality (PAM) score that incorporated 8 pretransplantation clinical variables: patient age, dono

55 Thirty-nine cardiac recipients who were pretransplantation CMV antibody positive were longitudin

56 Both pretransplantation CMV exposure and posttransplantation

57 r cardiac transplantation in recipients with pretransplantation CMV infection.

58 Patients were analyzed according to their pretransplantation CMV serological status (R- or R+).

59 1 CB recipients, was associated with patient pretransplantation CMV serology (P < .001), but not with

60 factors tested were recipient age, sex, and pretransplantation CMV serology; use of anti-CMV prophyl

61 ctors for PTMI included older recipient age, pretransplantation comorbidities (diabetes, angina, peri

62 The most common pretransplantation comorbidities were pulmonary and card

63 Pretransplantation comorbidities were scored prospective

64 harlson comorbidity index was used to assess pretransplantation comorbidities.

65 harlson Comorbidity Index was used to assess pretransplantation comorbidities.

66 The impact of pretransplantation comorbidity on the development of acu

67 nonmyeloablative conditioning, whereas high pretransplantation comorbidity scores predicted higher N

68 Multivariate analyses showed higher pretransplantation comorbidity scores to result in incre

69 onablative patients had significantly higher pretransplantation comorbidity scores, were older, and h

70 Although pretransplantation complement depletion or anticoagulati

71 ears of education, literacy, marital status, pretransplantation compliance, and history of substance

72 Pretransplantation substance abuse, but not pretransplantation compliance, was predictive of posttra

73 Donor kidney volume was calculated from pretransplantation computed tomography angiograms using

74 replacement in those centers, and therefore pretransplantation conditioning did not guarantee develo

75 of pretransplantation conditioning versus no pretransplantation conditioning in an effort to address

76 the importance of providing nonmyeloablative pretransplantation conditioning to achieve therapeutic b

77 2012, a debate was held regarding the use of pretransplantation conditioning versus no pretransplanta

78 urvivors, reduced-intensity or myeloablative pretransplantation conditioning was associated with an i

79 fVIII-transduced HSCs following low-toxicity pretransplantation conditioning with targeted immunosupp

80 beta-thalassemic mice given nonmyeloablative pretransplantation conditioning with temozolomide (TMZ)

81 l-depleted transplants in the absence of any pretransplantation conditioning.

82 lin replacement therapy in centers that used pretransplantation conditioning.

83 in activity and immune status in a cohort of pretransplantation controls and postrenal transplantatio

84 The importance of clinical presentation and pretransplantation course on outcome in children with di

85 r-specific reactivity is then confirmed by a pretransplantation crossmatch test.

86 sually different at recurrence compared with pretransplantation CT findings.

87 In conclusion, pretransplantation curves of tacrolimus seem a promising

88 gative patients, and predictive value of the pretransplantation curves was assessed in patients after

89 Data on outcomes in patients with pretransplantation cytogenetic abnormalities, myelodyspl

90 All patients had pretransplantation cytoplasmic immunoglobulin FISH done

91 Four subjects were treated without pretransplantation cytoreduction and remained on ADA enz

92 ntigen (HLA)-identical sibling donors but no pretransplantation cytoreduction results in T-lymphocyte

93 On multivariate analysis, pretransplantation daily insulin requirements, the use o

94 Patients with pretransplantation diabetes mellitus and multiorgan tran

95 Pretransplantation diabetes was also associated with a s

96 324 seropositive recipients differed in age, pretransplantation diagnosis, ischemia time, renal funct

97 Patients who underwent pretransplantation dialysis had a relative risk for graf

98 lic insurance, medical comorbidities, longer pretransplantation dialysis vintage, and delayed graft f

99 The effects of age, pretransplantation dialysis, early rejection, and race w

100 transplants include age at transplantation, pretransplantation dialysis, early rejection, and race.

101 After adjustment for pretransplantation differences between the 2 patient gro

102 Although pretransplantation differences in HCV quasispecies did n

103 After adjusting for pretransplantation differences, stratified outcomes were

104 In 8 of 12 patients with high pretransplantation disability scores (EDSS > 6.0), progr

105 r patients with progressive disease and high pretransplantation disability scores.

106 frequencies were universally correlated with pretransplantation disease load.

107 ed patients for most lymphoma subtypes, with pretransplantation disease status emerging as the most i

108 Data was collected on pretransplantation donor and recipient anti- serology, i

109 We were unable to identify any pretransplantation donor or recipient factor, which iden

110 specific IgE was significantly linked to the pretransplantation donor or recipient status.

111 kidney transplant recipients with available pretransplantation donor-stimulated enzyme-linked immuno

112 d" lymphocytes were collected after a single pretransplantation dose of immunotherapy and reinfused w

113 These results indicate that the presence of pretransplantation DSAs in recipients of unrelated donor

114 All were pretransplantation EBV seronegative and asymptomatic whe

115 The goal of this study was to determine if pretransplantation ECMO or MV affects survival in HLT.

116 .0 or more steps in any of 9 patients with a pretransplantation EDSS of 6.0 or less.

117 There were 2 patients with a pretransplantation EDSS of 7.0 and 8.0 who died from com

118 f donor age 50 years or older and a positive pretransplantation ELISPOT assay was more strongly assoc

119 e of AR was higher in patients with positive pretransplantation ELISPOT assays versus those with nega

120 Two pretransplantation endpoints were evaluated: (1) death,

121 Negative pretransplantation Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) serology was

122 We examined pretransplantation ESA response and its effect on allogr

123 After a comprehensive pretransplantation evaluation and informed-consent proce

124 d elevated serum PSA detected during routine pretransplantation evaluation, and biopsy confirmed the

125 Poorer pretransplantation executive functioning was also associ

126 We propose that the pretransplantation existence of GAD65 autoantibodies ser

127 Pretransplantation factors associated with liver dysfunc

128 These results suggest that identifiable pretransplantation factors predict for t-MDS/AML after A

129 In this report we sought to determine pretransplantation factors that might predict outcome.

130 Pretransplantation FGF-23 was the main predictor of post

131 Pretransplantation fludarabine and posttransplantation C

132 arrow cells into recipients conditioned with pretransplantation fludarabine or cyclophosphamide (Cy),

133 ergoing dialysis for < 1, 1-2, and > 2 years pretransplantation for both CAD (P=0.0005) and LD (P=0.0

134 ergoing dialysis for < 1, 1-2, and > 2 years pretransplantation; for LD transplants it was significan

135 data about posttransplantation survival with pretransplantation functional status data (physical func

136 jection episodes was significantly higher in pretransplantation GAD autoantibody-positive daclizumab-

137 low pretransplantation BMD and a history of pretransplantation glucocorticoid therapy are at greates

138 The duration of pretransplantation glucocorticoid therapy was also longe

139 male gender, higher body mass index, higher pretransplantation glucose and triglyceride levels, and

140 Pretransplantation Group: (a) Risk categories should be

141 mpared with female patients, 0.74; P<0.001), pretransplantation hepatitis C infection (relative risk,

142 etes-related complications (DRCs), including pretransplantation history of renal failure (serum creat

143 hich occurred primarily in recipients with a pretransplantation history of substance abuse and is not

144 tion), deceased-donor transplant recipients, pretransplantation HLA (non-DSA)-positive patients, and

145 p: (a) SPI must be used for the detection of pretransplantation HLA antibodies in solid organ transpl

146 is older, more predominantly male, with more pretransplantation hypertension and diabetes and posttra

147 lowing SCT had donors who produced very high pretransplantation IL-13 responses, while those developi

148 n explant (n = 159) owing to understaging by pretransplantation imaging.

149 DSA+ patients compared to DSA- patients with pretransplantation immunologic risk assessment.

150 Pretransplantation immunosuppression for primary renal d

151 asures for each cancer group with or without pretransplantation immunosuppression were cancer-specifi

152 For those treated with pretransplantation immunosuppression, the risks for four

153 omplete remission, and 28 (52%) received the pretransplantation immunotherapy.

154 ic IgE and IgG to 156 allergens was measured pretransplantation in 50 donors and recipients and at 6,

155 encapsulated MSCs with inflammatory cytokine pretransplantation increased expression of immunomodulat

156 Estimated GFR at LT was the only pretransplantation independent risk factor (beta, 0.33;

157 gram provides a useful tool for developing a pretransplantation index of the likelihood of DGF occurr

158 other intravenous regimens currently used as pretransplantation induction therapy for myeloma.

159 To mitigate pretransplantation injury in organs of potential donors,

160 Development of pretransplantation islet culture strategies that preserv

161 ntation recipient conditioning, and possible pretransplantation islet modifications to promote engraf

162 evaluate the value of renovascular volume in pretransplantation kidney viability testing.

163 patients treated with HD-RIT had an elevated pretransplantation level of lactate dehydrogenase (41% v

164 CD4 counts recovered to pretransplantation levels and HIV viral loads were contr

165 r but remained significantly higher than the pretransplantation levels beyond 4 years after transplan

166 ance at 80 days, with subsequent recovery to pretransplantation levels by 1 year for most survivors,

167 moderate impairments that largely return to pretransplantation levels by day 100; the majority of st

168 d improved by 1 year (P < .05), returning to pretransplantation levels on all tests except for grip s

169 of the graft, and anti-Gal Ab increased over pretransplantation levels only when anti-CD154 mAb was d

170 20 weeks after transplantation compared with pretransplantation levels.

171 luated by logistic regression, adjusting for pretransplantation lung disease, cardiopulmonary bypass

172 sions were reported as suspicious for HCC on pretransplantation magnetic resonance imaging.

173 ts with hepatitis had an increased number of pretransplantation major variants (2.5 +/- 0.3 vs. 1.1 +

174 Therefore, pretransplantation measurement of sjTREC may provide an

175 f mortality in the HIV-infected subjects was pretransplantation MELD score (HR, 1.2; P < .0001).

176 n has been given to the prognostic impact of pretransplantation minimal residual disease (MRD).

177 Our data suggest that among patients with pretransplantation minimal residual disease, the probabi

178 RT recipients received tacrolimus (initiated pretransplantation), MMF, and corticosteroids.

179 transplantation, and to produce an optimized pretransplantation model for posttransplantation recurre

180 Inclusion of pretransplantation molecular gene expression profiles in

181 mbined cohort, baseline MELD score predicted pretransplantation mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; P

182 Pretransplantation mortality characteristics are similar

183 he only significant independent predictor of pretransplantation mortality in HIV-infected liver trans

184 We evaluated predictors of pretransplantation mortality in HIV-positive liver trans

185 NA might be associated with a higher rate of pretransplantation mortality, baseline MELD score was th

186 The pretransplantation mycobacterial disease in subject 1 an

187 ever, the morbidity and mortality related to pretransplantation myeloablative chemotherapy often outw

188 These results indicate pretransplantation neurological examinations may be the

189 A pretransplantation nutritional evaluation revealed sever

190 These results demonstrate a novel pretransplantation-only application of CYA, which facili

191 long with those with impaired renal function pretransplantation or early posttransplantation.

192 he cases of IPA occurred in patients without pretransplantation or posttransplantation airway coloniz

193 Only 48.3% (14/29) of patients with IPA had pretransplantation or posttransplantation airway coloniz

194 Despite the importance of pretransplantation outcomes, 1-year posttransplantation

195 tage renal patients who were referred to the pretransplantation outpatient clinic (participation rate

196 ated with higher plasma PTX3 levels measured pretransplantation (P = 0.014) and at 24 hours (P = 0.04

197 ergoing dialysis for < 1, 1-2, and > 2 years pretransplantation (P=0.04).

198 Pretransplantation panel reactive antibody (PRA) testing

199 ve group (CREG) mismatching (mm), HLA-DR mm, pretransplantation panel-reactive antibody (PRA), recipi

200 As OLT outcome relates to pretransplantation PaO(2), additional MELD points should

201 from NAFLD in hospitalized, ambulatory, and pretransplantation patients and compares favorably with

202 In contrast to pretransplantation patients, NP is more common after LTx

203 ients were younger than 5 years (79%), had a pretransplantation performance score greater than or equ

204 analysis, favorable factors for OS were high pretransplantation performance status, matched donor/rec

205 PLA2R levels (cut-off of 45 U/mL) during the pretransplantation period accurately predicted pMN recur

206 Assessments were analyzed in pretransplantation period, then every 3 months after the

207 ess for at least 3 consecutive months in the pretransplantation period.

208 Pretransplantation peripheral blood CD4CD25FoxP3 Treg fr

209 An average of 16.5 +/- 9.0% of pretransplantation peripheral blood mononuclear cell Tre

210 rvational cohort study, we evaluated whether pretransplantation peripheral blood recipient Treg frequ

211 The relationship between pretransplantation PET and progression-free survival (PF

212 Pretransplantation PET status had no significant impact

213 suggest that, in contrast to autologous SCT, pretransplantation PET status is not predictive of relap

214 We investigated whether pretransplantation PET status predicted outcome after al

215 r-containing cART, the predictive value of a pretransplantation pharmacokinetic curve of tacrolimus w

216 A pretransplantation pharmacokinetic model of tacrolimus i

217 as been associated with strikingly increased pretransplantation PRA levels.

218 When pretransplantation PRA was analyzed as a continuous vari

219 CD25CD62LCD45RO aTreg cells may be useful as pretransplantation predictive biomarker of AR in kidney

220 pressive function is a potential independent pretransplantation predictor of DGF and SGF.

221 In addition, recipients without a pretransplantation predominant variant demonstrated an i

222 greater than or equal to 90% (63%), received pretransplantation preparative regimens without radiatio

223 Although there was no correlation between pretransplantation presentation, pre- or posttransplanta

224 Abs (53% [16/30]) or ETAR Abs (50% [15/30]; pretransplantation prognostic rejection cutoff >16.5 U/L

225 Both pretransplantation psychosis and depression occurring mo

226 We examined pretransplantation quantitative thallium uptake and post

227 uasispecies did not persist postoperatively, pretransplantation quasispecies may be a predictor of HC

228 Pretransplantation R did not affect stem-cell mobilizati

229 1), then by a minimisation method, to either pretransplantation rabbit ATG plus standard GVHD prophyl

230 Pretransplantation recipient and donor CMV status and tr

231 In children, pretransplantation recipient CMV status is a more powerf

232 e identification of best-matched recipients, pretransplantation recipient conditioning, and possible

233 tected before transplantation (P=0.005), and pretransplantation recipient HHV-6 viral load more than

234 reater in ALL than in AML, suggesting that a pretransplantation reduction of leukemia burden would ha

235 Recipients with increased pretransplantation replication were at increased risk fo

236 The pretransplantation response rate was 81%, and the 3-year

237 IBG scores were then correlated with overall pretransplantation response, bone marrow response, and E

238 the donor's (31.6%) or the recipient's (28%) pretransplantation response.

239 ly lower posttransplantation compared to the pretransplantation response.

240 Pretransplantation risk assessment for transplantation b

241 Pretransplantation risk factors for onset and higher sev

242 Pretransplantation risk factors were evaluated.

243 Pretransplantation rituximab in vivo purging, even in ri

244 nificantly better when R was included in the pretransplantation salvage therapy for patients with int

245 RNA sequencing analysis of pretransplantation samples showed upregulation of multip

246 Pretransplantation screening of cellular alloimmunity by

247 Pretransplantation sensitization against MICA and HLA ar

248 Archived pretransplantation sera from graft failure patients (n =

249 eased use of molecular testing and retaining pretransplantation sera may improve the ability to detec

250 Pretransplantation sera of 55 CM-positive (CM) patients

251 significant association was observed between pretransplantation serum BAFF and AMR.

252 Ai transplantation, the presence of elevated pretransplantation serum BAFF might identify those at in

253 Pretransplantation serum creatinine was significantly hi

254 An elevated pretransplantation serum ferritin level was strongly ass

255 eneic HSCT at our institution, and on whom a pretransplantation serum ferritin was available.

256 Pretransplantation serum samples from 1910 recipients of

257 Pretransplantation serum testosterone, SHBG, and other v

258 tool to assess risk, guide counseling in the pretransplantation setting, and devise innovative therap

259 he posttransplantation specimens compared to pretransplantation specimens (P=0.04, Wilcoxon signed-ra

260 Pretransplantation splenectomy (day -1/day 0) fully abro

261 cultured at temperatures similar to those in pretransplantation storage (4 degrees C) and after trans

262 Patients with pretransplantation strong donor-specific anti-human leuk

263 Pretransplantation substance abuse, but not pretransplan

264 In this model, MRI of pretransplantation superparamagnetic iron oxide nanopart

265 Pretransplantation survival was 78% at 6 months and 74%

266 Occult pretransplantation systemic inflammation is associated w

267 e anatomic and physiologic effects of occult pretransplantation systemic inflammation on posttranspla

268 her investigate potential mechanisms linking pretransplantation systemic inflammation to adverse outc

269 We hypothesized that age-adjusted pretransplantation telomere length might predict treatme

270 Age-adjusted pretransplantation telomere lengths were analyzed for co

271 Pretransplantation testing of the ACE, AGT, and AT1 geno

272 udy design were used to evaluate the role of pretransplantation therapeutic exposures and transplant

273 CI, 1.16 to 2.87) and two or fewer lines of pretransplantation therapy (HR, 5.02; 95% CI, 2.15 to 11

274 nt disease progression, although the optimal pretransplantation therapy is unknown.

275 splants, and it was also not affected by the pretransplantation time undergoing dialysis.

276 e assessment of procured renal allografts at pretransplantation time.

277 l tool to identify advanced liver disease at pretransplantation time.

278 udy was to determine whether the presence of pretransplantation TME is associated with posttransplant

279 Function was assessed from pretransplantation to 5-year follow-up for 319 adults wh

280 ble/increasing CMV-IE1-specific T cells from pretransplantation to posttransplantation, however, show

281 monitoring CMV-specific T cell kinetics from pretransplantation to posttransplantation, particularly

282 t renal function (serum creatinine<1.5 mg/dL pretransplantation) to assess the impact of HCV on the i

283 Our experiments reveal that pretransplantation tobacco exposure in donors and/or rec

284 itution, and no information was available on pretransplantation treatment and lifestyle factors that

285 large, single-center retrospective analysis, pretransplantation treatment with R was associated with

286 Pretransplantation Treg suppressive function, but not fr

287 Pretransplantation urinary dinor-dihydro iPF2alpha-III l

288 ever, there was an increase in the recipient pretransplantation use of amiodarone.

289 e and donor age, cold ischemia time, and the pretransplantation use of either a left ventricular assi

290 dy was designed to evaluate the utility of a pretransplantation vaccine and infusion of a primed auto

291 neck BMD did not decrease (P>or=0.05) below pretransplantation values at 2 months after transplantat

292 P = .40, respectively) after adjustment for pretransplantation variables.

293 munodeficiencies, in patients who often have pretransplantation viremia.

294 Similar to the French experience, pretransplantation waiting times in the 11 U.S. regions

295 Mean eGFR pretransplantation was 88.9 vs. 55.6 posttransplantation

296 The role of pretransplantation weight reduction in improving graft a

297 (0.5 or 3.0 mg/kg/day) or saline from 2 days pretransplantation were assessed clinically.

298 onary artery pressures, measured immediately pretransplantation, were associated with higher PAI-1 le

299 The MI groups did not differ significantly pretransplantation, whereas posttransplantation higher M

300 been used to study islets that were labeled pretransplantation with superparamagnetic iron oxide nan

301 factors identified in this study, additional pretransplantation workup and intraoperative and postope