ライフサイエンスコーパス: therapeutic outcome

1 on of Miltefosine with GM-CSF do not improve therapeutic outcome.

2 ling tailored therapy regimens and enhancing therapeutic outcome.

3 transfused platelets, preventing the desired therapeutic outcome.

4 ial selective pressures, affecting long-term therapeutic outcome.

5 ubtle differences among these systems on the therapeutic outcome.

6 lp to predict the patient responsiveness and therapeutic outcome.

7 morigenesis and can have opposing effects on therapeutic outcome.

8 r chemistry is linked with biological and/or therapeutic outcome.

9 an effective strategy to improve the drug's therapeutic outcome.

10 re still not adequate to provide the desired therapeutic outcome.

11 t of RA is essential for achieving effective therapeutic outcome.

12 (CP) CML], correlates with subsequent poorer therapeutic outcome.

13 ause BACE1 elevation, a potentially negative therapeutic outcome.

14 D73 in cancer may be useful for an effective therapeutic outcome.

15 can be utilized to improve MSC retention and therapeutic outcome.

16 chemotherapy for obtaining a more effective therapeutic outcome.

17 has a paracrine effect on tumorigenesis and therapeutic outcome.

18 K3 signaling pathways in CTCL to enhance the therapeutic outcome.

19 ptive lineage pre-specification may optimize therapeutic outcome.

20 e at treatment on Treg induction and optimal therapeutic outcome.

21 the impact of the tumor microenvironment on therapeutic outcome.

22 l characteristics, microbiological data, and therapeutic outcome.

23 ith an aggressive clinical course and a poor therapeutic outcome.

24 r of 11 biomarkers that were associated with therapeutic outcome.

25 ssion patterns and colon cancer prognosis or therapeutic outcome.

26 TNM staging, and was associated with a poor therapeutic outcome.

27 on is associated with poor survival and poor therapeutic outcome.

28 iation of alternative approaches, maximizing therapeutic outcome.

29 ther these parameters might be predictors of therapeutic outcome.

30 T/mBT immunotherapy correlates with a better therapeutic outcome.

31 propagation, ultimately leading to enhanced therapeutic outcome.

32 d be a powerful firsthand tool for assessing therapeutic outcome.

33 erfere with CTL responses and compromise the therapeutic outcome.

34 equires innovative new approaches to improve therapeutic outcome.

35 ug metabolism mediated by cytochrome P450 on therapeutic outcome.

36 arcinogenic exposure and/or to modulation of therapeutic outcome.

37 lophosphamide relative to mAb is critical to therapeutic outcome.

38 icted to have the most significant effect on therapeutic outcome.

39 l other groups, in association with improved therapeutic outcome.

40 set and vector delivery, probably impact the therapeutic outcome.

41 to determine potential clinical relevance in therapeutic outcome.

42 and, by some criteria, it attenuates rIL-12 therapeutic outcome.

43 etic resonance imaging methods for measuring therapeutic outcome.

44 s of each and how circuits contribute to the therapeutic outcome.

45 ts cancer risk and also substantially alters therapeutic outcome.

46 and protein levels to better understand the therapeutic outcome.

47 damage to healthy tissue, which may improve therapeutic outcome.

48 otects against GI toxicity without affecting therapeutic outcome.

49 most judicious to achieve a highly effective therapeutic outcome.

50 that altering tumor metabolism could change therapeutic outcome.

51 tibody positivity was an immune biomarker of therapeutic outcome.

52 otypic plasticity and invasion and determine therapeutic outcome.

53 associated with macrophage infiltration and therapeutic outcome.

54 5 kinases using ON123300 results in a better therapeutic outcome.

55 umor selectivity to achieve improved in vivo therapeutic outcomes.

56 and mitigate factors that contribute to poor therapeutic outcomes.

57 embrane transporters are key determinants of therapeutic outcomes.

58 reward, motivation, and learning to improve therapeutic outcomes.

59 an additional specific role for Ly6E in poor therapeutic outcomes.

60 ease state to achieve optimal diagnostic and therapeutic outcomes.

61 ll needed to improve prognostic accuracy and therapeutic outcomes.

62 d of course the heart itself for appropriate therapeutic outcomes.

63 r-associated fibroblasts (TAFs) for improved therapeutic outcomes.

64 d drug resistance and therefore offer better therapeutic outcomes.

65 inical risk groups of tumours with different therapeutic outcomes.

66 edly influence systemic exposure and thereby therapeutic outcomes.

67 inical practice with improved diagnostic and therapeutic outcomes.

68 of antibody-cytokine complexes for improved therapeutic outcomes.

69 y cancer with few treatment options and poor therapeutic outcomes.

70 and inhibitory signals to lead to favorable therapeutic outcomes.

71 ess and metastatic evolution with underlying therapeutic outcomes.

72 ic pathways demonstrated to mediate observed therapeutic outcomes.

73 expedite CD4(+) T-cell recovery and improve therapeutic outcomes.

74 ms of prophylaxis failure that could improve therapeutic outcomes.

75 ogical biases can be attributed to different therapeutic outcomes.

76 nical sequencing and translation to improved therapeutic outcomes.

77 DA dysfunction may be helpful in predicting therapeutic outcomes.

78 radigm shift with significant improvement in therapeutic outcomes.

79 its and would improve cost-effectiveness and therapeutic outcomes.

80 sed therapeutic decisions and better predict therapeutic outcomes.

81 nto the importance of material properties on therapeutic outcomes.

82 trategies, and provide an objective index of therapeutic outcomes.

83 ment, respectively, and may result in better therapeutic outcomes.

84 , has the potential to significantly improve therapeutic outcomes.

85 are necessary to prevent relapse and improve therapeutic outcomes.

86 might also be involved in the modulation of therapeutic outcomes.

87 53 should be considered to achieve favorable therapeutic outcomes.

88 -1/O) relative to HIV-1 group M (HIV-1/M) on therapeutic outcomes.

89 ficant implications for the role of USP22 in therapeutic outcomes.

90 consistent and reliable cross comparisons of therapeutic outcomes.

91 s of the tumor profile, immune response, and therapeutic outcomes.

92 expression could be correlated with distinct therapeutic outcomes.

93 immune suppression is crucial for improving therapeutic outcomes.

94 een examined as they relate to prognosis and therapeutic outcomes.

95 measured and effectively targeted to improve therapeutic outcomes.

96 ts to improve the precision of diagnostic or therapeutic outcomes.

97 r radiation can sometimes lead to controlled therapeutic outcomes.

98 combined with targeted therapies to improve therapeutic outcomes.

99 presents an attractive approach to improving therapeutic outcomes.

100 leting PD-1(+)CD38(hi) CD8(+) cells enhanced therapeutic outcomes.

101 -1 blockade before antigen priming abolished therapeutic outcomes.

102 and potent cytotoxin drugs to achieve better therapeutic outcomes.

103 stress or glucocorticoid supplementation on therapeutic outcomes.

104 proved GEM perfusion to the tumor and better therapeutic outcomes.

105 nostimulation and improves drug delivery and therapeutic outcomes.

106 ion in patients with RP are needed to assess therapeutic outcomes.

107 and negative GFN blocks in association with therapeutic outcomes.

108 accurate cancer diagnosis and evaluation of therapeutic outcomes.

109 hus enabling tailored therapy strategies and therapeutic outcomes.

110 blood-brain barrier is important for optimal therapeutic outcomes.

111 aucoma medications and caution in evaluating therapeutic outcomes.

112 d, and improvement of patient compliance and therapeutic outcomes.

113 s been a proven clinical strategy to enhance therapeutic outcomes.

114 otherapy, optimal doses are a key factor for therapeutic outcomes.

115 ons recorded shortly after therapy predicted therapeutic outcomes 6 mo later, which involved persiste

116 cience can make accurate predictions about a therapeutic outcome, a feature known as predictive valid

117 TRAIL apoptosis signaling and better cancer therapeutic outcomes act through this pathway.

118 th MAPK and PI3K/AKT pathways offer a better therapeutic outcome against ATC.

119 novirus (oAd/DCN/LRP) to achieve a desirable therapeutic outcome against pancreatic cancer.

120 kinetics obfuscates the relationship between therapeutic outcome and administered dose, thereby imped

121 utilize the crystals in order to improve the therapeutic outcome and combat antimicrobial resistance

122 ur data show that tissue mechanics regulates therapeutic outcome and long-term survival of breast can

123 by chemotherapy could substantially improve therapeutic outcome and patient survival.

124 tivity of malignant cells seems to influence therapeutic outcome and patients' survival.

125 ion and noninvasive monitoring would improve therapeutic outcome and reduce unnecessary toxicities.

126 A balance between therapeutic outcome and undesirable side effects must be

127 e attend to both DCS effects on facilitating therapeutic outcomes and additional therapeutic mechanis

128 ally applicable system that is predictive of therapeutic outcomes and is useful for the execution and

129 omarkers and clinical tools that can predict therapeutic outcomes and monitor treatment responses.

130 ce liquid chromatography and correlated with therapeutic outcomes and toxicities attributable to ganc

131 ive to mAb administration is critical to the therapeutic outcome, and although the combination can im

132 tanding pathogenic mechanisms, evaluation of therapeutic outcomes, and screening new vaccines.

133 ciated with a high Sokal score predictive of therapeutic outcome are normalized in patients in molecu

134 gnostic tool, but solid criteria for optimal therapeutic outcomes are lacking.

135 Because therapeutic outcomes are so closely tied to disease phas

136 Issues including morbidity, cost and therapeutic outcomes are, however, important considerati

137 that not only impacts tumor development, but therapeutic outcome as well.

138 ts and other specialists increase successful therapeutic outcomes" as second most important.

139 as typically measured by drug surrogate, and therapeutic outcome, as determined by clinically relevan

140 mportant implications for not only improving therapeutic outcomes, but also maximizing the clinical u

141 designs from individual studies may improve therapeutic outcomes, but, this is difficult to achieve

142 ional nanocarriers (MNCs) promise to improve therapeutic outcomes by combining multiple classes of mo

143 , we outline potential strategies to improve therapeutic outcomes by directly targeting intratumor he

144 e primary tumor and hence potentially impact therapeutic outcomes by optimal selection of therapeutic

145 ITON-TIMI 38 (Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition W

146 patients from Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition W

147 ITON-TIMI 38 (TRial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet InhibitioN w

148 ndrome in the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition w

149 IMI 38 study (Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition w

150 tality in the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition W

151 rvention, the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition W

152 sugrel in the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition W

153 ITON-TIMI 38 (Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition w

154 months in the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition W

155 The Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition W

156 dogrel in the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition w

157 ITON-TIMI 38 (TRial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet InhibitioN w

158 IMI 38 study (Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition W

159 livery systems have the potential to enhance therapeutic outcomes by providing controlled and targete

160 ry vehicle that are thus required to achieve therapeutic outcomes can lead to toxicity.

161 In agreement with the observed therapeutic outcome, centrocyte subtypes were estimated

162 ognitive health is a critical determinant of therapeutic outcome, chemobrain remains an unmet medical

163 elivery followed by ablation showed the best therapeutic outcome compared with all other treatment gr

164 r-specific antibody to significantly enhance therapeutic outcomes compared with immunocytokine monoth

165 presentation, presence of malformations, and therapeutic outcome, could be documented.

166 proach that combines genomic, proteomic, and therapeutic outcome datasets to identify novel putative

167 ell repertoire, were analyzed in relation to therapeutic outcome (defined as achieving complete remis

168 However, a successful therapeutic outcome depends not only on the activity of

169 cute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has a poor therapeutic outcome despite attempts to treat it based o

170 of these immuno-NPs resulted in significant therapeutic outcomes due to extensive upregulation of AP

171 with TPV and BOC is critical for optimizing therapeutic outcomes during hepatitis C treatment.

172 is indispensable to drug resistance and poor therapeutic outcomes especially for radiotherapy.

173 enously and noninvasively control and refine therapeutic outcomes following cell transplantation.

174 stent infections and discuss their impact on therapeutic outcomes following drug treatment.

175 The therapeutic outcome for unresectable, locally advanced,

176 odulation as a potential strategy to improve therapeutic outcome for use of hCPCs in patients with HF

177 potential to improve prognostic accuracy and therapeutic outcomes for breast cancer patients.

178 Current therapeutic outcomes for breast cancer underscore the co

179 ntravascular stents has resulted in improved therapeutic outcomes for coronary artery disease.

180 n this population may lead to more effective therapeutic outcomes for fatty liver.

181 ovide an approach for rapid determination of therapeutic outcomes for patients treated with immune ch

182 Therapeutic outcomes for patients with brain metastases

183 pcidin regulation may contribute to improved therapeutic outcomes for patients with genetic and acqui

184 esults provide a monitoring system to assess therapeutic outcomes for PD.

185 mises to yield novel approaches to improving therapeutic outcomes for PTSD and other anxiety and trau

186 Clinical evaluations of therapeutic outcome from SCC DBS were defined at 6 month

187 Therapeutic outcomes from several psychotropic drugs hav

188 Assessment of therapeutic outcomes has been difficult, primarily becau

189 how tumour clonal heterogeneity impacts upon therapeutic outcome, however, is still an area of unmet

190 l CD4+ effector cells, resulting in improved therapeutic outcome in a mouse lymphoma model.

191 anoreporter technology that is predictive of therapeutic outcome in individual subjects.

192 lecules ex vivo is crucial for improving the therapeutic outcome in patients with HF.

193 ne is thus identified to be a determinant of therapeutic outcome in PDT of tumors.

194 nvestigated activity of cytochrome P450s and therapeutic outcome in people with cancer.

195 ct pretreatment clinical characteristics and therapeutic outcome in previously untreated adult APL pa

196 n profiles are associated with prognosis and therapeutic outcome in several human cancers.

197 ed and, at least in theory, will improve the therapeutic outcome in terms of local tumour control and

198 ars useful to stage objectively and evaluate therapeutic outcome in the management of gastric, low-gr

199 e an opportunity for functional repair and a therapeutic outcome in the wake of ischemic injury.

200 in vivo is needed to more reasonably predict therapeutic outcome in vivo.

201 ing mAb cetuximab (Erbitux) greatly improved therapeutic outcomes in a metastatic model of EGFR-posit

202 ical chemoresistance and potentially improve therapeutic outcomes in AML.

203 investigated clonal population structure and therapeutic outcomes in another 39 patients by high-thro

204 to confer even nanodopant packing, improving therapeutic outcomes in bone repair by remarkably improv

205 imaging strategy for early prediction of the therapeutic outcomes in cancer radiotherapy, which may c

206 ne kinase inhibitors could improve long-term therapeutic outcomes in CD25-positive AML.

207 of factors that contribute to heterogeneous therapeutic outcomes in clinical trials.

208 ferent molecular pathways may have different therapeutic outcomes in different types of migraine.

209 ty to TMZ, providing a strategy for improved therapeutic outcomes in GBM patients.

210 ed miR-21 and downregulated miR-7 to enhance therapeutic outcomes in heterogenic tumor types.

211 In addition, the therapeutic outcomes in M3-9-M tumor models correlated w

212 enuate neuroinflammation may greatly improve therapeutic outcomes in models of perinatal white matter

213 NT and PD-1 blockade synergistically improve therapeutic outcomes in our PC model, supporting the eva

214 a precision medicine approach for improving therapeutic outcomes in patients with AD.

215 al infusion of bevacizumab provides superior therapeutic outcomes in patients with recurrent GBM.

216 gnificance: Epigenomic targeting may improve therapeutic outcomes in platinum-resistant and recurrent

217 into perspective and weighed against actual therapeutic outcomes in prospective clinical trials.

218 regards to the long-term clinical course and therapeutic outcomes in these patients.

219 elivery of gene therapy vectors that limited therapeutic outcomes in these trials, particularly the l

220 g the basal systemic inflammatory status and therapeutic outcomes in this cohort.

221 tions, clinical patient characteristics, and therapeutic outcomes in this large cohort of uniformly t

222 PR was strongly associated with unfavourable therapeutic outcomes, including virological failure.

223 One potential cause of this suboptimal therapeutic outcome is that changes in the neural activi

224 In order to improve therapeutic outcomes it is recommended to monitor IFX tr

225 lthough IFN-gamma played a major role in the therapeutic outcome, it was consistently found to be inf

226 When these cases were correlated with therapeutic outcome, it was found that 7 of the 12 patie

227 Because of the good therapeutic outcome, it was possible to extend the follo

228 tumor -bearing mice with DC vaccine had mild therapeutic outcomes, its combination with siRNA-loaded

229 These data indicate that the therapeutic outcome may be further augmented by tuning t

230 tumor subclone that may ultimately influence therapeutic outcome may evade detection because of its a

231 une responses, we hypothesized that improved therapeutic outcomes may be achieved by using oncolytic

232 ic indicator of disease progression and as a therapeutic outcome measure in response to treatment.

233 uced, which probably contributed to the poor therapeutic outcome observed in the patient carrying the

234 ne IL-1Ra levels were associated with better therapeutic outcomes (odds ratio 1.82 [95% confidence in

235 Precise prediction on the therapeutic outcome of a MSC therapy based on the patien

236 n tumor-reactive CD8(+) T cells improves the therapeutic outcome of adoptive immunotherapy in a mouse

237 based DNA adduct analysis for predicting the therapeutic outcome of anti-cancer agents, for monitorin

238 n of vancomycin or gatifloxacin improved the therapeutic outcome of B. cereus endophthalmitis.

239 lantation requires optimization for improved therapeutic outcome of CD133+ cell grafts in stroke.

240 strategy has a high potential to improve the therapeutic outcome of combined gene therapy and radioth

241 n synaptic proteins suggest that the desired therapeutic outcome of estrogen may be accomplished by u

242 HER2/ErbB2 signaling and is a determinant of therapeutic outcome of Herceptin-based therapy, which fu

243 cine offers a useful strategy to improve the therapeutic outcome of late stage solid cancers.

244 The therapeutic outcome of limited PS combined with EPBD for

245 s indicate that CTLA-4 blockade improves the therapeutic outcome of low-dose L-PAM for MOPC-315 tumor

246 proach by which to predict the physiological/therapeutic outcome of M3-mAChR-biased ligands with impo

247 in regulating the progression, severity, and therapeutic outcome of metabolic diseases.

248 o standard chemotherapy does not improve the therapeutic outcome of older AML patients.

249 ositive effects on the safety as well as the therapeutic outcome of oncolytic virotherapy.

250 e case series have been published concerning therapeutic outcome of pallidal deep brain stimulation i

251 therefore, a high potential to increase the therapeutic outcome of the enzyme/prodrug strategy in ca

252 g-metabolizing enzymes, which impacts on the therapeutic outcome of the stated diseases.

253 These CPLs could improve the therapeutic outcome of vaccination strategies or can be

254 oration as additional targets to improve the therapeutic outcomes of "shock and kill" strategies.

255 ic sites in the lung could radically improve therapeutic outcomes of a variety of lung diseases, incl

256 nically measurable enhancements on the final therapeutic outcomes of CAF in Miller's Class I recessio

257 Therapeutic outcomes of combination chemotherapy have no

258 h mainly involves keratinocytes, may improve therapeutic outcomes of current treatments.

259 Therapeutic outcomes of definitively treated non-small-c

260 Therapeutic outcomes of HCC remain unsatisfactory, and n

261 point-of-care diagnostic tool for improving therapeutic outcomes of IBD patients.

262 ering clinical translation and assessment of therapeutic outcomes of NP delivery vehicles.

263 , XRCC1, ERCC1, XPD, and XRCC3 in predicting therapeutic outcomes of older adults with acute myeloid

264 ept for use of these novel agents to improve therapeutic outcomes of patients with mutant ALK-driven

265 cer research, influences the progression and therapeutic outcomes of PDAC.

266 e may play a crucial role in determining the therapeutic outcomes of SC injected biopharmaceuticals.

267 Importantly, therapeutic outcomes of some immunological treatments ar

268 lecular targets is clearly needed to improve therapeutic outcomes of this devastating human disease.

269 ytic target that may be exploited to improve therapeutic outcomes of TNBC in response to BETi.

270 starts to make a significant contribution to therapeutic outcome once resistance has started to evolv

271 mation, they are not feasible for monitoring therapeutic outcomes over time.

272 rrent standard-of-care results in a marginal therapeutic outcome, partly due to acquirement of resist

273 by which intra-tumoral heterogeneity impacts therapeutic outcome remain poorly understood.

274 ion in the tissues needed to provide optimal therapeutic outcome, remains a significant challenge.

275 of peristalsis is predictive of an improved therapeutic outcome requires further study.

276 atients were followed up and correlated with therapeutic outcome retrospectively.

277 Various techniques of improving therapeutic outcomes, such as dosimetric estimations, hi

278 P 24 h after 131I-B72.3 further improved the therapeutic outcome (T(q) = 48.5 +/- 7.9 d; P < 0.001) a

279 fibody ligands exhibit much better antitumor therapeutic outcomes than clinically approved liposomal

280 revention generally results in more positive therapeutic outcomes than post-diagnostic interventions,

281 tion is predicted to result in more positive therapeutic outcomes than post-diagnostic interventions,

282 id could lead to more robust and longer-term therapeutic outcomes than previously reported.

283 Current surgical interventions have limited therapeutic outcomes; therefore, methods that would allo

284 to derive gene expression models predicting therapeutic outcomes, though such efforts are costly, ti

285 ing microenvironment participate directly in therapeutic outcome through the wrapping of myelin aroun

286 rovide evidence that links TIL abundance and therapeutic outcome to the regulation of tumor glycolysi

287 es is therefore essential to further enhance therapeutic outcomes to enable widespread medical applic

288 complement receptor and an IgG Fc fragment, therapeutic outcome was improved in vivo.

289 implications of intratumor heterogeneity on therapeutic outcomes, we created a hybrid agent-based ma

290 To improve therapeutic outcomes, we microinjected ASO directly into

291 bined with 1% ALN gel results in significant therapeutic outcomes when compared with PRF and access t

292 ne receptor signaling, leading to beneficial therapeutic outcomes while reducing side effect profiles

293 eneity is one major reason for unpredictable therapeutic outcomes, while stratifying therapeutic resp

294 wide variety of indications, but optimizing therapeutic outcomes will require precise consideration

295 ce mechanisms and of the role of immunity in therapeutic outcomes will support new approaches to drug

296 s its target or else the resulting image (or therapeutic outcome) will not reflect the biological pro

297 ly used to model human folate metabolism and therapeutic outcomes with antifolates.

298 facilitate subject-by-subject correlation of therapeutic outcomes with transgene expression and will

299 heduling of anti-PD-L1 mAb was important for therapeutic outcome, with concomitant but not sequential

300 arcinoma (PDAC) initiation, progression, and therapeutic outcome, yet the mechanistic underpinning of