ライフサイエンスコーパス: unacceptable

1 onin via a rating of either 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable'.

2 that are otherwise clinically stable may be unacceptable.

3 gh side effects in gynecological tissues are unacceptable.

4 using donors who were previously considered unacceptable.

5 ciency virus and noncommunicable diseases is unacceptable.

6 re a kappa value of less than 0.5 was deemed unacceptable.

7 ional transistor-based logic gates, which is unacceptable.

8 uffering of any significant degree should be unacceptable.

9 re or, worse still, catastrophic fracture is unacceptable.

10 e figure legends, and what manipulations are unacceptable.

11 21% found inhaler use unacceptable.

12 e variables were scored as acceptable (1) or unacceptable (0); the overall panel performance score fo

13 multaneous matrix effect, this could lead to unacceptable accuracy in quantitative liquid chromatogra

14 owed significant improvements but still with unacceptable accuracy.

15 ts were treated until progressive disease or unacceptable adverse effects occurred.

16 pment or been removed from the market due to unacceptable adverse effects.

17 lenalidomide until disease progression or an unacceptable adverse event (AE) occurred.

18 (2) every 14 or 21 days until progression or unacceptable adverse events (AEs).

19 ng placebo on days 2-21, every 3 weeks until unacceptable adverse events or disease progression.

20 2 mg once per day until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, consent withdrawal, or deat

21 ous 21-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, withdrawal of consent, or d

22 was caused by distaste for peanuts (66.7%), unacceptable AEs (26.7%) and social reasons (6.7%).

23 should not be used with P. mirabilis due to unacceptable analytical performance.

24 cence intensity [MFI]) were determined to be unacceptable and entered into the United Network for Org

25 stance to the used antibiotics, results were unacceptable and, at least for CLARI, are influenced by

26 cross-matches were positive, 20 donors were unacceptable, and 22 recipients had unacceptably high do

27 We understand that this is unacceptable, and deeply apologize to Drs.

28 says (EIAs), is invasive, sometimes socially unacceptable, and has restricted large-scale seroprevale

29 o produce new agents based on this notion is unacceptable, and there is an increasing need for altern

30 h quality mechanisms and are contributing to unacceptable-and unsustainable-levels of irreproducibili

31 rgely confined to subgroups of patients with unacceptable angina, severe left ventricular systolic dy

32 class II (98% vs. 69%) cPRA levels and more unacceptable antigens (32 vs. 8).

33 tunity for XM based on serologically defined unacceptable antigens can disadvantage the patient.

34 ding to local procedures required listing as unacceptable antigens for organ allocation.

35 ns targeted by denatured HLA antibodies from unacceptable antigens lowered the calculated panel react

36 levels and any change in the mean number of unacceptable antigens or their mean fluorescence intensi

37 s at once, and with and without exclusion of unacceptable antigens selected to give a virtual calcula

38 DQ serologic specificities can be entered as unacceptable antigens, they are assigned only by the ide

39 more than 10,000 for HLA-DQ were reported as unacceptable antigens.

40 o be a valuable alternative to better define unacceptable antigens.

41 in EpMM was larger when CPs were listed with unacceptable antigens.

42 The unacceptable apathy of governments and funders of global

43 onal Conduct at Meetings Policy" delineating unacceptable behaviors, including intimidating or harass

44 upport diverse scientists and clearly detail unacceptable behaviors.

45 treatment decisions that would be considered unacceptable by pain specialists.

46 insemination or inducing oestrus was judged "unacceptable" by 69% and 48% of practitioners, respectiv

47 Because of the unacceptable complications associated with open cholecys

48 The highest dose level induced unacceptable constitutional symptoms.

49 whereas the avian and human assays exhibited unacceptable cross-reactions with feces from other hosts

50 stration of imatinib was not associated with unacceptable cumulative or late toxic effects.

51 ) using deuterium versus (15)N labeling gave unacceptable differences (>15%) upon quantifying some of

52 priate medical care, 4) to safeguard against unacceptable discrimination, and 5) to avoid undue influ

53 on-official bodies that have highlighted the unacceptable disease burden from liver disease in Englan

54 nsplantation and may allow identification of unacceptable donor antigens, or patients who may require

55 which will lead to better representation of unacceptable DQ alleles and improve organ allocation equ

56 atment limitations are often perceived to be unacceptable due to faith-based and cultural beliefs; an

57 talline fusion zone after e-beam melting are unacceptable (e.g., prone to cracking), or, after soluti

58 ated factors attribute to burnout and it has unacceptable effects on patient care.

59 first and second-line triple treatments have unacceptable eradication rates in the central region of

60 during plasma sample preparation resulted in unacceptable error that precluded direct measurement of

61 e cell or in vivo imaging, and this leads to unacceptable errors when analysing data on a pixel-wise

62 ion rate equations displayed high biases and unacceptable errors when compared with measured glomerul

63 an result in significant toxicities and have unacceptable failure rates.

64 There was an unacceptable false-negative rate for HER2 status with GH

65 s, on the other hand, may well be considered unacceptable for chloroform and benzene (upper IUR) and

66 licensed vaccine strains used in animals are unacceptable for human use due to undesirable side effec

67 Simple permutation of disease status is unacceptable for resolving this issue because the replic

68 eath gas rates and REE (R(2) ~ 0.9) but were unacceptable for RQ (R(2) = 0.3), Gox, and Fox (R(2) = 0

69 it presents a level of risk that has become unacceptable for the current population.

70 nder dysphoria, in whom impending puberty is unacceptable for their psychosocial health and wellness.

71 valent etiology of injury that renders lungs unacceptable for transplantation is gastric aspiration,

72 such high rates of unfavorable outcomes are unacceptable; future research is needed to identify ways

73 es of radiation to the upper abdomen without unacceptable gastrointestinal toxicity.

74 icity and its omission (0 mg/kg) resulted in unacceptable graft failure (three of three patients had

75 Patients who found their pain unacceptable had more complications (adjusted odds ratio

76 r Disease in the UK, which aim to reduce the unacceptable harmful consequences of excess alcohol cons

77 trogen-containing contraceptives confers an "unacceptable health risk" during established anticoagula

78 ction strategy to address what it considered unacceptable health risks and an insufficient regulatory

79 on in Poland enabled the otherwise ethically unacceptable, hence unavailable, comparison of the perio

80 Morbid obesity is associated with unacceptable high recurrence rates following atrial fibr

81 ch as a function of a transplant candidate's unacceptable HLA antigens.

82 , undermines human and social rights, and is unacceptable in modern societies.

83 gens they target should not be considered as unacceptable in most cases, because they negatively impa

84 a significant loss in distance acuity or an unacceptable increase in visual symptoms.

85 and improve function of initially otherwise unacceptable injured donor lungs followed by transportat

86 No unacceptable interferences were found.

87 rization in vivo, compound 1 demonstrated an unacceptable level of brain penetration.

88 to 3 years or until disease recurrence or an unacceptable level of toxic effects occurred.

89 Unacceptable levels of Mycobacterium tuberculosis transm

90 urability, stability, lack of effectiveness, unacceptable levels of tolerability or safety concerns.

91 of the potent immunogenic adjuvants display unacceptable local or systemic reactogenicity.

92 mon 2-stage design to distinguish between an unacceptable (</=10%) and an acceptable (>/=30%) respons

93 tant gram-negative bacilli continue to cause unacceptable morbidity and mortality rates.

94 erpes simplex virus (HSV) disease results in unacceptable morbidity and mortality.

95 amenable to PN or for whom PN may result in unacceptable morbidity even when performed at centers wi

96 ty; however, past clinical trials identified unacceptable neurological toxicity when LT or mutant AB(

97 FBP had unacceptable noise at 40 and 75 mAs in 17 and five patie

98 reconstructed with 30 projections as having unacceptable noise levels, whereas the corresponding val

99 health standards published by the USEPA, no unacceptable non-cancer risks were evident except under

100 nts were generally grade 1 or 2; however, an unacceptable number of patients in the brentuximab vedot

101 limits setting the type I/II error rates and unacceptable odds ratios (ORs) for the outcomes being st

102 Higher actual postoperative pain scores and unacceptable pain, even on the first postoperative day,

103 ering events were caused by controversial or unacceptable physician behavior.

104 clinicians will continue to be placed in the unacceptable position of not knowing if and when to admi

105 of the most aggressive adult cancers with an unacceptable prognosis.

106 imary motivation for LCSD monotherapy was an unacceptable quality of life stemming from beta-blocker

107 range (kappa = 0.20-0.39), and three in the unacceptable range (kappa values,0.20).

108 OLFOX6 with bevacizumab did not result in an unacceptable rate of obstruction, perforation, bleeding,

109 ical site infections continue to occur at an unacceptable rate, annually costing billions of dollars

110 rawal trials in heterogeneous cohorts showed unacceptable rates of acute rejection (AR), we hypothesi

111 study was terminated prematurely because of unacceptable rates of AR (4 of 14) and/or de novo DSAs (

112 ine for those at highest risk, could end the unacceptable relationship between CKD and disadvantage i

113 ighteen cases (45%) were considered to be at unacceptable risk for infection transmission.

114 art disease and deemed inoperable because of unacceptable risk for open-heart surgery by the local he

115 ulatory community highlighted significant or unacceptable risk of ARs to nontarget wildlife, use of S

116 usionary biomarkers of minimal benefit or an unacceptable risk of toxicity might be feasible.

117 hom an allogeneic procedure could present an unacceptable risk.

118 ults in treatment failures and, for some, an unacceptable risk/benefit ratio.

119 ion of chronic allograft rejection and carry unacceptable risks including toxicity, neoplasia, and li

120 e real benefits and where there are real and unacceptable risks to patients and staff.

121 p for whom current smallpox vaccines have an unacceptable safety profile.

122 h dehydration resulted in tough textures and unacceptable sensory qualities for process I samples.

123 respecified primary outcomes were absence of unacceptable serious adverse events (safety), continued

124 7 patients with an inadequate response to or unacceptable side effects associated with one or more tu

125 ponse (51% of patients with resistance to or unacceptable side effects from dasatinib or nilotinib an

126 CML or Ph-positive ALL with resistance to or unacceptable side effects from dasatinib or nilotinib or

127 nts who had an inadequate response to or had unacceptable side effects from hydroxyurea, ruxolitinib

128 era who had an inadequate response to or had unacceptable side effects from hydroxyurea.

129 who had not had a response to or who had had unacceptable side effects from prior therapies.

130 of potent adjuvant molecules that can cause unacceptable side effects in prophylactic vaccination.

131 ients in whom conventional therapy failed or unacceptable side effects occurred.

132 ain is limited by marginal effectiveness and unacceptable side effects of current drugs.

133 lable in oral form, is associated with fewer unacceptable side effects than amphotericin, and is wide

134 these patients were previously limited, with unacceptable side effects, the emergence of biologic the

135 ression otherwise required would likely have unacceptable side effects.

136 mor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists or had unacceptable side effects.

137 f tariquidar would likely be associated with unacceptable side effects.

138 e drugs that broadly target the pathway have unacceptable side effects.

139 the manufacturer's label that did not cause unacceptable side effects.

140 ned antidyskinetic benefit in the absence of unacceptable side effects.

141 treatment was mostly ineffective or produced unacceptable side effects.

142 til the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable side effects.

143 Several agents have caused harm or unacceptable side-effects.

144 sed questions about the factors resulting in unacceptable soluble lead concentrations in the city's d

145 hip, are still our best chance to change the unacceptable status quo of the tuberculosis situation wo

146 bstitution is poorly tolerated, and to avoid unacceptable steric interactions, these compounds adopt

147 OAB, but development was discontinued due to unacceptable structure-based toxicity in preclinical spe

148 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) who are at unacceptable surgical risk.

149 ators, which warn about cheese storage at an unacceptable temperature.

150 d (r=0.38, rho=0.41, ICC=0.17), resulting in unacceptable therapeutic decision agreement (kappa=0.38)

151 tality rate of the disease, it was ethically unacceptable to allocate patients from within the same f

152 r taste of Cyclopia genistoides infusions is unacceptable to consumers, who are used to the slightly

153 ption when conventional CR is unavailable or unacceptable to individuals.

154 ol or who found the side effects of ursodiol unacceptable to receive obeticholic acid at a dose of 10

155 upport, would have a quality of life that is unacceptable to the candidate or are likely to be noncom

156 hen reconstruction is not feasible or proves unacceptable to the injured patient.

157 py every 3 months until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effect, or death.

158 hout treatment), until tumour progression or unacceptable toxic effects arose.

159 re treated every 3 weeks till progression or unacceptable toxic effects for up to six cycles.

160 n 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects occurred (elotuzumab was give

161 mg) twice a day until progressive disease or unacceptable toxic effects occurred.

162 weeks for 24 months or until progression or unacceptable toxic effects occurred.

163 nd were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects of the drug occurred.

164 st 24 weeks followed by antibody alone until unacceptable toxic effects or disease progression occurr

165 re treated once every 3 weeks until they had unacceptable toxic effects or their disease progressed.

166 adverse events until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects), with assessments on day 1 o

167 ntil disease progression, the development of unacceptable toxic effects, or a complete response was d

168 IRI every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or death.

169 aily continuously until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or patient withdrawal for up

170 mab every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or the end of the study (ie,

171 ry 2 weeks until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal from study.

172 lacebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent.

173 ven every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent.

174 ed until disease progression, development of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent.

175 in 21 day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, voluntary withdrawal by the

176 y 2 weeks) administered until progression or unacceptable toxic effects.

177 (560 mg) daily until progressive disease or unacceptable toxic effects.

178 til the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects.

179 il disease progression or the development of unacceptable toxic effects.

180 s 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects.

181 curve 6 every 3 weeks) until progression or unacceptable toxic effects.

182 (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxic effects.

183 of chemotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects.

184 to 18 months or until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects.

185 ch 21-day cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects.

186 tment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects.

187 /kg every 6 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxicities, or withdrawal of consent.

188 after 6 months of induction chemotherapy but unacceptable toxicities, radiation therapy may be offere

189 py can continue until time of progression or unacceptable toxicities.

190 ne patient met protocol-defined criteria for unacceptable toxicity (grade 4 hypoxia).

191 ide maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity (MPT-T) and the same MP regimen wi

192 21 of 28 days until lymphoma progression or unacceptable toxicity (severely compromises organ functi

193 but is not used and, conversely, may lead to unacceptable toxicity and cost to patients if combinatio

194 clax once daily until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity at target doses from 200 to 1,200

195 of sorafenib used in this trial resulted in unacceptable toxicity for many patients.

196 gical nivolumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity in 30 patients (27 salvage surgeri

197 se progression while receiving sunitinib, or unacceptable toxicity occurred.

198 sion or treatment discontinuation because of unacceptable toxicity or other protocol-defined reasons,

199 )) was administered weekly for 1 year unless unacceptable toxicity or progression (confirmed on two c

200 tinue nivolumab until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity or to stop nivolumab with the opti

201 ) every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity up to 1 year.

202 g every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity while following established guidel

203 2 weeks (given until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (1

204 tenance therapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity).

205 m of 5 years or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity).

206 s or until documented disease progression or unacceptable toxicity).

207 ays-off schedule) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or study discontinuation f

208 n continuous or intermittent schedules until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or withdrawa

209 very 4 weeks thereafter until progression or unacceptable toxicity, for up to 24 months.

210 n cycle 1 day 15) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, loss to follow-up, or withdrawal

211 dule for 1 year or until disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal.

212 r 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal.

213 eatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or consent withdrawal.

214 ase in 34 (24%) patients and adverse events, unacceptable toxicity, or death in 24 (17%) patients.

215 ent discontinuation owing to adverse events, unacceptable toxicity, or death were collected as a sing

216 us corticosteroids, until treatment failure, unacceptable toxicity, or death.

217 supportive care, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death.

218 ce daily in 28-day cycles until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death.

219 tinib (400 mg) once daily until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other criteria for withdrawal

220 2 weeks until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other criterion for withdrawal

221 eatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria

222 ease progression and clinical deterioration, unacceptable toxicity, or other protocol-defined reasons

223 kg every 2 weeks, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other protocol-defined reasons

224 eatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other withdrawal criteria.

225 eatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice.

226 verolimus 10 mg/d until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient refusal.

227 (45 mg or 30 mg) until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal.

228 m the ninth cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal.

229 e every 3 weeks until withdrawal of consent, unacceptable toxicity, or progressive disease.

230 us loading doses) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or the completion of ten treatmen

231 g/kg every 2 weeks until progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal from study.

232 til 1 year of treatment, disease recurrence, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent.

233 ous 28-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent.

234 chieve therapeutic benefit in the absence of unacceptable toxicity, providing that route of administr

235 patients discontinuing treatment because of unacceptable toxicity, respectively.

236 inistered every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity, starting with a 1-mg/kg cohort, w

237 in 28-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, the investigator's decision to di

238 g every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whereas patients allocated to ipi

239 d every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first.

240 reated until they experienced progression or unacceptable toxicity, with follow-up of approximately 2

241 investigator-determined disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death.

242 ntinued treatment until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or discont

243 s on, 1 week off) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or physici

244 of a 21 day cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal, or death.

245 e every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

246 tinib 420 mg once daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

247 cell lymphoma, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

248 JAK2 inhibitors until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

249 to 2 years or until confirmed progression or unacceptable toxicity.

250 ) every 28 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

251 dexamethasone (Bd) until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity.

252 , 8, 15, and 22 until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.

253 tment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

254 n 4-week cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

255 0 mg once daily until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.

256 nistered orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

257 b 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

258 les in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

259 lly) or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

260 disease progression, patient withdrawal, or unacceptable toxicity.

261 utinib (420 mg) until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.

262 n 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

263 inistered every 3 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

264 ily) or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

265 tic targeting attempts have been hampered by unacceptable toxicity.

266 e every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

267 les and treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

268 very 3 weeks until definitive progression or unacceptable toxicity.

269 -line treatment until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

270 kly thereafter) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

271 as administered until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

272 150 mg per day) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

273 as maintenance until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

274 1 and 3 weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

275 1 of each cycle until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

276 n every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

277 ly on days 1, 8, and 15 until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

278 n 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

279 apeutic target, but enzymatic inhibition has unacceptable toxicity.

280 peated in 21-day cycles until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

281 (3 + 3 design) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

282 cell lymphoma) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

283 ks for 1 year or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxicity.

284 y the investigator per RECIST version 1.1 or unacceptable toxicity.

285 e every 4 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

286 ) every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

287 inistered every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

288 ion received buparlisib until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

289 8-day cycle, or until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

290 , or NIVO1+IPI3 until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

291 28-day cycles, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

292 in both groups) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

293 tinib orally once daily until progression or unacceptable toxicity.

294 erapy that met protocol-defined criteria for unacceptable toxicity.

295 avenously every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity; postprogression treatment was per

296 be serious challenges and have often led to unacceptable tradeoffs between depth of coverage and sam

297 ck of virological monitoring would result in unacceptable treatment failure misclassification, leadin

298 ions for some of the patients, in particular unacceptable underestimates of the absorbed dose to the

299 mferential resection margin (pCRM) rates and unacceptable variations in permanent colostomies.

300 Among species evaluated, S. haemolyticus had unacceptable VMEs with this new breakpoint (6.4%), as di