ライフサイエンスコーパス: waiting time

1 ciation event to the next association event (waiting times).

2 ocked in 20 of 20 experiments, regardless of waiting time.

3 ns, and a particular aging dependence on the waiting time.

4 cteristics, pretransplant HCC management and waiting time.

5 sex, current panel reactive antibodies, and waiting time.

6 system based on medical urgency rather than waiting time.

7 system based on medical urgency rather than waiting time.

8 s a key variable in determining priority and waiting time.

9 reduced cold ischemia injury, and decreased waiting time.

10 ic-donor transplantation may be explained by waiting time.

11 accounting for correlation in run length and waiting time.

12 disease, donor age, cold ischemia time, and waiting time.

13 ne the factors associated with prolonged KPD waiting time.

14 L) criteria in centers with at least 8-month waiting time.

15 ging of the living donor, and deceased-donor waiting times.

16 diatric candidates, although they did reduce waiting times.

17 cipients has been used to alleviate the long waiting times.

18 executed, whereas a few experience very long waiting times.

19 list candidates who already have the longest waiting times.

20 5% in period II, along with increased median waiting times.

21 nt rates, shorter waiting lists, and shorter waiting times.

22 ts the number of transplants and the average waiting times.

23 channels, and which occur after much longer waiting times.

24 roving organ access and minimizing candidate waiting times.

25 health care without substantial shortages or waiting times.

26 both the fraction of transplanted pairs and waiting times.

27 cardiac death (DCD) liver as a solution for waiting times.

28 cipating providers without generating longer waiting times.

29 onvenience experienced by transportation and waiting times.

30 ors; P < 0.001), received KT earlier (median waiting time, 2.8 months vs 21.5 for nondonors; P < 0.00

31 evalent (65%), followed by clinic-based (eg, waiting times) (33%) and psychosocial (eg, stigma) (27%)

32 eparation (16 minutes), travel (66 minutes), waiting time (37 minutes), treatment time (43 minutes),

33 so experienced shorter waiting times (median waiting time, 69 days vs. 98 days and 94 days at medium-

34 apparent for older patients (aged >65 years; waiting time 730 vs. 1357 days nationally; p < 0.001), w

35 was 7 ((interquartile range [IQR]: 6-11) and waiting time 78.5 days (IQR: 29.5-237.5).

36 ars in patients' driving distances (58%) and waiting times (83%) for specialist care or surgery, wait

37 % increase in QALY, a 12% decrease in median waiting time, a 39% increase in the likelihood of transp

38 ortant output data consisted of the "average waiting time," a proxy for unit efficiency, and the "max

39 proxy for unit efficiency, and the "maximum waiting time," a surrogate for patient equity.

40 lassy states are distinguished with evolving waiting time: a first one, dominated by long-range scree

41 Variation in workload, waiting times, access, staffing and diagnostic approach

42 eks to treatment group who passed the 4-week waiting time according to clinical safety assessment.

43 Waiting time after loco-regional therapy is currently th

44 ewer 0-antigen mismatches, and had a shorter waiting time (all P < 0.01) compared with SCD kidney rec

45 ing expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys by waiting time alone.

46 Significantly longer waiting times among rural patients wait-listed for heart

47 the experimental resolution problem using a waiting time analysis.

48 Strategies to reduce transplant waiting time and avoidance of sensitization in all poten

49 m (181-270 days), or long (>270 days) median waiting time and calculated the ratio of pediatric-quali

50 , restricted to recipients with >=90 days of waiting time and CKD (estimated glomerular filtration ra

51 quiring a set of 2D spectra evenly spaced in waiting time and dividing the area of the spectra into v

52 namic admission policy that looks at current waiting time and expected ICU length of stay allows for

53 have led to a marked improvement in overall waiting time and in rates of living donation in this pat

54 ts with advanced disease, have led to longer waiting time and increased medical acuity for transplant

55 ar below the growing need, leading to longer waiting time and more deaths while waiting.

56 s the applicability of IITx, and reduces the waiting time and mortality on the waiting list with outc

57 Before transplant, cyclophosphamide reduced waiting time and mortality to levels in nonsensitized pa

58 pulation data can be applied to estimates of waiting time and probabilities of donor compatibility.

59 Although the shorter waiting time and the ability to use living-donor kidneys

60 ype 1 diabetic patients because of the short waiting time and use of living kidney donors.

61 Living donor transplantation may limit the waiting time and, as a result, may decrease the progress

62 rvice outcomes found teledermatology reduced waiting times and could result in earlier assessment and

63 oryless, leading to exponential inter-burrow waiting times and depths.

64 ry studies have not comprehensively compared waiting times and determinants of deceased donor kidney

65 Waiting times and discomfort during procedure were main

66 Consequently, waiting times and mortality on the waiting list are incr

67 nformation provision, additional facilities, waiting times and out of pocket expenses.

68 High-volume centers have shorter waiting times and perform more transplantations for less

69 current shortage of organs causes prolonged waiting times and poorer intention-to-treat (ITT) surviv

70 kidneys have worse outcomes, differences in waiting times and wait-list mortality have led to variat

71 We studied whether acute PVR (adenosine and waiting time) and late PVR (at repeat) are explained by

72 he cadaveric donor pool, decreases recipient waiting time, and decreases pretransplant morbidity.

73 ty of deceased organ donors, prolongation of waiting time, and increasing number of patients dying aw

74 l universal superposition principle of time, waiting time, and temperature.

75 1.71, 95% CI 1.62-1.78) and with the longest waiting times (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.34-1.49).

76 tients, living and cadaver donor, the median waiting times are 220 days for non-African-Americans and

77 Waiting times are influenced by allocation schemes, and

78 Compared with areas with short waiting times, areas with long waiting times had a lower

79 advanced heart failure, medical urgency and waiting time as heart transplantation allocation criteri

80 adolescence, and differential deceased donor waiting times based on pediatric priority allocation pol

81 rmative model can quantitatively account for waiting times based on the computation of decision confi

82 nformation that they were provided about FB, waiting time before and after FB, and the FB environment

83 Increasing waiting time before second transplants was associated wi

84 n individual cell lineages, we calculate the waiting time before tumorigenesis in the presence of var

85 fluorescence microscopy (VFM) to detect the waiting times before the onset of R18 redistribution, no

86 score defines priorities for allocation with waiting time being most influential.

87 The average waiting time between a referral and being seen in a publ

88 nto B recipients leads to an equalization of waiting time between blood groups with similar patient a

89 s of the interpuff interval (IPI), i.e., the waiting time between successive puffs, are found to be w

90 The disparity in waiting time between the DSAs grew from 3.26 years (rang

91 tion can be estimated by the analysis of the waiting time between two neighboring bond events.

92 ma's D, can be decomposed into components of waiting times between coalescent events and of tree topo

93 The waiting times between docking and fusion are distributed

94 of a gamma distribution, which derives from waiting times between Poisson events.

95 Follow-up time began at 92 days (to avoid waiting-time bias); deaths before 92 days were excluded

96 xpense of patient equity prolonging surgical waiting time by as much as 21 days.

97 distributions for the number of lineages and waiting times by plotting them over time.

98 The behaviours of the molecular waiting times change with the changing of mechanical loa

99 (e) Have allergy clinic waiting times changed?

100 complications of diabetes, body mass index, waiting time, cold ischemic time, delayed graft function

101 es this with greater patient equity (maximum waiting time could be shortened by 4 days compared to th

102 is associated with HLA sensitization, longer waiting time, decreased rate of retransplant, and decrea

103 The associations between waiting time, defined as duration of dialysis between fi

104 accuracy and concordance, measures of time (waiting times, delay to diagnosis), and enablers and bar

105 ion dynamics from the data and transform the waiting time dimension into frequency space.

106 s process that is dictated by an exponential waiting time distribution between basal Ada expression e

107 we derived semi-analytical estimates for the waiting time distribution to fixation.

108 ffusion model at approximating the empirical waiting time distribution.

109 amics of feedback loops, illustrate that the waiting time distributions of each molecule are a signat

110 enching intensities to equivalent cumulative waiting time distributions.

111 setting up queues that generate very uneven waiting-time distributions for different tasks.

112 s for gene regulation lead to nonexponential waiting-time distributions for gene switching and transc

113 e correlated nature of mobility patterns and waiting-time distributions of individual agents.

114 Dwell-time distributions, waiting-time distributions, and distributions of pause d

115 The numbers of bond lifetime and waiting time events estimated by the HMM are much more t

116 In the context of urgent listing and a short waiting time, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation seems

117 The median waiting time for a deceased donor kidney in 2013 was 3.5

118 ys more relevant information than the median waiting time for a given transplant center.

119 ngineering that can substantially reduce the waiting time for a graft.

120 With urgent listing, the median waiting time for a heart was 7.5 days (range 1.5-22 days

121 The median waiting time for a new patient appointment decreased fro

122 In particular, we examine the waiting time for a pair of mutations, the first of which

123 dy was to determine the relationship between waiting time for a second transplant and outcomes after

124 Prolonged waiting time for a second transplant was associated with

125 plant activity by 2.2% and reduce the median waiting time for a transplant.

126 91 days compared to 734 days nationally; the waiting time for African-Americans was 647 days compared

127 The system reduced waiting time for all B recipients, even shorter than for

128 roduced in 2002, decreased the importance of waiting time for allocation priorities; the number of ac

129 Median waiting time for an elective liver transplant was 4,4 mo

130 f medication and/or drugs and an anticipated waiting time for an HLA match longer than 6 months.

131 Satisfaction scores were higher for waiting time for appointment but lower for personal mann

132 expand the organ donor pool and decrease the waiting time for deceased donor kidney transplantation.

133 The waiting time for deceased donor renal transplantation in

134 Waiting time for dual-kidney transplantation was 440 +/-

135 In addition, waiting time for HCC patients to receive a deceased dono

136 ficant and worsening geographic disparity in waiting time for kidney transplant across the DSAs.

137 est that prior organ donors experience brief waiting time for kidney transplant and receive excellent

138 ssociation between body mass index (BMI) and waiting time for kidney transplantation to identify pote

139 nel-reactive antibody (PRA), prolong patient waiting time for kidney transplantation.

140 tial rurality status does not portend longer waiting time for KTP.

141 The cadaveric renal transplant median waiting time for non-African-Americans was 391 days comp

142 the independent association between BMI and waiting time for orthotopic liver transplantation as a s

143 Waiting time for PAK was significantly shorter than for

144 Median pre-transplant waiting time for patients following enrolment in the HCV

145 Large geographic variation in waiting time for pediatric deceased donor kidney transpl

146 characteristics, contrasted with the median waiting time for that candidate's donation service area.

147 The optimized waiting time for the absorbance recording is set at 35mi

148 cs problem of the first-passage time, or the waiting time for the first encounter.

149 In contrast, the median waiting time for the four patients receiving the extra s

150 s in larger populations are due to a shorter waiting time for the right mutations to arise.

151 Single nanorods exhibit a particle-dependent waiting time for tinting (from 100 ms to 10 s) due to Li

152 he rate of deceased organ donation or median waiting time for transplant in individual provinces.

153 model for end-stage liver disease scores and waiting time for transplant.

154 There were no differences in waiting time for transplantation, despite smaller body s

155 analytical modeling, we compared the average waiting time for transplantation, overall survival gains

156 nly the high risk patients and accept longer waiting times for a matching donor here.

157 gs could facilitate new strategies to reduce waiting times for an HCV diagnosis and improve linkage t

158 esponse diminished to undesirable level when waiting times for appointment and on gastroscopy day exc

159 Waiting times for appointment and on gastroscopy day, an

160 We measured the availability of and waiting times for appointments in 10 states during two p

161 Waiting times for both diagnostic and screening services

162 Waiting times for breast cancer surgery have increased i

163 the continuing organ shortage and increasing waiting times for cadaver kidney transplantation, dual-k

164 Prolonged waiting times for cadaveric livers, however, may lead to

165 Waiting times for diagnostic mammography ranged from les

166 times (83%) for specialist care or surgery, waiting times for emergency department care (82%), and t

167 es recommend fixed (though disease-specific) waiting times for end-of-epidemic declarations that cann

168 Patients were referred earlier with shorter waiting times for hospital appointments with the new Sco

169 ften thought of as a slow process due to the waiting times for mutations that cause incompatibilities

170 ansplant rates and no differential effect on waiting times for R+ vs R- after the protocol was implem

171 den on secondary care but also decrease long waiting times for referral to secondary care.

172 of recipients or donors, and might lengthen waiting times for resident patients or increase the ille

173 taffing availability, as well as appointment waiting times for screening and diagnostic mammography s

174 Waiting times for screening mammography ranged from less

175 We derive and solve equations for the mean waiting times for spontaneous transitions between quasis

176 The waiting times for suitable lungs average 412 days, with

177 was less likely at institutions with longer waiting times for surgery with reconstruction.

178 trum disorder (ASD); however, there are long waiting times for this program.

179 ss to the kidney transplant waiting list and waiting times for transplant candidates have been extens

180 The model shows the complicated effects of waiting times for treatment on the survival outcomes, an

181 We present a waiting time formula for computing the sensitivity of an

182 f estimated post-transplant survival, adding waiting time from dialysis initiation, conferring priori

183 munity-onset stroke had significantly longer waiting times from symptom recognition to neuroimaging (

184 Correlation analyses of single-turnover waiting times further reveal activity fluctuations of in

185 In conclusion, wait-list size, waiting times, geographic region and OPO competition see

186 of consumer electronics to cut lengthy test waiting times, giving patients on the spot access to pot

187 this retrospective analysis included median waiting time, graft and patient survival rates, and the

188 mulations carried out at low forces but long waiting times (> or = 500 ps, < or = 10 ns) show that, g

189 as with short waiting times, areas with long waiting times had a lower ratio of pediatric-quality kid

190 come, delays can cause anxiety, and surgical waiting time has been suggested as a quality measure.

191 didates has increased since 2002, and median waiting time has increased since 2006.

192 dances for allergy clinic patients, although waiting times have increased.

193 didate ratio remained associated with longer waiting time (hazard ratio, 0.56 for areas with <2:1 ver

194 t of the shortest-processing-time in average waiting time; however, it balances this with greater pat

195 This model has three waiting times: (i) the time until a mutated cell is prod

196 lised orthoses which can help reduce patient waiting time, improve patient compliance, reduce pain an

197 The need for RRT has increased along with waiting time in OLTX patients.

198 micros, >10,000 times shorter than the mean waiting time in the unfolded state (the inverse of the f

199 of allergy-related hospital attendances and waiting times in 2013, 2014 and 2016 were assessed.

200 ccess, has increasingly been shown to reduce waiting times in primary care.

201 to the French experience, pretransplantation waiting times in the 11 U.S. regions vary considerably.

202 r lifetimes, steady state polarizations, and waiting times in the folded and unfolded states.

203 Waiting times increase with discrimination accuracy, dem

204 times overall whereas ACC inhibition renders waiting times insensitive to confidence-modulating attri

205 the mechanical rotation of the rotor and the waiting-time interval determined by the chemical transit

206 Prolonged emergency department to ICU waiting time may delay intensive care treatment, which c

207 Prolonged waiting time may emerge as a significant risk factor wit

208 high-volume centers also experienced shorter waiting times (median waiting time, 69 days vs. 98 days

209 times of 5 years or less but persisted with waiting times more than 10 years among kidney and nonkid

210 Paediatric centres had the longest routine waiting times (most wait >13 weeks) in contrast to adult

211 (hazard ratio [HR], 4.8; P < 0.001), pre-LT waiting time of 120 days or less (HR, 2.6; P = 0.01) and

212 hich to schedule their cases, with a maximum waiting time of 2 weeks, to achieve an average wait of 1

213 zed recipients, with an average reduction in waiting time of 34 months (from 86 to 52 months).

214 After a median waiting time of 8 months, 166 patients were transplanted

215 ces of the analytical parameters such as pH, waiting time of aluminum-DEMAX complex, amount of reagen

216 ions thereafter requires a surprisingly long waiting time of approximately 10(3) s, much longer than

217 The MELD scores and waiting time of liver transplant recipients differed by

218 hether the MELD score at transplantation and waiting time of liver transplant recipients differs by t

219 fluent areas that typically have appointment waiting times of 2-3 days the most likely to have patien

220 Rates were greatest for patients with waiting times of 5 years or less but persisted with wait

221 er than for blood group A recipients (median waiting times of A2/A2B to B transplants=182 days vs. B

222 ress this demand-capacity mismatch, reducing waiting times of critically injured patients by factors

223 least 447 over 2 years, and greatly reduces waiting times of KPDP candidates.

224 MELD scores and waiting times of liver transplant recipients.

225 leases during the action potential upstroke, waiting times of SCR events after the upstroke are narro

226 n reported previously typically involve long waiting times of several months while cells from the rec

227 Waiting time on dialysis has been shown to be associated

228 oarding time in the emergency department and waiting time on the transfer list.

229 number of patient examinations, and patient waiting times on the basis of average annualized paramet

230 asons: this patient cohort has longer median waiting times on the renal transplant list; African-Amer

231 differences in long-term outcomes related to waiting time or center volume.

232 the importance of younger donors and shorter waiting times over human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matchin

233 Chemogenetic silencing of BLA shortens waiting times overall whereas ACC inhibition renders wai

234 ndependent effect of screening on transplant waiting times, patient survival, and graft survival.

235 However, disparities in waiting times persist for deceased donor kidney transpla

236 Mean waiting time, pretransplant treatment, tumor variables,

237 ty, hepatitis C virus (HCV) positivity, long waiting times, prior sensitization, paucity of live dono

238 In the waiting-time protocol, the cantilever is held at a fixed

239 Waiting times reduced from 12.3 to 9.4 weeks.

240 se disparities by comparing outcomes in long waiting time regions (LWTR, regions 5 and 9) and short w

241 me regions (LWTR, regions 5 and 9) and short waiting time regions (SWTR regions 3 and 10) by analyzin

242 post-VAD and transplantation complications, waiting time, renal dysfunction, and patient age substan

243 e (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.57-3.37, p < 0.001) and waiting times (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20-2.57, p = 0.004).

244 ation have a high mortality rate due to long waiting times, scarcity of appropriate size donor organs

245 primarily on liver disease severity and that waiting time should not be a major determining factor.

246 le behavior exhibiting series of flights and waiting-time spanning multiple orders of magnitude.

247 ative correlation with 1 factor: mean kidney waiting time (Spearman coefficient -0.388).

248 ative correlation with 1 factor: mean kidney waiting time (Spearman coefficient -0.388).

249 ur and the observation of a crossover in the waiting times statistics.

250 have been studied extensively, persistence (waiting) time statistics of wind is far from well unders

251 referral pathway in 2013-16 from the Cancer Waiting Times system from NHS Digital.

252 naive patients and approximately 50% shorter waiting time than recommended in the current guidelines.

253 Each induction was performed after a waiting time that exceeded twice the duration of induced

254 olated levels of economic penalties for long waiting times, the crossover point at which the DR cost

255 In DSAs with longer waiting times, there were significantly more patients su

256 ends on the duration of the stretching, the "waiting time." This ubiquitous phenomenon is called agin

257 iii) are Levy processes in which distance or waiting-time (time-between steps) distributions have inf

258 n medical criteria (Child-Turcotte-Pugh) and waiting time to a system based solely on medical urgency

259 Waiting time to deceased donor kidney transplant varies

260 The waiting time to form a crystal in a unit volume of homog

261 motherapy only (n = 88), after adjusting for waiting time to HSCT (5.7 months).

262 The degree of sensitization and waiting time to retransplantation increased with DR MM a

263 For example, the median waiting time to transplant for candidates listed from 19

264 luding older donor age, older recipient age, waiting time to transplant over 2 years, diabetes, and e

265 Median waiting time to transplantation for white patients was 7

266 cess to transplantation seem to exist-median waiting time to transplantation ranges between 305 and 1

267 The Kaplan-Meier estimate of median waiting time to transplantation was 284 days (95% confid

268 Waiting time to transplantation was not significantly di

269 ecent changes in organ allocation may reduce waiting time to transplantation, more reliable and valid

270 ary myeloid malignancies after adjusting for waiting time to transplantation.

271 During the same periods, waiting times to a scheduled new-patient appointment rem

272 eledermatology services consistently reduced waiting times to assessment and diagnosis, and patient s

273 The median waiting times to cadaveric renal transplantation were al

274 In contrast, practitioners (mis)perceived waiting times to have a greater impact on patient satisf

275 erformed to identify DSA predictors for long waiting times to kidney transplantation.

276 ities to different beneficial mutations; (2) waiting times to the first and the last substitutions of

277 Median waiting times to transplant for adult patients were 1,16

278 Median waiting times to transplant were obtained from Kaplan-Me

279 of the unfolding of its modules and that the waiting times to unfold are exponentially distributed.

280 y the tradeoff between fleet size, capacity, waiting time, travel delay, and operational costs for lo

281 onal variation at the single-locus gene, the waiting time until a gene duplication is incorporated go

282 P= .03) significantly shortened the expected waiting time until the first ED return visit for violenc

283 fects the variability of the patterns of the waiting times; values of [Formula: see text] lead to an

284 The median waiting time varied between the 58 DSAs from 0.61 to 4.5

285 and a Kidney Donor Profile Index of 3%, the waiting time was 4 days.

286 Mean waiting time was 62 days for PDLT and 9 days for LLT.

287 Median waiting time was calculated for each of the 58 donor ser

288 V (vs Ag/AgCl) was applied, and the optimum waiting time was observed to be 20 min.

289 The impact on waiting time was variable.

290 he PV reconnection rate, after 30 minutes of waiting time, was not significantly different.

291 ing age at transplant, weight at transplant, waiting time, weight mismatch, postoperative days on ven

292 (PSC), age, history of cholecystectomy, and waiting time were not independent predictors.

293 of active wait-listed candidates and median waiting times were immediately reduced.

294 Donor organs used in DSAs with long waiting times were more likely hepatitis C positive and

295 Published waiting times were used to model the mean starting age f

296 for African-Americans by halving the overall waiting time while still achieving comparable graft and

297 behavior in rats; they find that mPFC biases waiting time, while M2 is ultimately responsible for tri

298 ys from non-heart beating donors has reduced waiting times without compromising early outcomes.

299 whether the NLA had improved WL survival and waiting time (WT) to transplantation.

300 antation (LT) has been developed from a long waiting time (WT) training set and then validated in a s