Search alternatives:
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
12 we » 12 wt (Expand Search), 1_ we (Expand Search), 16 we (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
12 we » 12 wt (Expand Search), 1_ we (Expand Search), 16 we (Expand Search)
-
99261
-
99262
-
99263
-
99264
-
99265
-
99266
-
99267
-
99268
Image_9_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF
Published 2023“…</p>Results<p>The organized screening rate for GC increased from 38.2% in 2009 to 70.8% in 2022, whereas the opportunistic screening rate decreased from 18.8 to 4.5%. Regarding educational inequality, a negative SII value was observed [−3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI), −7.63–0.83%] in organized screening, while a positive SII (9.30%; 95% CI, 6.69–11.91%) and RII (1.98%; 95% CI, 1.59–2.46) were observed in opportunistic screening. …”
-
99269
-
99270
-
99271
Table_1_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.docx
Published 2023“…</p>Results<p>The organized screening rate for GC increased from 38.2% in 2009 to 70.8% in 2022, whereas the opportunistic screening rate decreased from 18.8 to 4.5%. Regarding educational inequality, a negative SII value was observed [−3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI), −7.63–0.83%] in organized screening, while a positive SII (9.30%; 95% CI, 6.69–11.91%) and RII (1.98%; 95% CI, 1.59–2.46) were observed in opportunistic screening. …”
-
99272
Image_7_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF
Published 2023“…</p>Results<p>The organized screening rate for GC increased from 38.2% in 2009 to 70.8% in 2022, whereas the opportunistic screening rate decreased from 18.8 to 4.5%. Regarding educational inequality, a negative SII value was observed [−3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI), −7.63–0.83%] in organized screening, while a positive SII (9.30%; 95% CI, 6.69–11.91%) and RII (1.98%; 95% CI, 1.59–2.46) were observed in opportunistic screening. …”
-
99273
Image_6_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF
Published 2023“…</p>Results<p>The organized screening rate for GC increased from 38.2% in 2009 to 70.8% in 2022, whereas the opportunistic screening rate decreased from 18.8 to 4.5%. Regarding educational inequality, a negative SII value was observed [−3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI), −7.63–0.83%] in organized screening, while a positive SII (9.30%; 95% CI, 6.69–11.91%) and RII (1.98%; 95% CI, 1.59–2.46) were observed in opportunistic screening. …”
-
99274
Blood pressure effects of ephedrine treatment.
Published 2014“…<p>“Pre-injection” were averaged data −5 to 0 minutes pre injection, “post injection” was averaged −5 to 0 minutes before onset of hypoxia, and “hypoxia” was averaged 30–40 minutes post injection. …”
-
99275
Image_3_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF
Published 2023“…</p>Results<p>The organized screening rate for GC increased from 38.2% in 2009 to 70.8% in 2022, whereas the opportunistic screening rate decreased from 18.8 to 4.5%. Regarding educational inequality, a negative SII value was observed [−3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI), −7.63–0.83%] in organized screening, while a positive SII (9.30%; 95% CI, 6.69–11.91%) and RII (1.98%; 95% CI, 1.59–2.46) were observed in opportunistic screening. …”
-
99276
Image_8_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF
Published 2023“…</p>Results<p>The organized screening rate for GC increased from 38.2% in 2009 to 70.8% in 2022, whereas the opportunistic screening rate decreased from 18.8 to 4.5%. Regarding educational inequality, a negative SII value was observed [−3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI), −7.63–0.83%] in organized screening, while a positive SII (9.30%; 95% CI, 6.69–11.91%) and RII (1.98%; 95% CI, 1.59–2.46) were observed in opportunistic screening. …”
-
99277
Image_1_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF
Published 2023“…</p>Results<p>The organized screening rate for GC increased from 38.2% in 2009 to 70.8% in 2022, whereas the opportunistic screening rate decreased from 18.8 to 4.5%. Regarding educational inequality, a negative SII value was observed [−3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI), −7.63–0.83%] in organized screening, while a positive SII (9.30%; 95% CI, 6.69–11.91%) and RII (1.98%; 95% CI, 1.59–2.46) were observed in opportunistic screening. …”
-
99278
Data_Sheet_1_Big data help to define climate change challenges for the typical Mediterranean species Cistus ladanifer L..docx
Published 2023“…The potential area of occurrence of the species is equal to 15.8 and 14.1% of the study area for current and LIG conditions, while it decreased to 3.8% in the LGM. The species’ presence diaminished more than half in the RCP 4.5 (to 6.8% in 2050 and 7% in 2070), and a too low figure (2.2%) in the worst-case scenario (RCP 8.5) for 2070. …”
-
99279
-
99280
Image_10_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF
Published 2023“…</p>Results<p>The organized screening rate for GC increased from 38.2% in 2009 to 70.8% in 2022, whereas the opportunistic screening rate decreased from 18.8 to 4.5%. Regarding educational inequality, a negative SII value was observed [−3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI), −7.63–0.83%] in organized screening, while a positive SII (9.30%; 95% CI, 6.69–11.91%) and RII (1.98%; 95% CI, 1.59–2.46) were observed in opportunistic screening. …”