DataSheet_1_Investigating miR-9 as a mediator in laryngeal cancer health disparities.docx by Christina Gobin (15181795)

“…Increasing miR-9 in UM-SCC-12 cells resulted in decreased cellular migration (p < 0.05), decreased proliferation (p < 0.0001) and increased sensitivity to cisplatin (p < 0.001). …”

The Effect of Cutting Height on Forage Yield and Performance of Alfalfa Cultivars by Ibrahim, Yassin M.

Get full text

Sequence Variants of Toll Like Receptor 4 and Late-Onset Alzheimer's Disease by Yen-Ching Chen (109882)

“…Haplotype GACGG was associated with a decreased risk of LOAD (1 vs. 0 copies: AOR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.36–0.96; 2 vs. 0 copies: AOR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.14–0.67) in <em>ApoE e4</em> non-carriers. …”

Image_9_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF by Xuan Quy Luu (17115106)

“…</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. …”

Image_5_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF by Xuan Quy Luu (17115106)

“…</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. …”

Table_1_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.docx by Xuan Quy Luu (17115106)

“…</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. …”

Image_7_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF by Xuan Quy Luu (17115106)

“…</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. …”

Image_6_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF by Xuan Quy Luu (17115106)

“…</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. …”

Image_3_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF by Xuan Quy Luu (17115106)

“…</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. …”

Image_8_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF by Xuan Quy Luu (17115106)

“…</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. …”

Image_1_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF by Xuan Quy Luu (17115106)

“…</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. …”

Image_10_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF by Xuan Quy Luu (17115106)

“…</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. …”

Image_2_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF by Xuan Quy Luu (17115106)

“…</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. …”

Image_4_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.TIF by Xuan Quy Luu (17115106)

“…</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. …”

Table_2_Socioeconomic inequality in organized and opportunistic screening for gastric cancer: results from the Korean National Cancer Screening Survey 2009–2022.docx by Xuan Quy Luu (17115106)

“…</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. …”

The phosphoinositide-3 kinase (PI3K)-δ,γ inhibitor, duvelisib shows preclinical synergy with multiple targeted therapies in hematologic malignancies by Kerrie Faia (2409427)

“…Single agent activity was seen in fourteen cell lines, with a median GI₅₀ of 0.59 μM. A scalar measure of the strength of synergistic drug interactions revealed a synergy hit rate of 19.3% across the matrix of drug combinations and cell lines. …”

CaMKIIδB Mediates Aberrant NCX1 Expression and the Imbalance of NCX1/SERCA in Transverse Aortic Constriction-Induced Failing Heart by Ying-Mei Lu (206101)

“…Eight weeks after transverse aortic constriction (TAC)-induced heart failure in mice, we found that the heart weight/tibia length (HW/TL) ratio and the lung weight/body weight (LW/BW) ratio increased by 59% and 133%, respectively. We further found that the left ventricle-shortening fraction decreased by 40% compared with the sham-operated controls. …”

Table_1_Dynamic Microbiome Changes Reveal the Effect of 1-Methylcyclopropene Treatment on Reducing Post-harvest Fruit Decay in “Doyenne du Comice” Pear.XLSX by Yang Zhang (30734)

“…They became the primary pathogens to cause fruit decay in control, but they were markedly decreased in 1-MCP treatment, resulting in reduced disease incidence. …”

Table_1_Plant Stage, Not Drought Stress, Determines the Effect of Cultivars on Bacterial Community Diversity in the Rhizosphere of Broomcorn Millet (Panicum miliaceum L.).doc by Xiaofan Na (5113028)

“…As the plants matured, the richness and evenness of the rhizobacterial community significantly decreased. Principal coordinate analysis showed that the structure of the bacterial rhizosphere community changed notably only at the flowering stage between the two cultivars, suggesting a stage-dependent effect. …”

Data_Sheet_1_Dynamic Microbiome Changes Reveal the Effect of 1-Methylcyclopropene Treatment on Reducing Post-harvest Fruit Decay in “Doyenne du Comice” Pear.DOCX by Yang Zhang (30734)

“…They became the primary pathogens to cause fruit decay in control, but they were markedly decreased in 1-MCP treatment, resulting in reduced disease incidence. …”