Table_3_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.XLSX by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Table_11_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.DOCX by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Table_15_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.XLSX by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Loss of MLL1 in adult mice. by Neha Goveas (11790822)

“…<p>(A) Giemsa-stained sections from the femur of <i>Mll1</i>^{<i>FC/+; RC/+</i>} and <i>Mll1</i>^{<i>FC/FC; RC/+</i>} mice. …”

Table_5_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.DOCX by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Data_Sheet_1_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.PDF by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Table_9_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.DOCX by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Table_4_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.XLSX by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Image 3_CS Ratio is an immune-related prognostic biomarker for cervical cancer.tiff by Peiqin Shi (22130170)

“…The CS polarization state reflects a highly coordinated network of pro-tumor anti-tumor variables offering a simplified yet effective immune response indicator for the complex TME. …”

Image 2_CS Ratio is an immune-related prognostic biomarker for cervical cancer.tiff by Peiqin Shi (22130170)

“…The CS polarization state reflects a highly coordinated network of pro-tumor anti-tumor variables offering a simplified yet effective immune response indicator for the complex TME. …”

Image 1_CS Ratio is an immune-related prognostic biomarker for cervical cancer.tiff by Peiqin Shi (22130170)

“…The CS polarization state reflects a highly coordinated network of pro-tumor anti-tumor variables offering a simplified yet effective immune response indicator for the complex TME. …”

S1 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

S3 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

S2 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

S5 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

S6 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

S4 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

S7 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

Sources of error and effects of error correction in ccfDNA. by David A. Nix (8033303)

“…Accounting for all of the different sources of noise yielded the lowest error (<b>d</b>, pink), which continually decreased with increments in family size. Data points shown in (<b>d</b>) represent the mean value from the seven control samples. …”

A microfluidic platform replicates the natural shape and layout of sand grains. by Jayde A. Aufrecht (5040014)

“…(E) Velocities within the pore space were simulated using COMSOL Multiphysics, which illuminated multiple preferential flow paths across the system. …”