Search alternatives:
significant protective » significant positive (Expand Search), significant potential (Expand Search), significant proteomic (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
protective decrease » progressive decrease (Expand Search)
significant protective » significant positive (Expand Search), significant potential (Expand Search), significant proteomic (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
protective decrease » progressive decrease (Expand Search)
-
761
Data Sheet 1_Modeling the advective supply of Calanus finmarchicus to Stellwagen Bank as an indicator of sand lance foraging habitat, and the climate vulnerability of a National Ma...
Published 2025“…Conversely, periods of reduced flow corresponded with decreased connectivity, potentially limiting the availability of C. finmarchicus to sand lance populations. …”
-
762
Data Sheet 1_Jing-Yin-Gu-Biao formula protects mice from postinfluenza Staphylococcus aureus infection by ameliorating acute lung injury and improving hypercoagulable state via inh...
Published 2025“…</p>Results<p>The administration of JYGBF significantly ameliorated acute lung injury (ALI) and inhibited overactivated inflammatory response (MIP-2, IL-6, etc.) in mice with postinfluenza S. aureus infection. …”
-
763
Scatterplot 8.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
764
Scatterplot 5.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
765
Scatterplot 9.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
766
Scatterplot 1.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
767
Scatterplot 6.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
768
Scatterplot 2.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
769
Raw data of this study.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
770
Scatterplot 4.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
771
Scatterplot 3.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
772
Correlation matrix.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
773
Scatterplot 7.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
774
Baseline characteristics of the four groups.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
775
Flow of included patients through the trial.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
776
Cox proportional hazards modeling.
Published 2024“…When the HAR was lower than 0.13, mortality within 28 days after ICU admission decreased significantly as the HAR increased. When the HAR was higher than 0.13, the HAR was not a protective factor for mortality within 28 days after ICU admission. …”
-
777
-
778
Patient characteristics.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>EIT parameters reveal significant differences in ventilation between VCV and PCV-VG during the laparoscopic perioperative period. …”
-
779
CONSORT flow chart of included patients.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>EIT parameters reveal significant differences in ventilation between VCV and PCV-VG during the laparoscopic perioperative period. …”
-
780
Ventilation parameters.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>EIT parameters reveal significant differences in ventilation between VCV and PCV-VG during the laparoscopic perioperative period. …”