ライフサイエンスコーパス: ejection

1 x and induce single-stranded (ss) DNA genome ejection.

2 We report right ventricular (RV) filling and ejection abnormalities in IUGR young adult baboons using

3 uthors have measured the crystallization and ejection ages of meteorites from a Martian volcano and f

4 he BAF chromatin-remodeling complex, causing ejection and degradation of wild-type SS18 and the tumor

5 Deletion of FgSRP1 also reduced ascospore ejection and deoxynivalenol (DON) production.

6 s ATP hydrolysis by MCM, promoting both Cdt1 ejection and MCM ring closure.

7 positive-feedback mechanism between filament ejection and reconnection.

8 We conclude that if coronal mass ejections and jets are indeed of physically identical or

9 in Nature, eruptive events like coronal mass ejections and solar flares, are organized into quasi-per

10 an an ideal process) must also underlie mass ejections, and that magnetic breakout is a universal mod

11 This was thought to facilitate early ejection, but had not been proved to date.

12 ple amounts on demand using acoustic droplet ejection coupled with a conveyor belt drive that is opti

13 Reversal and ejection flow curves were studied.

14 d that perfect coupling between reversal and ejection flow would occur at optimal atrioventricular de

15 jection fraction, and fractional shortening (ejection fraction %, 54.76 +/- 0.67; fractional shorteni

16 33 +/- 5.70) compared with sham S2814A mice (ejection fraction %, 71.60 +/- 4.02; fractional shorteni

17 ejection fraction and fractional shortening (ejection fraction %, 73.06 +/- 6.31; fractional shorteni

18 27.53 +/- 0.50) compared with sham controls (ejection fraction %, 73.57 +/- 0.20; fractional shorteni

19 In HFpEF, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction >/=40%, we derived propensity scores f

20 en LTPA, BMI, and risk of overall HF, HFpEF (ejection fraction >/=45%), and HFrEF (ejection fraction

21 s who were admitted for decompensated HFpEF (ejection fraction >/=50%) from January 2009 through Dece

22 Among those with a left ventricular ejection fraction >35% (N=121; mean left ventricular eje

23 in a cohort of 2622 stable patients with an ejection fraction >35% undergoing elective diagnostic ca

24 red sixty-one patients with left ventricular ejection fraction </=35% and New York Heart Association

25 randomized 2,331 ambulatory HF patients with ejection fraction </=35% to exercise training or usual c

26 ched-controls) undergoing high-risk PCI with ejection fraction </=35%.

27 anned to randomize 1100 patients with HFrEF (ejection fraction </=40%), elevated natriuretic peptide

28 l groups in HFrEF patients (left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%).

29 coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction </=40%.

30 patients with systolic HF (left ventricular ejection fraction </=45%) and mild to moderate symptoms

31 dysfunction was defined as right ventricular ejection fraction </=45%.

32 In the derivation cohort, LV ejection fraction </=47%, infarct size >/=19%LV, and mic

33 vided them into SHIFT type (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%, New York Heart Association class

34 HFpEF (ejection fraction >/=45%), and HFrEF (ejection fraction <45%) were assessed by using multivari

35 2) and LV systolic dysfunction defined as LV ejection fraction <50%.

36 rs, 60% men) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>60%) and chronic moderate and severe

37 Patients with PAH with lower RV ejection fraction (<41%) had a significantly reduced hea

38 ts undergoing ViR had lower left ventricular ejection fraction (45.6 +/- 17.4% vs. 55.3 +/- 11.1%; p

39 = 0.06, <0.01 and 0.08, respectively) and LV ejection fraction (AUC = 0.56, 0.69 and 0.69; all P > 0.

40 females (B=-0.38, SE=0.04), left ventricular ejection fraction (B=-0.81, SE=0.20), and body mass inde

41 tinine levels, a small (P<0.05) reduction in ejection fraction (echocardiography), and increases in t

42 heart failure (HF) and midrange or preserved ejection fraction (EF >/=40%).

43 Guidelines recommend that patients with low ejection fraction (EF) after myocardial infarction (MI)

44 ultivariate Cox regression analysis, only LV ejection fraction (EF) and LAS independently indicated t

45 Preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) and reduced myocardial strain are

46 evere aortic stenosis (LGSAS) with preserved ejection fraction (EF) is incompletely understood.

47 Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) to >35% occurs in many patients w

48 ents with acute HF with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (EF) to receive nesiritide or placebo

49 Mean (SD) RV ejection fraction (EF) was 44% (10%), and mean (SD) LV E

50 ticenter population of patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF) who were undergoing cardiac magne

51 0.99) and non-BH SSIR (r = 0.92-0.98) for LV ejection fraction (EF), volume, and mass (P < .0001 for

52 is (AM) with preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF).

53 including incident heart failure, higher RV ejection fraction (hazard ratio, 1.16 per SD; 95% confid

54 ) (EF >/=50%), heart failure with borderline ejection fraction (HFbEF) (EF 41% to 49%), and heart fai

55 spitalized with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (EF >/=50%), heart failure wit

56 : Heart failure (HF) patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) display irregular breathing, s

57 f patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in the PhosphodiesteRasE-5 Inh

58 Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a common syndrome with a pr

59 Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a heterogeneous syndrome.

60 KEY POINTS: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is associated with disordered

61 Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is common, recalcitrant to tre

62 he evolution of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), cardiomyocyte-extracellular m

63 on is common in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), its functional implications b

64 sease (HHD) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

65 n patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

66 lure (HF) and particularly HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

67 sociation in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

68 ity in HF patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively) are no

69 41% to 49%), and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (EF </=40%).

70 heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and is an independent predicto

71 illation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) frequently coexist, and each c

72 some patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remain at high risk for hospit

73 s with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) to reduce morbidity and mortal

74 in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), compared with the angiotensin

75 he progression of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), the pathophysiological mechan

76 ase (IHD) in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; EF <40%) is well established,

77 death (SCD) in those with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%.

78 and their associations with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and heart failure symptoms.

79 LV ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 50% (P < .001) and an

80 by RV fractional area change (RV-FAC) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF), respectively.

81 eft ventricular volumes and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

82 ed myocardium (P<0.001) and left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.01).

83 change was associated with left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.045) and ventricular-vascular cou

84 troponin (r=0.80) and strongly with 6-month ejection fraction (r=-0.73).

85 ty in Diastolic Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (RELAX) clinical trial.

86 nrolled (age 62+/-11 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 27+/-7%).

87 In mice given CMCs 2 days after MI, LV ejection fraction 28 days later was significantly increa

88 n), aged 67.4+/-11.9 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 33.1+/-13.6% (n=137), and treated 1626

89 3% men; age, 41+/-25 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 49+/-16%) with high incidence from the

90 cantly reduced LV systolic (left ventricular ejection fraction = 49+/-10% versus 58+/-10%; P<0.001) a

91 ystolic function (mean+/-SD left ventricular ejection fraction = 52+/-11% versus 63+/-8%; P<0.001) an

92 d tetralogy of Fallot and RV dysfunction (RV ejection fraction [EF] <50%) but without severe valvular

93 Global myocardial function (ejection fraction [EF] and left ventricular end-diastoli

94 472 donor hearts with LVSD (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] </=40%) on initial TTE that res

95 ther a preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]).

96 echocardiography (baseline left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 61%; global longitudinal strai

97 ions with RV mass, end-diastolic volume, and ejection fraction after control for risk factors and cop

98 s showed diastolic dysfunction and preserved ejection fraction along with signs of heart failure and

99 studied 14 737 patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction and a measurement of NT-proBNP at time

100 e elamipretide in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and demonstrates that a single infusio

101 with MR imaging measures of left ventricular ejection fraction and end-systolic volume, but not with

102 iagnosing early heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and exercise-induced pulmonary hyperte

103 f left ventricular posterior wall, increased ejection fraction and fraction shortening, so as to inhi

104 ent peritonitis S2814A mice showed preserved ejection fraction and fractional shortening (ejection fr

105 Higher RV ejection fraction and greater RV mass were associated wi

106 ise benefit on the basis of left ventricular ejection fraction and heart failure symptoms.

107 s observed in the change in left ventricular ejection fraction and infarct size, and the duration of

108 LV structure, systolic function (based on LV ejection fraction and longitudinal strain), and diastoli

109 ith available spirometry (n=2540), higher RV ejection fraction and mass remained significantly associ

110 Despite normal left ventricular ejection fraction and serum biomarkers, patients with pr

111 rtic stenosis with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction and summarizes the current registry an

112 cular plasma biomarkers in HF with preserved ejection fraction and their correlation to diastolic dys

113 Change from baseline in left ventricular ejection fraction and ventricular volumes was not signif

114 on outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and whether they are modifiable.

115 significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction at 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up as

116 lung mass to body weight ratios and improved ejection fraction at d5 post-MI.

117 The groups had similar mean LV ejection fraction at diagnosis (29.6 with versus 27.3 wi

118 stolic dysfunction was defined as reduced RV ejection fraction based on predefined cutoffs accounting

119 ich included measurement of left ventricular ejection fraction by multigated acquisition scan along w

120 atients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction caused by Chagas' disease, with other

121 Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction caused by ischemic heart disease is as

122 Echocardiographic left ventricular ejection fraction change from baseline to month 12 diffe

123 aminotransferase increase (three [8%]), and ejection fraction decrease (three [8%]).

124 +/- 14% vs. 61 +/- 16%; p < 0.001; n = 95), ejection fraction decreased (58 +/- 11% vs. 55 +/- 10%;

125 People with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction develop increases in left ventricular

126 ded patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction diagnosed by a cardiologist.

127 ental value of considering right ventricular ejection fraction for the prediction of future arrhythmi

128 mental value in addition to left ventricular ejection fraction for the prediction of sudden cardiac d

129 roup had a > 10% decline in left ventricular ejection fraction from baseline to a value < 50%.

130 Until now, left ventricular ejection fraction has been used as a key criterion for s

131 ith severe AS and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction have Vmax in this range, we aimed to a

132 ce of arrhythmia in animal models of reduced ejection fraction heart failure.

133 Finally, enhanced fibrosis and worsened ejection fraction in CB2(-/-) mice were limited by peric

134 for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in either sinus rhythm or atrial fibri

135 nificantly decreased global left ventricular ejection fraction in parallel with increased mortality a

136 e was a greater increase in left ventricular ejection fraction in patients taking ivabradine than pla

137 Ejection fraction in patients with pre-LVAD ryanodine re

138 in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in randomized controlled trials compar

139 nd no significant change of left ventricular ejection fraction in the cell group.

140 hlighting the burden of HF with preserved LV ejection fraction in the elderly.

141 s associated with incident HF with preserved ejection fraction in the fully adjusted model (HR: 2.75;

142 Left ventricular ejection fraction increased (50.6% to 54.2%), and mass i

143 The ejection fraction increased in allo-hMSC patients by 8.0

144 ventricular ejection fractions (P<0.01) and ejection fraction increases during unloading (P<0.01).

145 n patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is high, with one third of patients dy

146 ients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction is less well characterized.

147 Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is often preceded by diastolic dysfunc

148 LV ejection fraction is robustly preserved in at least two-

149 atients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction is uncertain.

150 subgroup analyses found no interaction with ejection fraction less than 30%, type of surgery, and pr

151 Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 40% and schedule

152 failure with either a reduced or a preserved ejection fraction may also be attributable to the action

153 erangements of heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction may be mitigated by the actions of SGL

154 Adverse LV remodeling and deteriorating LV ejection fraction occurred in control mice with large in

155 d IVA-associated cardiomyopathy as a drop in ejection fraction of >/=10% from baseline.

156 standard MR cine scans with a difference in ejection fraction of -2% +/- 3%.

157 Mean age was 67+/-11 years with an ejection fraction of 27+/-9%, and 90% were men.

158 simendan in patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less who were undergoing car

159 % (range, 6-54%) with mean right ventricular ejection fraction of 48+/-15% (range, 7-78%).

160 mortality in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction only (hazard ratio, 5.0; P=0.001).

161 in hCPCs derived from HF patients with lower ejection fraction or diagnosed with diabetes.

162 timulation, cTnIS200D mice had less enhanced ejection fraction or force development versus controls,

163 cantly different in reduced versus preserved ejection fraction patients.

164 ean age ranged from 64 to 66 years, and mean ejection fraction ranged from 29% to 32%.

165 improvement in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction receiving aggressive vasodilator titra

166 LV ejection fraction recovered in 80% of survivors with ver

167 se LV remodeling, and marked reduction in LV ejection fraction recovery (0.2% versus 6.2%).

168 is associated with impaired left ventricular ejection fraction recovery post-transcatheter aortic val

169 PER (Cardiac Arrest Survivors with Preserved Ejection Fraction Registry) is a large registry of cardi

170 reater heart mass, 60-90% reduction in blood ejection fraction relative to control mice, and eventual

171 hanisms in heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction remain unknown.

172 Following RF-RDN in both strains, LV ejection fraction remained significantly above those lev

173 ective left ventricular parameter, higher RV ejection fraction remained significantly associated with

174 Left ventricular ejection fraction remains the primary risk stratificatio

175 Global volumes and ejection fraction showed no differences between FD quart

176 ic diameter, and higher echocardiographic LV ejection fraction than controls.

177 2 subjects with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction to oral KNO3 (n=9) or potassium chlori

178 AND Patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction under optimal medical treatment were r

179 heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction undertook, after careful treatment opt

180 Ejection fraction values should be used with investigato

181 Median left ventricle ejection fraction was 24% (10%-36%).

182 Mean ejection fraction was 31%, and 60% had moderate or great

183 years, 75% were male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 32%, and peak VO2 was 13.5 mL/min/

184 d cardiomyopathy), the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 32+/-12% (range, 6-54%) with mean

185 e/ethnicity, and the median left ventricular ejection fraction was 34%.

186 ociation classification was class II and the ejection fraction was 35% +/- 9%.

187 RV ejection fraction was assessed in 112 patients with PAH.

188 Although LV ejection fraction was comparable between groups, longitu

189 The left ventricular ejection fraction was consistently decreased with a medi

190 ved that the improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly greater in the patie

191 Left ventricular ejection fraction was similar among groups, whereas FGR

192 At 2 years (n=85), LV ejection fraction was similar in the bone marrow mononuc

193 max >/=4 m/s) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction were included.

194 nts showed that left ventricular volumes and ejection fraction were significantly more preserved in C

195 ory patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were enrolled in clinical trials,

196 ong patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction who were undergoing cardiac surgery wi

197 Among patients with low ejection fraction who were undergoing coronary artery by

198 ods can be used to document left ventricular ejection fraction with accuracy comparable with that of

199 eatures of human heart failure and preserved ejection fraction with sternum intact (n=4).

200 s with symptomatic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction with the sequential introduction of me

201 STEMI and had left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction</=48%) >/=4 days poststent were eligib

202 (Irbesartan in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) according to history of diabetes mell

203 with HF (n=108; 53 preserved and 55 reduced ejection fraction) with PH (HF-PH; pulmonary artery syst

204 s on Activity Tolerance in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction), average daily accelerometer units (A

205 lar (LV) systolic function (left ventricular ejection fraction), LV diastolic function (early relaxat

206 ise Capacity in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction), which is a multicenter, randomized,

207 ere aortic valve diseases (with preserved LV ejection fraction).

208 CRT response (>/=5% absolute increase in LV ejection fraction).

209 s without functional decline until 16 weeks (ejection fraction, -45.6%; fractional shortening, -22.6%

210 fraction >35% (N=121; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 45+/-6%), RV dysfunction provided an

211 tion significantly improved infarct size, LV ejection fraction, and adverse LV remodeling, changes as

212 ships with age, female sex, left ventricular ejection fraction, and body mass index.

213 abradine treatment improved left ventricular ejection fraction, and clinical status and QOL showed fa

214 ted proinflammatory cytokine levels, reduced ejection fraction, and fractional shortening (ejection f

215 (LV end-diastolic and -systolic dimensions, ejection fraction, and fractional shortening) deteriorat

216 , which leads to a high incidence of reduced ejection fraction, and life-threatening maternal and fet

217 rial compliance, depressed right ventricular ejection fraction, and shorter life expectancy than isol

218 duration, New York Heart Association class, ejection fraction, and use of background digoxin, a netw

219 ular filtration rate, left ventricular mass, ejection fraction, and wall motion score index, ESI >3.7

220 atrial arrhythmias and low left ventricular ejection fraction, as estimated using multivariable anal

221 ts of ASV in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction, but additional studies are warranted

222 with diabetes, obesity, moderately impaired ejection fraction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

223 In patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, compared with lower doses, higher dos

224 , N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, ejection fraction, E/E', and left ventricular mass (haza

225 ectively) and included left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, infarct size, and microvascular obstr

226 ithm composed of RBP4, TTR, left ventricular ejection fraction, interventricular septal diameter, mea

227 lly associated with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, isolated RV systolic dysfunction was

228 n, systolic blood pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular mass index, left ven

229 se baseline health status, older age, higher ejection fraction, lung disease, home oxygen use, lower

230 verse events [SAE]), and efficacy endpoints: ejection fraction, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Q

231 ardiovascular risk factors, left ventricular ejection fraction, myocardial scar and ischemia, rate-pr

232 In HF with preserved ejection fraction, novel biomarkers of inflammation pred

233 toms, transaortic gradient, left ventricular ejection fraction, or procedural characteristics.

234 In heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, patients with diabetes mellitus have

235 irometry, lung volumes, and left ventricular ejection fraction, patients with hypocapnia had lower re

236 Contrary to traditional measures (i.e. ejection fraction, peak ), these novel measures successf

237 , be treated with beta-blockers, have higher ejection fraction, relative wall thickness and left atri

238 ath/reintervention was associated with lower ejection fraction, stroke volume index, and aortic valve

239 for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, such as angiotensin converting enzyme

240 reasing age, lower baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, worse post-procedural mitral regurgit

241 soactive therapies in chronic HF and reduced ejection fraction.

242 duced (classical) or preserved (paradoxical) ejection fraction.

243 not have a markedly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

244 e levels of 250 pg/mL or more, regardless of ejection fraction.

245 ic valve diseases in those with preserved LV ejection fraction.

246 he presence of underlying CKD and decreasing ejection fraction.

247 e setting of more preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

248 f patients with heart failure have preserved ejection fraction.

249 0 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

250 d left ventricle with preserved or increased ejection fraction.

251 ial treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

252 file of KNO3 in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

253 ar size, only the 100 million dose increased ejection fraction.

254 those with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

255 lity of life in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

256 patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction.

257 heart failure with reduced or with preserved ejection fraction.

258 were found with healthy individuals or with ejection fraction.

259 t of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

260 ith chronic stable heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

261 F hospitalization in chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction.

262 patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction.

263 th chronic HF regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction.

264 le in the pathophysiology of HF with reduced ejection fraction.

265 measures of HF severity in HF with preserved ejection fraction.

266 wide QRS complex, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction.

267 these variables influenced infarct size and ejection fraction.

268 lobal functional status in HF with preserved ejection fraction.

269 l systemic inflammation in HF with preserved ejection fraction.

270 in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

271 7), but not with decline in left ventricular ejection fraction.

272 y in comparison with patients with higher RV ejection fraction.

273 heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

274 o significant difference in left ventricular ejection fraction.

275 ents with ischemic heart disease and reduced ejection fraction.

276 with aortic stenosis and concomitant reduced ejection fraction.

277 years, sex=0%-92% females, left ventricular ejection fraction=26%-61%).

278 on predicted high post-LVAD left ventricular ejection fractions (P<0.01) and ejection fraction increa

279 umes, and lower RV and left ventricular (LV) ejection fractions compared with controls.

280 enhancement, and left and right ventricular ejection fractions.

281 n the latter experiment, both excitation and ejection frequencies must be scanned, whereas in the for

282 s must be scanned, whereas in the former the ejection frequency is fixed, (2) the need to maintain a

283 ns, both linear in mass, and (3) because the ejection frequency is scanned, a third ac signal occurri

284 l occurring between the ac excitation and ac ejection frequency scans must also be applied and scanne

285 Measures of systolic LV function such as the ejection intraventricular pressure difference (EIVPD) an

286 ity of the ATT matrix, presumably because of ejection of a particular cold MALDI plume.

287 ctively powered transient resulting from the ejection of neutron-rich material.

288 have frequently been observed to involve the ejection of the highly stressed magnetic flux of a filam

289 that the GTPase activity of IcmF powers the ejection of the inactive cob(II)alamin cofactor and requ

290 oss of helical structure, weak unfolding and ejection of the prostetic group.

291 in order to reject artifact peaks caused by ejection of unfragmented precursor ions.

292 In models that included early and late ejection-phase MWS as independent correlates of LA funct

293 The ratio of late/early ejection-phase MWS time integrals was computed as an ind

294 Greater levels of late/early ejection-phase MWS were associated with reduced LA condu

295 spectively, for computation of time-resolved ejection-phase myocardial wall stress (MWS).

296 n LPBF, including melt pool dynamics, powder ejection, rapid solidification, and phase transformation

297 Furthermore, ejection speeds and travel distances of Leidenfrost drop

298 on the Sun, from stellar-scale coronal mass ejections to small-scale coronal X-ray and extreme-ultra

299 The physics of droplet ejection under strong evaporative flow is described usin

300 This strategy, termed precursor ejection UVPD or PE-UVPD, allows the ion trap to be fill