INT212271

From wiki-pain
Jump to: navigation, search
Context Info
Confidence 0.27
First Reported 2006
Last Reported 2010
Negated 1
Speculated 0
Reported most in Body
Documents 14
Total Number 14
Disease Relevance 3.29
Pain Relevance 0.43

This is a graph with borders and nodes. Maybe there is an Imagemap used so the nodes may be linking to some Pages.

Anatomy Link Frequency
arm 11
joint 2
neck 1
ARMC9 (Homo sapiens)
Pain Link Frequency Relevance Heat
Pain 49 87.52 High High
Angina 7 66.56 Quite High
anesthesia 6 63.88 Quite High
Transcranial magnetic stimulation 9 50.00 Quite Low
antagonist 5 47.80 Quite Low
beta blocker 11 45.92 Quite Low
tolerance 1 41.56 Quite Low
rheumatoid arthritis 1 40.48 Quite Low
headache 4 38.64 Quite Low
Migraine 1 38.28 Quite Low
Disease Link Frequency Relevance Heat
Anal Fistula 13 100.00 Very High Very High Very High
Spina Bifida 14 99.76 Very High Very High Very High
Fistula 5 99.32 Very High Very High Very High
Congenital Anomalies 20 98.06 Very High Very High Very High
Toxicity 29 98.04 Very High Very High Very High
Disease 112 96.04 Very High Very High Very High
Cancer 96 90.32 High High
Death 16 89.80 High High
Myocardial Infarction 72 86.08 High High
Non-small-cell Lung Cancer 35 82.92 Quite High

Sentences Mentioned In

Key: Protein Mutation Event Anatomy Negation Speculation Pain term Disease term
When the initial evaluation shows us that the patient was born with what we call a bad functional prognosis-type of malformation (bad sacrum, hemivertebra, tethered cord, bladder neck fistula, long common channel cloacas and ARM associated with spina bifida), we tell the parents that most likely the patient will need the bowel management on a long-term basis, perhaps for life.
ARM Binding (associated) of in neck associated with anal fistula, fistula, spina bifida and congenital anomalies
1) Confidence 0.27 Published 2009 Journal Pediatr Surg Int Section Body Doc Link PMC2777229 Disease Relevance 0.68 Pain Relevance 0
The arm is not allowed to cross the midline.
arm Binding (cross) of in arm
2) Confidence 0.16 Published 2010 Journal BMC Musculoskelet Disord Section Body Doc Link PMC2994812 Disease Relevance 0.08 Pain Relevance 0.21
Moreover, in the larger MILES trial of GV vs gemcitabine vs vinorelbine the combination arm was not associated with improved outcome but rather with increased toxicity discouraging the introduction of this regimen in clinical practice.40
arm Binding (associated) of in arm associated with toxicity
3) Confidence 0.13 Published 2009 Journal OncoTargets and therapy Section Body Doc Link PMC2886326 Disease Relevance 0.34 Pain Relevance 0
Each baseline covariate was included as a factor in the repeated-measures analyses along with treatment arm, time on study, and the interaction between treatment arm and time on study.
arm Binding (interaction) of in arm
4) Confidence 0.11 Published 2006 Journal Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment Section Body Doc Link PMC2671728 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
The General Linear Model procedure was used to evaluate main effects of Arm and Time of Treatment, as well as the interaction between Arm and Time.


Arm Binding (interaction) of in Arm
5) Confidence 0.11 Published 2006 Journal Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment Section Body Doc Link PMC2671728 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
The BDI in the 3 study arms changed in significantly different ways during treatment (p = 0.003, test for interaction between time on study and treatment arm).
arm Binding (interaction) of in arm
6) Confidence 0.11 Published 2006 Journal Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment Section Body Doc Link PMC2671728 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
Because arm 1 and arm 2 of the B-31 trial are similar to arms A and C of the N9831 trial, the studies were amended to include a joint statistical analysis combining arm 1 and arm A for comparison with arm 2 and arm C.
arm Binding (comparison) of in joint
7) Confidence 0.06 Published 2007 Journal BMC Cancer Section Body Doc Link PMC1959236 Disease Relevance 0.66 Pain Relevance 0.07
Because arm 1 and arm 2 of the B-31 trial are similar to arms A and C of the N9831 trial, the studies were amended to include a joint statistical analysis combining arm 1 and arm A for comparison with arm 2 and arm C.
arm Binding (comparison) of in joint
8) Confidence 0.06 Published 2007 Journal BMC Cancer Section Body Doc Link PMC1959236 Disease Relevance 0.66 Pain Relevance 0.07
OS was similar in both groups (18.8 months vs 16.9 months), but in subgroup analysis, patients with resectable pancreatic head mass had significant benefit on the gemcitabine arm (20.5 months vs 16.9 months, P = 0.033),39 again suggesting the importance of gemcitabine in this disease.


arm Binding (gemcitabine) of in arm associated with disease
9) Confidence 0.05 Published 2010 Journal OncoTargets and therapy Section Body Doc Link PMC2939765 Disease Relevance 0.44 Pain Relevance 0
Participants were asked to score their answer to “While the finger was elevated off the rubber hand, was it as if the finger you could see in the goggles was causing the touch you could feel, even though there was a visible gap between the finger and the rubber arm
arm Binding (gap) of in arm
10) Confidence 0.05 Published 2010 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2827559 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0.09
The foreign arm (either Experimenter B's real arm or the rubber hand) was positioned to appear in the head mounted display to be spatially coincidental with the participant's own right arm and hand, which was lying upon the same desk (participants were free to move their arm until it was felt to be in the same position as the viewed foreign arm, after which movement was not permitted).
arm Binding (lying) of in arm
11) Confidence 0.05 Published 2010 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2827559 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
The foreign arm (either Experimenter B's real arm or the rubber hand) was positioned to appear in the head mounted display to be spatially coincidental with the participant's own right arm and hand, which was lying upon the same desk (participants were free to move their arm until it was felt to be in the same position as the viewed foreign arm, after which movement was not permitted).
arm Binding (lying) of in arm
12) Confidence 0.05 Published 2010 Journal PLoS ONE Section Body Doc Link PMC2827559 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0
Also, patients were assessed by investigators who were not blinded to the patients’ device and thus there was a possible bias toward the CRT-D arm [22].
arm Binding (blinded) of in arm
13) Confidence 0.03 Published 2010 Journal F1000 Med Rep Section Body Doc Link PMC2948383 Disease Relevance 0.42 Pain Relevance 0
CTs between the high and low baseline tomato intake (p = 0.02) and for fish intake (p = 0.02) but there was no interaction between stratification level and study arm.
arm Neg (no) Binding (interaction) of in arm
14) Confidence 0.02 Published 2010 Journal Cancer Causes Control Section Body Doc Link PMC3002170 Disease Relevance 0 Pain Relevance 0

General Comments

This test has worked.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox