Authors:
Chappuis, PO
Hamel, N
Paradis, AJ
Deschenes, J
Tonin, PN
Ghadirian, P
Foulkes, WD
Citation: Po. Chappuis et al., Re: Population-based study of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in 1035 unselectedFinnish breast cancer patients, J NAT CANC, 93(2), 2001, pp. 152-153
Authors:
Labrecque, J
Deschenes, J
McNicoll, N
De Lean, A
Citation: J. Labrecque et al., Agonistic induction of a covalent dimer in a mutant of natriuretic peptidereceptor-A documents a juxtamembrane interaction that accompanies receptoractivation, J BIOL CHEM, 276(11), 2001, pp. 8064-8072
Authors:
Chappuis, PO
Hamel, N
Paradis, AJ
Deschenes, J
Robidoux, A
Potvin, C
Cantin, J
Tonin, P
Ghadirian, P
Foulkes, WD
Citation: Po. Chappuis et al., Prevalence of founder BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in unselected French Canadian women with breast cancer, CLIN GENET, 59(6), 2001, pp. 418-423
Authors:
Secchi, A
Ciprandi, G
Leonardi, A
Deschenes, J
Abelson, MB
Citation: A. Secchi et al., Safety and efficacy comparison of emedastine 0.05% ophthalmic solution compared to levocabastine 0.05% ophthalmic suspension in pediatric subjects with allergic conjunctivitis, ACT OPHTH S, 78, 2000, pp. 42-47
Authors:
Secchi, A
Leonardi, A
Discepola, M
Deschenes, J
Abelson, MB
Citation: A. Secchi et al., An efficacy and tolerance comparison of emedastine difumarate 0.05% and levocabastine hydrochloride 0.05%: Reducing chemosis and eyelid swelling in subjects with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis, ACT OPHTH S, 78, 2000, pp. 48-51
Authors:
Fontaine, N
Boisjoly, H
Gresset, J
Charest, M
Brunette, I
Le Francois, M
Deschenes, J
Ponomarenko, S
Citation: N. Fontaine et al., Contrast and glare testing in the assessment of visual performance of candidate eyes for penetrating keratoplasty, CORNEA, 19(4), 2000, pp. 433-438
Citation: M. Discepola et al., Comparison of the topical ocular antiallergic efficacy of emedastine 0.05%ophthalmic solution to ketorolac 0.5% ophthalmic solution in a clinical model of allergic conjunctivitis, ACT OPHTH S, 77, 1999, pp. 43-46
Citation: J. Deschenes et al., Comparative evaluation of olopatadine ophthalmic solution (0.1%) versus ketorolac ophthalmic solution (0.5%) using the provocative antigen challenge model, ACT OPHTH S, 77, 1999, pp. 47-52