ライフサイエンスコーパス: diagnostic confidence

1 for the continuous study measure (change in diagnostic confidence).

2 s, inflammation, and fibrosis, increases the diagnostic confidence.

3 verall image quality, imaging artifacts, and diagnostic confidence.

4 trabeculae, perceived image noise level, and diagnostic confidence.

5 r ranking based on overall image quality and diagnostic confidence.

6 of major findings, overall image quality, or diagnostic confidence.

7 compared with pBS, which implies an improved diagnostic confidence.

8 pact on acquisition time, image quality, and diagnostic confidence.

9 biopsy and referral rates, review time, and diagnostic confidence.

10 magnetic resonance studies, thus increasing diagnostic confidence.

11 with regard to assessability, diagnosis, and diagnostic confidence.

12 condary findings, overall image quality, and diagnostic confidence.

13 ssion decision changed and median changes in diagnostic confidence.

14 ructions alters sensitivity, specificity, or diagnostic confidence.

15 red with FBP and maintains image quality and diagnostic confidence.

16 nary calculi without substantially affecting diagnostic confidence.

17 of small structures, lesion conspicuity, and diagnostic confidence.

18 without any substantial artifacts affecting diagnostic confidence.

19 of the CAD output and recorded findings and diagnostic confidence.

20 ologists improve interobserver agreement and diagnostic confidence.

21 (c) intravascular signal intensity, and (d) diagnostic confidence.

22 kground contrast (4-point ordinal scale) and diagnostic confidence (3-point ordinal scale) for all tu

23 /- 0.6), lesion sharpness (4.3 +/- 0.6), and diagnostic confidence (3.4 +/- 0.7) were better with Dig

24 oints vs 1.6, P <.001) and generated greater diagnostic confidence (8.6 of 10.0 points vs 8.9, P =.01

25 We observed a major increase in diagnostic confidence after the addition of BLC, similar

26 uence correct reader study classification or diagnostic confidence, although reporting times did incr

27 icians assessed the effect of the studies on diagnostic confidence and care, including biopsy, dilati

28 est was performed to determine the change in diagnostic confidence and consequent effect on patient t

29 ical information to pathologists may improve diagnostic confidence and interobserver agreement and re

30 st than (18)F-FES PET, resulting in improved diagnostic confidence and lower false-negative diagnoses

31 n modalities and post hoc subgroups split by diagnostic confidence and motor severity using Z tests.

32 easured by clinicians' changes in diagnosis, diagnostic confidence and patient management (when avail

33 ntly affected subjective measures (physician diagnostic confidence and perception of AI usefulness).

34 This knowledge is intended to improve diagnostic confidence and performance in the interpretat

35 fect, salvage of suboptimal echocardiograms, diagnostic confidence and potential to affect patient ma

36 fect, salvage of suboptimal echocardiograms, diagnostic confidence and potential to influence patient

37 , when used in combination with CT, improved diagnostic confidence and specificity.

38 The gain in percentage diagnostic confidence and the proportion of children in

39 DigitalTF provides better image quality, diagnostic confidence, and accuracy than GeminiTF.

40 In general, changes in leading diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and admission decisions were not

41 t, 5 = excellent) for overall image quality, diagnostic confidence, and diagnostic quality of calcifi

42 with respect to diagnostic accuracy, reader diagnostic confidence, and downstream cardiac imaging ut

43 rment has a significant effect on diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and drug treatment.

44 ntrast-enhanced CT improved the sensitivity, diagnostic confidence, and interobserver agreement of th

45 Noise and texture, artifacts, diagnostic confidence, and overall quality were assessed

46 ssed were image quality, lesion conspicuity, diagnostic confidence, and the benefit of additional cor

47 Acquisition time, image quality, diagnostic confidence, and the number of successfully sc

48 ency department transfer), median changes in diagnostic confidence, and the proportion of patients in

49 Image quality, degree of diagnostic confidence, and time used for review were rec

50 ysicians were asked to review the diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and treatment after the scan.

51 re prescan to postscan changes of diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, and treatment.

52 pact on dermatologists' diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic confidence, and trust in the XAI-support.

53 vement with respect to image homogeneity and diagnostic confidence as evaluated by the readers (P = .

54 For TBLC with high or definite diagnostic confidence at MDD (39 [60%] of 65 cases), 37

55 Imaging may increase diagnostic confidence but has minimal influence on diagn

56 e reviewed for image quality, artifacts, and diagnostic confidence by two pediatric radiologists work

57 FBP images (observed P < .044), and overall diagnostic confidence changed from unacceptable on FBP t

58 Diagnostic confidence (classifications rated as "certain

59 ated in humans an improved image quality and diagnostic confidence compared with an energy-integratin

60 roves image homogeneity, image contrast, and diagnostic confidence compared with conventional RF tran

61 re predictable acquisition time and improved diagnostic confidence compared with the reference standa

62 point Likert scale for image quality, lesion diagnostic confidence, conspicuity, and small lesion (<=

63 The diagnostic confidence continuously declined with shorter

64 ant information that appropriately increases diagnostic confidence, even among experienced dementia s

65 n of extravasation and assess their level of diagnostic confidence, first with virtual monochromatic

66 sessed overall image quality, artifacts, and diagnostic confidence (five-point Likert scale, 5 = best

67 sus as important and provided their level of diagnostic confidence for a series of clinical scenarios

68 eby maintaining subjective image quality and diagnostic confidence for a variety of clinical tasks.

69 CePET/MR imaging yielded a higher diagnostic confidence for accurate lesion conspicuity (e

70 Measures of diagnostic confidence for clinical features (inflammator

71 luated by eight radiologists for quality and diagnostic confidence for Crohn disease.

72 Readers also recorded their degree of diagnostic confidence for each nodule on a five-point sc

73 n the basis of artifacts, image quality, and diagnostic confidence for intracardiac and vascular conn

74 ty, specificity, accuracy, reading time, and diagnostic confidence for pneumothorax detection were co

75 Diagnostic confidence for specific clinical features imp

76 VNCa achieved superior diagnostic confidence, image quality, and noise scores c

77 30.8 seconds to 10.3 seconds (P < .001), and diagnostic confidence improved across all readers (media

78 Readers' diagnostic confidence improved considerably with access

79 rotocol resulted in an improvement in reader diagnostic confidence in 174 patients (39%).

80 ing in about 30% of cases, to an increase in diagnostic confidence in about 60% of cases, to a change

81 Diagnostic confidence in AD diagnosis increased by 15.2%

82 ASIR lowers noise and improves diagnostic confidence in and conspicuity of subtle abdom

83 categorized as probably benign, and improved diagnostic confidence in biopsy recommendations.

84 90 (1.1%) cases and provided an increase in diagnostic confidence in four of 258 (1.6%) cases for in

85 uggest that this biomarker index may improve diagnostic confidence in IPF.

86 ts were distinguishable, thus increasing the diagnostic confidence in the assay.

87 Diagnostic confidence in the exclusion of fracture was i

88 splaced traumatic hip fractures and improved diagnostic confidence in the exclusion of these fracture

89 iopsy method that has a meaningful impact on diagnostic confidence in the multidisciplinary diagnosis

90 High diagnostic confidence increased from 11% of patients to

91 ses and management after CT were common, and diagnostic confidence increased substantially.

92 the presence of off-resonance artifacts, and diagnostic confidence independently by two readers.

93 ng over two cardiac cycles provided a median diagnostic confidence index of 2.5 for arterial feeders,

94 A diagnostic confidence index was used for image quality e

95 high scores for image quality, artifact, and diagnostic confidence (kappa >= .74).

96 t a motor diagnosis (a rating below 4 on the diagnostic confidence level from the 15-item motor asses

97 In both tumor types, the diagnostic confidence level improved when the delayed ph

98 A diagnostic confidence level was assigned to each lesion.

99 Image noise levels and diagnostic confidence (level 1-5) using UHR-CT were comp

100 sis of 25% (95% CI 14 to 37), an increase in diagnostic confidence of 14% (95% CI 9 to 18) and a pool

101 causes of cognitive decline, with a prescan diagnostic confidence of AD between 15% and 85%.

102 cognition of core symptoms will increase the diagnostic confidence of constipation and its subtypes b

103 PCCT) potentially allow a better quality and diagnostic confidence of coronary CT angiography (CCTA)

104 The diagnostic confidence of each lesion was measured using

105 In clinical scenarios, the diagnostic confidence of experts in cHP was heightened b

106 The diagnostic confidence of pathologists was then assessed.

107 croiliac joints significantly influences the diagnostic confidence of rheumatologists regarding clini

108 curacy overall and greater accuracy when the diagnostic confidence of STS assessment was high.

109 did not help improve concordance between the diagnostic confidence of the infectious-disease speciali

110 and for diagnostic quality, on the basis of diagnostic confidence of the observer.

111 Four cardiologists scored their diagnostic confidence on a four-point Likert scale for s

112 after CT to determine the leading diagnosis, diagnostic confidence (on a scale of 0% to 100%), altern

113 h shorter scan durations without DL, whereas diagnostic confidence only negligibly changed with DL (i

114 higher overall image quality (P < .001) and diagnostic confidence (P < .001).

115 rs per night; P = 0.04), and lower physician diagnostic confidence (P = 0.003).

116 ps, with a significantly greater increase in diagnostic confidence (P =.01) in the imaging group.

117 Paired assessments were made of diagnosis, diagnostic confidence, proposed treatment, treatment con

118 ts evaluated lesion presence on a five-point diagnostic confidence scale.

119 l lesion presence or absence on a five-point diagnostic confidence scale.

120 5 points or more, any TFC decline, or a new diagnostic confidence score of 4, exhibited higher rates

121 SPECT/high-resolution CT demonstrated higher diagnostic confidence scores (1.98 +/- 0.27 vs. 1.3 +/-

122 mage reconstruction (19.5 8.3, P < .01), yet diagnostic confidence scores for UHR-CT were high (4.3 0

123 .001), artifacts (t = 3.479, P = .001), and diagnostic confidence (t = 2.643, P = .011) were signifi

124 e lung-soft-tissue interface and for overall diagnostic confidence using a semiquantitative scoring s

125 ntly (P < 0.05) higher scores were found for diagnostic confidence using PET (2.68 +/- 0.64) for the

126 The mean ranking for diagnostic confidence was 1.10 (1 = best technique, 3 =

127 ms of lesion conspicuity, detectability, and diagnostic confidence was assessed.

128 Diagnostic confidence was estimated subjectively by each

129 A prescan diagnosis was made, diagnostic confidence was estimated, and drug treatment

130 itial Lung Disease Alliance) study; however, diagnostic confidence was frequently lower for TBLC than

131 Diagnostic confidence was high or definite in 730 of 780

132 Diagnostic confidence was higher for the MTC-BOOST seque

133 Diagnostic confidence was improved by the molecular clas

134 Pre-CT diagnostic confidence was inversely associated with the

135 Diagnostic confidence was rated on a scale of 1 to 10.

136 endently assessed by three radiologists, and diagnostic confidence was recorded on a five-point scale

137 Acquisition time and diagnostic confidence were also compared.

138 Reporting times and diagnostic confidence were compared by using the paired

139 Scan times and diagnostic confidence were compared using the Mann-Whitn

140 Reading times and diagnostic confidence were documented.

141 Diagnostic accuracy and reader diagnostic confidence were evaluated in a random subset.

142 Moco-LGE was faster, and image quality and diagnostic confidence were higher on blinded review (P<0

143 Scores of overall quality and diagnostic confidence were higher with PCCT images with

144 enced diagnostic decision-making and overall diagnostic confidence were reviewed.

145 Median absolute changes in diagnostic confidence were substantial and significant (

146 dentification of secondary signs may augment diagnostic confidence when abnormal marrow signal intens

147 formation is useful clinically in bolstering diagnostic confidence when an epsilon4 allele is present

148 well as LN and bone metastases, rating their diagnostic confidence with a 5-point scoring system for

149 oth radiologists deemed image quality of and diagnostic confidence with ASIR and FBP CT images as acc

150 ith high (60 of 106 participants) versus low diagnostic confidence, with 91% sensitivity (95% CI: 79,

151 termine the presence of PE and to rank their diagnostic confidence without CAD and subsequently with

152 tantially reduces reading time, and enhances diagnostic confidence without loss of sensitivity and sp