コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 ulse sequences (Vmax) were compared with Vh (Bland-Altman analysis).
2 regressing automated vs. manual counts, and Bland-Altman analysis.
3 the intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis.
4 as well as by using Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman analysis.
5 compared against PDCT IOP measurements using Bland-Altman analysis.
6 ompared with paired t test, correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis.
7 ng the paired t test, linear regression, and Bland-Altman analysis.
8 comes were compared by linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis.
9 ing with Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis.
10 of variance (ANOVA), linear regression, and Bland-Altman analysis.
11 mbrane (approximately 57 degrees C) by using Bland-Altman analysis.
12 sing paired t tests, linear correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis.
13 s (denoised vs reference) was analyzed using Bland-Altman analysis.
14 red with invasive PVR measurements using the Bland-Altman analysis.
15 topsy results by using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis.
16 plaque measured by TEMRI versus TEE using a Bland-Altman analysis.
17 h the model by using regression analysis and Bland-Altman analysis.
18 d for their limits of agreements (LoA) using Bland-Altman analysis.
19 nts >= 0.95) without significant bias in the Bland-Altman analysis.
20 ent between both methods was evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis.
21 ), and axial length (AL) were assessed using Bland-Altman analysis.
22 generalized linear mixed-effects model, and Bland-Altman analysis.
23 nction, volume, and strain was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis.
24 cients (DSCs), correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman analysis.
25 flow probe measurements using regression and Bland-Altman analysis.
26 sponding clinical sequence was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis.
27 ed using Spearman rank correlation (rho) and Bland-Altman analysis.
28 rrelation coefficients (ICCs) and performing Bland-Altman analysis.
29 variance, and agreement was examined through Bland-Altman analysis.
30 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis.
31 in tests performed within 2 weeks using the Bland-Altman analysis.
32 al and estimated amounts were compared using Bland-Altman analysis.
33 with intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis.
34 ons and post-stenting OCT measurements using Bland-Altman analysis.
35 using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) and Bland-Altman analysis.
36 s were also determined and illustrated using Bland-Altman analysis.
37 n signed rank test, Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis.
38 ncluded Pearson and Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman analysis.
39 ent was assessed using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis.
40 and intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis.
41 ited a 95 % agreement limit according to the Bland-Altman analysis.
42 en GAT and the EYEMATE-SC was analyzed using Bland-Altman analysis.
43 nce, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis.
44 mit of agreement of 11.16 mm Hg according to Bland-Altman analysis.
45 urements with t-test, linear regression, and Bland-Altman analysis.
46 dicted and measured VO(2)max was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis.
47 ices accounting for intereye correlation and Bland-Altman analysis.
48 ed on segmented images was compared by using Bland-Altman analysis.
49 ed by intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis.
50 Bablok regression, and bias was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis.
51 Ki values were assessed using regression and Bland-Altman analysis.
52 Pearson correlation, linear regression, and Bland-Altman analysis.
53 surements of cardiac output were compared by Bland-Altman analysis.
54 FR and the pressure wire FFR, as assessed by Bland-Altman analysis.
55 n (wCV), repeatability coefficient (RC), and Bland-Altman analysis.
56 k test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis.
57 ed by intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis.
58 stigated using Spearman rank correlation and Bland-Altman analysis.
59 mpared using Spearman's rank correlation and Bland-Altman analysis.
60 ssays were within the limits of agreement in Bland-Altman analysis.
61 t between the two methods as determined by a Bland-Altman analysis.
62 (RT-qPCR) as the gold standard method using Bland-Altman Analysis.
63 eir clinical differences were assessed using Bland-Altman analysis.
64 Agreement between methods was performed with Bland-Altman analysis.
65 agreement was evaluated by using a modified Bland-Altman analysis.
66 ssed by the residuals, fit parameter SD, and Bland-Altman analysis.
67 10-40 min was assessed quantitatively using Bland-Altman analysis.
68 the two image-based methods by means of the Bland-Altman analysis.
69 d test-retest repeatability as visualized by Bland-Altman analysis.
70 orrelated and agreement was determined using Bland-Altman-analysis.
73 rous cap thickness between two analysts with Bland-Altman analysis (4.2 +/- 14.6 um; mean ~ 175 um),
74 nal (2D) cine imaging was evaluated by using Bland-Altman analysis; 4D MUSIC examination duration was
75 a- and intersubject analysis of variance and Bland-Altman analysis; a paired t test assessed change f
78 erived from each modality was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis and at relevant thresholds for car
81 Realtime assays using Deming regression and Bland-Altman analysis and demonstrated a mean bias of 0.
87 nterobserver agreements were tested by using Bland-Altman analysis and the Lin concordance correlatio
89 xon signed rank test, orthogonal regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and coefficients of variation wer
90 r volumes were compared with paired t tests, Bland-Altman analysis, and correlation coefficients.
91 tical analyses included Pearson correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, and F tests with Bonferroni corre
92 was assessed with use of equivalence tests, Bland-Altman analysis, and intraclass correlation coeffi
95 included intraclass correlation coefficient, Bland-Altman analysis, and paired t tests to compare the
97 s was assessed with concordance correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, and Spearman rank correlation.
98 Accuracy was assessed via paired t test, Bland-Altman analysis, and the proportion of predictions
101 (3)He ADC and Lm(D) were reproducible (mean Bland-Altman analysis bias, 0.002 cm(2) . sec(-1) and -1
102 0.99; P < 0.001) with no systematic bias in Bland-Altman analysis (bias 0.002 [confidence interval,
103 ) were assessed with Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis (bias, limits of agreement [LoA]).
107 .139] and intercept [-0.666 to -0.074]), and Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean difference (Ap
120 tomated software, we found good agreement by Bland-Altman analysis (difference 6.7 degrees +/- 17 deg
123 tistical validation methods- Correlation and Bland Altman analysis established the one-to-one agreeme
125 alidation of BFV and Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis for interobserver agreement were u
127 nd midbrain as the reference region, whereas Bland-Altman analysis found a smaller bias for (18)F-FES
131 correlated at r = 0.90 with an SEE of 3.3%; Bland-Altman analysis indicated an average bias of 3.9%.
136 racial groups were analyzed separately, the Bland-Altman analysis indicated that the quadratic equat
138 Test-retest repeatability was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficien
139 y available kit for H(2)O(2) detection using Bland Altman Analysis (mean bias = 0.37 for E.I.S. and -
140 using autorefraction (r = 0.878, p < 0.001, Bland-Altman analysis: mean difference of 0.00D (95% lim
142 3 to 1.011; intercept, -0.100 to 0.299), and Bland-Altman analysis (mNGS - qPCR) showed a slight posi
149 are coefficients of variation and to perform Bland-Altman analysis on SUV metrics (SUV(max), SUV(peak
151 nce, Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney test, Bland-Altman analysis, Pearson correlations, and kappa a
152 parallel imaging (CS-PI) reconstruction and Bland-Altman analysis performed to assess bias and 95% l
153 .99 for sesamin and >0.98 for sesamolin) and Bland-Altman analysis (relative method bias 0.06-0.21, S
163 Interclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis revealed good agreements among aut
183 In participants with horizontal strabismus, Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean difference between s
203 re, the mean bias of 7.6 pg/mL determined by Bland-Altman analysis, showed good agreement between the
204 elation coefficient = 0.74, P < 0.001), with Bland-Altman analysis showing a small bias in the longit
205 agreement with the reference standard, with Bland-Altman analysis showing small mean differences of
208 with measurements by using a protractor, the Bland-Altman analysis technique yielded upper and lower
215 traclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland- Altman analysis was used to assess intra- and int
232 ernal AI-to-expert variability, and post hoc Bland-Altman analysis was used to evaluate biomarker agr
236 DG PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/MR imaging using Bland-Altman analysis were -2.34 to 3.89 for SUV(mean),
237 s of agreement between the two methods using Bland-Altman analysis were derived for nickel, zinc, and
242 traclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess interreader, i
243 erroni's post-test, Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis were used to compare measurements.
244 res analysis of variance, paired t test, and Bland-Altman analysis were used; for qualitative analysi
245 however, the agreement is still not good in Bland-Altman analysis, which suggested that CT-PCI canno
246 Step counting accuracy was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis while clinical validity was evalua
247 ong four neuroradiologists was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis, while spatial agreement was quant
248 r using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis with limits of agreement (LOA).
251 All variables showed > 95% agreement in the Bland-Altman analysis, with interclass correlation coeff