ライフサイエンスコーパス: assessor

1 sk of Bias tool (independent extraction by 2 assessors).

2 16 submissions, according to an independent assessor.

3 administration, and blinding of the outcome assessor.

4 ing, with adjustments for image modality and assessor.

5 forecast skill depend on choices made by the assessor.

6 oncealed from the patient and perineal wound assessor.

7 ndomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessors.

8 udy, and all assessments were done by masked assessors.

9 y case was validated by 5 independent masked assessors.

10 yed participants, investigators, and outcome assessors.

11 deviation of scores for each tool across all assessors.

12 Outcomes were evaluated quarterly by blinded assessors.

13 f the intervention), and 9 months by blinded assessors.

14 ched G(ACI) = 0.803 when using 2 cases and 2 assessors.

15 S models of this target were featured by the assessors.

16 nd entheses, were evaluated by 2 independent assessors.

17 alment of allocation and blinding of outcome assessors.

18 Outcome variables were evaluated by blinded assessors.

19 ipation by 2 experienced and 2 inexperienced assessors.

20 ilarities in goal pursuit, as do sitters and assessors.

21 performed at 6 months was by masked outcome assessors.

22 nd followed up at 3 and 12 months by blinded assessors.

23 optic nerve head and graded by 2 independent assessors.

24 Assessments were collected by blinded assessors.

25 but were told to mask this information from assessors.

26 dpoint) were assessed by blinded independent assessors.

27 ensure they "do the right thing," so-called assessors.

28 EAES classification was applied by 2 blinded assessors.

29 he intervention but were asked not to inform assessors.

30 offensive boar taint compound for sensitive assessors.

31 n, but allocation was concealed from outcome assessors.

32 m, dry-cured ham and minced meat) by trained assessors.

33 g to independent blind testing by the CASP12 assessors.

34 n, but allocation was concealed from outcome assessors.

35 esearcher enrolling participants or to study assessors.

36 assessed in 12 patients, each assessed by 12 assessors (144 assessments).

37 mary measures were ADHD symptoms rated by an assessor (ADHD rating scale and Clinical Global Impressi

38 In a patchy foraging environment, assessors adopted more cautious search strategies maximi

39 site, with participants, investigators, and assessors all masked through use of identical looking pl

40 igh (0.81) and a D-study demonstrated that 1 assessor and 5 cases would result in similar reliability

41 GO, MutPred, SIFT, MutationTaster2, Mutation Assessor and FATHMM as well as conservation-based Granth

42 The outcome assessor and patients were masked to allocations.

43 Outcome assessors and adjudicators were blinded to intervention

44 Outcome assessors and all investigators were masked to allocatio

45 rticle conclusions were categorized by the 2 assessors and by one of the authors.

46 n, but allocation was concealed from outcome assessors and investigators analysing data.

47 Both assessors and participants were blinded to the treatment

48 Assessors and participants were unaware of treatment all

49 Outcome assessors and PR therapists were blinded to group alloca

50 rs, and monitored for quality by independent assessors and routine audit.

51 Only the outcome assessors and trial statistician were masked to the trea

52 Assessors and trial statisticians were blind to treatmen

53 m participants, study personnel, and outcome assessors and was concealed with sealed opaque envelopes

54 It is open to the subjective bias of the assessor, and the quality of assessment varies greatly.

55 Outcome assessors, and investigators who were gynaecologists at

56 was concealed from the researchers, outcome assessors, and study statistician.

57 Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder were masked to assignments.

58 Patients, study investigators, outcome assessors, and those administering drugs were masked to

59 Clinicians, outcome assessors, and women were not masked to treatment group.

60 PR uptake.Methods: The present study was an assessor- and statistician-blinded randomized controlled

61 When cancer risk assessors are presented with the resulting annotated abs

62 e assessed by self-report and by independent assessors at approximately 1 week and 3 months posttreat

63 ith dementia; both were collected by blinded assessors at baseline, 5 and 12 months (primary end poin

64 nship satisfaction were collected by blinded assessors at baseline, at mid treatment (median, 8.00 we

65 Assessor-based disease activity measures such as the Dis

66 An assessor blind to the patients' treatment groups rated t

67 Assessors blind to group allocation collected outcome da

68 lected at baseline and after intervention by assessors blind to study condition.

69 r adolescence to adulthood were conducted by assessors blind to the parents' clinical status or the o

70 mpetitive employment weekly for 2 years, and assessors blind to treatment assignment evaluated cognit

71 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An assessor-blind randomized clinical trial enrolled partic

72 Single-center, randomized, assessor-blind, 2-arm clinical trial of 30 patients from

73 A 12-month, cluster randomized, assessor-blind, clinical trial enrolling 371 adult postp

74 A 2-center, randomized, controlled, assessor-blind, parallel group trial was conducted.

75 We did this prospective, assessor-blind, randomised controlled pilot trial (Bette

76 In a patient-assessor-blind, randomized and sham controlled trial, 90

77 ughout treatment (7 assessments total) by an assessor blinded to the treatment arm.

78 by postal questionnaire (participant aware, assessor blinded).

79 mental assessments were conducted by trained assessors blinded to background, using the Bayley-III Sc

80 Assessors blinded to intervention group measured length,

81 ene groups compared with controls, graded by assessors blinded to treatment allocation.

82 We conducted an assessor-blinded case-control study in 6 French tertiary

83 cipate in this nested randomized controlled, assessor-blinded clinical trial comparing sulfadoxine-py

84 SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized controlled assessor-blinded clinical trial in 3 academic hospitals

85 l, a multicenter randomized, parallel-group, assessor-blinded clinical trial, compared the 6-month ne

86 n a previously published clinical randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial were analyzed.

87 The study had assessor-blinded outcome assessments with use of clinici

88 We did a two-site, two-arm assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial of families

89 affold Stents II) trial was a single-center, assessor-blinded study of 240 patients randomly assigned

90 Both groups underwent assessor-blinded testing at ICU and hospital discharge a

91 We conducted a randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded trial in which patients undergoing prim

92 omized, placebo-controlled, participant- and assessor-blinded trial involving 102 community volunteer

93 This multicenter, randomized, assessor-blinded trial tested the hypothesis that in ele

94 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized clinical trial

95 We conducted a pragmatic, outcome-assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomised trial in 3 A

96 For our two-arm, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial (Worry Int

97 multicentre, international, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial in SICUs o

98 etes and Exercise Study 2 was an open-label, assessor-blinded, randomized clinical superiority trial,

99 Multisite, assessor-blinded, randomized clinical trial at 3 tertiar

100 N, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized clinical trial of 1236 pati

101 Randomized, assessor-blinded, single-center study within Region Zeal

102 RTICIPANTS: A randomized clinical trial with assessor blinding was conducted among 116 patients under

103 , 95%CI 0.534 to 0.82) indicating inadequate assessor blinding.

104 Treatment allocation was masked from outcome assessors but not from participants or therapists.

105 Patients and outcome assessors, but not endoscopists and investigators, were

106 Assessors, but not families or therapists, were masked t

107 Group assignment was masked from outcome assessors, but this masking was not possible for partici

108 Blinded assessors coded baseline images for acute ischaemic sign

109 Blinded assessors collected data before and after treatment and

110 Trained field assessors completed the Pedestrian Environment Data Scan

111 Scores improved independent of assessors' country of origin or level of endoscopic expe

112 s, DAS scores, and pooled indices of all and assessor-derived Core Data Set measures for distinguishi

113 ffected prediction outcomes, suggesting that assessor effects need to be carefully considered in exti

114 measures), "Assessor Only" (measures 1-3), "Assessor + ESR" (measures 1-4), "Patient Only" (measures

115 Clinical outcomes were recorded by a masked assessor every 12 weeks.

116 Blinded assessors extracted outcomes from the EHR.

117 ts, they also accentuate the challenges that assessors face in ensuring they have located and include

118 (PolyPhen-2, SIFT, MutationTaster, Mutation Assessor, FATHMM, LRT, PANTHER, PhD-SNP, SNAP, SNPs&GO a

119 Assessors for efficacy outcomes (laboratory parameters a

120 both by developers of new methods and by the assessors for the community-wide prediction experiment-C

121 ase 2 module, which was completed by 121 new assessors from 5 countries.

122 Epidemiologists, toxicologists, and risk assessors from academia, government, and industry conven

123 that can be used robustly (ie, reliably) by assessors from both clinical and nonclinical backgrounds

124 rrelations between assessor scores, when two assessors have rated the same paper, and between assesso

125 Two blinded assessors identified failures from field notes and categ

126 Assessor identities strongly affected prediction outcome

127 The power assessor in POWSC provides a variety of power evaluation

128 CI] 0.65-0.75) and between the inexperienced assessors in 72% (kappa = 0.40, 95% CI 0.34-0.46).

129 ared and discussed between expert and novice assessors in a debriefing session.

130 Clinical outcomes, rated by blinded assessor, included global symptom severity and improveme

131 Two assessors independently reviewed studies for inclusion a

132 ing investigators, participants, and outcome assessors) indicates a strong design, trials that are no

133 each batch, mandatory feedback compared the assessors' interpretations with those from experts.

134 Mothers and assessors (local researchers at baseline and 24 months'

135 were obtained from Medicare listings and tax assessor mailings.

136 icipants were examined at 6 and 12 months by assessors masked to allocation.

137 s were examined at 6 months and 12 months by assessors masked to allocation.

138 12 months (a score of <=6 on the PHQ-9, with assessors masked to group allocation) in the intention-t

139 diately before surgery, with the patient and assessors masked to group allocation.

140 in the full cohort at 24 months of age, with assessors masked to HIV exposure status.

141 eyed to a trial administrator, with research assessors masked to outcome.

142 Assessors masked to treatment reviewed wound photography

143 In this international assessor-masked randomised controlled equivalence trial,

144 multicenter, international, parallel group, assessor-masked randomized clinical trial performed from

145 In a 2:1:1 assessor-masked randomized trial in patients with vascul

146 A two-arm, assessor-masked RCT was conducted in two Turkish areas.

147 In this international, assessor-masked, equivalence, randomised, controlled tri

148 A 12-month phase 3b visual acuity (VA) assessor-masked, multicenter, randomized, interventional

149 In this prospective, observational, assessor-masked, multicentre study, we enrolled pregnant

150 ors were blinded to unit assignment; outcome assessors may have become unblinded.

151 e (median of all 7 measures [3 patient and 3 assessor measures plus erythrocyte sedimentation rate]);

152 gator initiated, open-label, blinded-outcome-assessor, multicenter, randomized controlled trial compa

153 lyPhen2, SNPs&GO, PhD-SNP, PANTHER, Mutation Assessor, MutPred, Condel and CAROL) and developed CoVEC

154 Clinical assessors need a common metric for quantifying the infor

155 Risk assessors need tools to prioritize chemicals for evaluat

156 The blinded assessor noted when red marks were observed at the elect

157 Agreement between the experienced assessors occurred in 86% of items (kappa = 0.70, 95% co

158 assignment was unmasked except for a masked assessor of study outcomes at each clinical site (18 Dep

159 , Canada, Brazil, and Australia in which the assessors of end points were unaware of the study-group

160 Patients and assessors of outcome were blinded to the treatment-group

161 The assessors of success at postoperative year 1 were masked

162 Assessors of treatment failure were masked to treatment

163 lated Krippendorff alpha for agreement among assessors on whether treatment should be given or not gi

164 ices: "All Core Data Set" (all 7 measures), "Assessor Only" (measures 1-3), "Assessor + ESR" (measure

165 l function, pain, and global status); and 4) assessor-only (median of number of swollen joints, numbe

166 9%, and 33%; patient-only 36%, 0%, and 26%; assessor-only 50%, 20%, and 44%; and ACR20 52%, 26%, and

167 tion year (P = 0.03) and blinding of outcome assessors (P = 0.04) significantly modified the effect o

168 o to participate in a single-blind (outcomes assessor), parallel-assignment, two-arm, cluster-randomi

169 nal, investigator-initiated, blinded-outcome-assessor, parallel, pragmatic, multicenter, randomized c

170 nto a guide for use by decision makers, risk assessors, peer reviewers and other interested stakehold

171 All participants, care teams, outcome assessors, pharmacists, and members of the trial managem

172 retail price of the wines was observed, and assessors preferred wines with prominent red fruit, flor

173 g direct observation, were combined with tax assessor, public safety, and U.S. Census data to constru

174 The co-primary outcome measures were assessor rated symptom severity on the HDRS and self-rep

175 Two independent assessors rated the quality of each CPG using the Apprai

176 ociated with more positive self-reported and assessor-rated changes than the lecture intervention.

177 oms and diagnosis as measured by independent assessor ratings and self-report.

178 Patients, physicians, and outcome assessors remained masked to treatment group allocation.

179 Patients, healthcare personnel, and outcome assessors remained unblinded.

180 with SLAM scores derived from an independent assessor's direct clinical evaluation.

181 cted other home characteristics from the tax assessor's office, estimated traffic density around the

182 ssors have rated the same paper, and between assessor score and the number of citations a paper accru

183 relation between assessor scores and between assessor score and the number of citations is weak, sugg

184 However, we show that assessor score depends strongly on the journal in which

185 s bias, we find that the correlation between assessor scores and between assessor score and the numbe

186 tistically significant, correlations between assessor scores, when two assessors have rated the same

187 w on current training for nontechnical skill assessors; stage 2-semistructured interviews with a mult

188 idents with dementia, family carers, outcome assessors, statisticians, and health economists were mas

189 rial participants, study site personnel, MRI assessors, steering committee members, and the study sta

190 Assessors (study nurses) were not fully blinded to parti

191 al in which the paper is published, and that assessors tend to over-rate papers published in journals

192 Assessors tended to hug the boundary of the foraging env

193 eates realistic expression data, and a power assessor that provides a comprehensive evaluation and vi

194 Developed in close collaboration with risk assessors, the tool allows navigating the classified dat

195 tigators (usually health-care providers), or assessors (those collecting outcome data) unaware of the

196 outcomes were EDSS score progression (masked assessor, time to progression of >/=1 point from a basel

197 whom at least 1 joint is deemed by an expert assessor to be swollen, indicating definite synovitis.

198 ing and costly, requiring an expert panel of assessors to assign a malodour score to each human test

199 16 were given a histologic grade by blinded assessors to evaluate treatment response.

200 ation of uncertainty is needed to allow risk assessors to quantitatively assess potential sources of

201 t sessions was satisfactory when rated by an assessor unaware of the treatment assignment.

202 wing fourth week, by two independent blinded assessors using a validated scoring tool.

203 were submitted and assessed by 2 independent assessors using CAT.

204 r Finnish wild mushroom species with trained assessors using gas chromatography-olfactometry as well

205 ormance was evaluated by calibrated, blinded assessors using the validated Global Assessment Toolkit

206 recorded and rated by 2 independent, blinded assessors using validated scales to measure patient asse

207 The assessor was blinded to treatment condition assignment.

208 The outcome assessor was masked.

209 The research assessor was masked.

210 The test-retest reliability by the same assessors was 0.54 (upper 95% confidence limit = 0.77);

211 ants was not possible and masking of outcome assessors was only partly possible.

212 Subjects and the nurse assessor were blinded, and success of blinding was asses

213 f scores obtained using each tool across all assessors were 0.024 (95% CI, 0.014-0.091) for NOTSS, 0.

214 Care providers and outcome assessors were blind to allocation.

215 Patients and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment.

216 Subjects, therapists, and assessors were blind to the treatment condition.

217 Assessors were blind to treatment allocation.

218 Assessors were blinded to conditions.

219 Assessors were blinded to each other's scores during obs

220 The statistician, recruiters, and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation and intervent

221 Outcomes assessors were blinded to group allocation.

222 Assessors were blinded to symptom status.

223 Outcome assessors were blinded to the allocated treatment.

224 Outcome assessors were blinded to the intervention assignment.

225 Both patients and final assessors were blinded to the randomization sequence.

226 All patients, physicians, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment.

227 atients, providers, researchers, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment.

228 Outcome assessors were blinded to treatment assignment.

229 Assessors were blinded to treatment conditions.

230 Investigators, participants, and scar assessors were blinded to treatment.

231 Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to unit assignment; outcome asses

232 Patients and outcome assessors were blinded until 7 days postsurgery or disch

233 althcare staff, data collectors, and outcome assessors were blinded.

234 Patients and outcome assessors were blinded.

235 Assessors were blinded.

236 Participants, caregivers, and outcome assessors were blinded.

237 aware of treatment allocation, but research assessors were blinded.

238 Patients and outcome assessors were both masked to treatment allocation for t

239 Clinicians and assessors were fully blinded; participants were partiall

240 Primary outcome assessors were masked optometrists.

241 data, and the participants, caregivers, and assessors were masked to allocation.

242 All parents, clinical staff, and outcome assessors were masked to allocation.

243 Assessors were masked to allocation.

244 Study participants and clinical assessors were masked to drug allocation.

245 Research assessors were masked to group allocation.

246 Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation.

247 Participants and outcome assessors were masked to group allocation.

248 h professionals gave injections, but outcome assessors were masked to group allocations.

249 All assessors were masked to group assignment.

250 cipants, health care clinicians, and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment.

251 Assessors were masked to group assignment.

252 Patients and outcome assessors were masked to group assignment.

253 interstitial glucose concentrations; outcome assessors were masked to neonatal glycemic status.

254 The assessors were masked to patient allocations and did the

255 Participants, ward staff, and outcome assessors were masked to randomisation where possible; m

256 -month blinded period, both patients and the assessors were masked to the treatment group while the u

257 Participants and outcome-assessors were masked to the treatment group.

258 Assessors were masked to treatment allocation at pretrea

259 Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but parti

260 Core laboratories and clinical event assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

261 e aware of treatment allocation and research assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

262 Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

263 Patients, treating physicians, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

264 Patients and assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

265 ts, clinical care providers, and all outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

266 Endpoint assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

267 Patients, clinicians, and assessors were masked to treatment allocation.

268 Assessors were masked to treatment arm.

269 r study partners (generally carers), and all assessors were masked to treatment assignment throughout

270 All patients, physicians, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment assignment.

271 administering the interventions, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment assignment.

272 Participants, investigators, and assessors were masked to treatment assignment.

273 Patients, investigators, staff, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment assignment.

274 All patients and assessors were masked to treatment with the exception of

275 asked to the assigned study regimen; outcome assessors were masked until database lock.

276 Treatment was given open label, but outcome assessors were masked.

277 Assessors were masked.

278 Outcome assessors were not aware of the presence of antibodies t

279 Assessors were not blinded to group status, but statisti

280 Outcome assessors were not masked to treatment assignment.

281 Participants and outcome assessors were not masked; analyses were masked.

282 nt was obtained; study personnel and outcome assessors were not.

283 e patients or staff delivering the care, and assessors were only partly masked to the treatment durin

284 counterfeited and authentic samples but the assessors were unable to correctly identify the counterf

285 Assessors were unaware of the treatment assignments.

286 Patients and investigators (ie, outcome assessors) were masked to treatment allocation.

287 pate in a 5-year follow-up interview with an assessor who was blind to treatment type.

288 rmalities, and presence of cysts by a single assessor who was blinded to the gestational group and pe

289 All assessments were done by an independent assessor who was unaware of treatment allocation.

290 , reliability, and validity by 2 independent assessors who rated 20 debriefings following high-fideli

291 our project partners were visited by project assessors who reviewed implementation of the proposed fr

292 the treatment group assignment; however, the assessors who reviewed the outcomes were masked to the t

293 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up assessments by assessors who were blind to treatment condition.

294 Outcomes were measured by independent assessors who were blind to treatment condition.

295 months post baseline were done by follow-up assessors who were masked to participants' group and cou

296 aseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks, by research assessors who were masked to therapy allocation.

297 ly short follow-up period and use of outcome assessors who were not blinded to the group allocation.

298 ticle quality was evaluated by 2 independent assessors who were trained, followed a written protocol,

299 Independent outcome assessors, who did not know the infant's treatment regim

300 To date, assessors with a background in psychology/human factors