戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

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 tes in the study sample, 37,054 (87.3%) were board certified.
2 ver require a general pediatrician to become board certified.
3 sonographic device; expert sonographers were board-certified.
4 cine specialists, 42% radiologists, 22% dual board-certified, 10% residents in either nuclear medicin
5 revious year to 6.9% for physicians who were board certified 31 years before the visit.
6 lack patients visited were less likely to be board certified (77.4 percent) than were the physicians
7 orted moderate or substantial influence were board certified (91% versus 99%; P=0.003).
8 ience, and whether the patient's surgeon was board certified, a 10% increase in the proportion of nur
9                                            A board-certified abdominal radiologist manually segmented
10 ed and scored by an experienced and blinded, board-certified abdominal radiologist.
11 xaminations were interpreted by one of eight board-certified abdominal radiologists (mean number of C
12  2 Clinical Knowledge were more likely to be board certified; adjusted odds ratios (AORs) varied by s
13 o board-certified pediatricians, including a board-certified allergist/immunologist, independently re
14                                        Among board-certified American psychiatrists, there currently
15 as mailed to a random national sample of 367 board-certified American psychiatrists.
16            Analysis of the survival rates of board-certified and nonboard-certified surgeons demonstr
17 PARTICIPANTS: This survey study included 115 board-certified and/or fellowship-trained dermatopatholo
18   Prior diagnoses were actual diagnoses from board-certified and/or fellowship-trained dermatopatholo
19 ttempt the ABPN process are likely to become board certified, and the majority will do so by passing
20 ed 1:1) stellate ganglion was performed by a board-certified anesthesiologist and pain medicine speci
21 obstetrics/gynecology were less likely to be board certified (AOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83-0.96), and grad
22 osing family medicine were more likely to be board certified (AOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26).
23  did not require general pediatricians to be board certified at initial privileging; however, 111 (70
24 11 (70%) did require pediatricians to become board certified at some point during their tenure.
25 s do not require general pediatricians to be board certified at the time of initial credentialing, an
26 ution was annotated by 2 fellowship-trained, board-certified bariatric surgeons.
27 tively interpreted by radiology residents or board-certified body imaging fellows over a 12-month per
28 S) BPE categories assigned by an experienced board-certified breast radiologist was estimated.
29 ieves a higher AUROC than the average of ten board-certified breast radiologists (AUROC: 0.962 AI, 0.
30                  After local image review by board-certified breast radiologists (with >=5 years of e
31 gnificant difference (P = 0.19) between five board-certified breast radiologists and the DL system (m
32                                              Board-certified breast radiologists and the LLMs GPT-3.5
33 ms were then further evaluated by a blinded, board-certified cardiologist for agreement or disagreeme
34  of physical examinations (PEs) performed by board-certified cardiologists with the results of point-
35  complete cardiovascular examination by four board-certified cardiologists.
36 sifiers were in disagreement, an independent board-certified cardiothoracic radiologist blindly inter
37  locations, while visual EEG inspection by a board-certified child neurologist did not reveal any dis
38 d surveys, we randomized national samples of board-certified, clinically active cardiologists, intern
39                                        Forty board-certified clinicians, including 20 PCPs (14 women
40          The participants were international board-certified dermatologist acne experts who were sele
41 d their conditions clinically diagnosed by a board-certified dermatologist at a large tertiary referr
42 d their conditions clinically diagnosed by a board-certified dermatologist at a large tertiary referr
43 plication that sends the image directly to a board-certified dermatologist for analysis; the lowest,
44 plastic craniofacial surgeon) and nonexpert (board-certified dermatologist) in 3D stereophotogrammetr
45 E dermatologic condition as established by a board-certified dermatologist.
46  malignancy classification relative to three board certified dermatologists with different levels of
47 m a large-scale digital experiment involving board-certified dermatologists (n = 389) and primary-car
48 urveys were administered to 21 international board-certified dermatologists and plastic surgeon PG ex
49 ive cohort study included a random sample of board-certified dermatologists deemed eligible based on
50 ation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference sta
51 sed, multiple-reader-multiple-case study, 45 board-certified dermatologists each evaluated 60 clinica
52           We test its performance against 21 board-certified dermatologists on biopsy-proven clinical
53 saliency ranking was validated against three board-certified dermatologists using a set of 135 indivi
54        283 (55.4%) of 511 human readers were board-certified dermatologists, 118 (23.1%) were dermato
55 pts across dermatology images as verified by board-certified dermatologists, competitively with super
56 c consults were independently evaluated by 2 board-certified dermatologists, who provided diagnoses a
57 ologies, or diagnostic consensus among study board-certified dermatologists.
58 5,244 nondermoscopy) and classified by three board-certified dermatologists.
59 luated SkinGPT-4 on 150 real-life cases with board-certified dermatologists.
60 ures, are safe when performed by experienced board-certified dermatologists.
61 S grading system and physical examination by board-certified dermatologists.
62 51.7%) were used in a masked evaluation by a board-certified dermatopathologist.
63                             As reviewed by 3 board-certified EM physicians, a subsample of 50 LLM-gen
64 5.1 [57.7-72.8]; P < .001) and staffing with board-certified emergency medicine and/or pediatric emer
65                 All CTAs were interpreted by board-certified emergency radiologists and reviewed by a
66 gy and orthopedic surgery at in-training and board-certified experience levels.
67 extent and opacity extent were scored by two board-certified expert chest radiologists (with 20+ year
68        Population-based survey mailed to all Board-certified female internists and a matched group of
69       An anonymous questionnaire was sent to board-certified forensic psychiatrists between August an
70 ce at 5 academic and community centers by US board-certified gastroenterologists (n = 22).
71                                              Board-certified gastrointestinal pathologists categorize
72 urgery was regionalized to 4 centers with 14 board-certified general thoracic surgeons.
73 can Academy of Asthma, Allergy & Immunology, board certified in allergy and immunology.
74 righam and Women's Hospital in Boston and is board certified in both disciplines.
75 e characteristics of U.S. physicians who are board certified in cardiology and critical care medicine
76 database to identify all physicians who were board certified in cardiology and critical care medicine
77 hysicians worked in 20 states; 62 (86%) were board certified in emergency medicine.
78 ns were primarily female (n = 129 [64%]) and board certified in internal medicine (n = 126 [63%]), wi
79                     Overall, 1639 (68%) were board certified in pediatric EM, of whom 1219 (74%) repo
80  and 26% diagnostic subspecialists; 92% were board certified in radiology; 48% had postresidency fell
81  (40%) ever require subspecialists to become board certified in their subspecialty.
82 e comanaged with an intensivist (a physician board-certified in critical care).
83 V, or V trauma centers (312 [39%]), and were board-certified in emergency medicine (673 [84%]).
84                        Each was staffed by a board certified intensivist.
85 aily multidisciplinary rounds conducted by a board-certified intensivist through telemedicine did not
86 mote daily multidisciplinary rounds led by a board-certified intensivist through telemedicine, monthl
87 s 20%, P < 0.001) and a higher proportion of board-certified intensivists (88% vs 60%, P < 0.001) whe
88 in pulmonary medicine and only 1% of current board-certified intensivists are trained in ID.
89 al intensive care units should be managed by board-certified intensivists in a closed environment.
90 ur coverage of our intensive care units, the board-certified intensivists we do have are being stretc
91  daily multidisciplinary rounds performed by board-certified intensivists were not routinely availabl
92  the surgical critical care team (ABS or ABA board-certified intensivists).
93                             We presented 503 board-certified internists with abstracts that we design
94                            One International Board Certified Lactation Consultant carried out the int
95 viduals who self-identified as International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLCs).
96                                  One hundred board-certified medical oncologists were given a brief c
97  randomized, blinded, and presented to three board-certified musculoskeletal radiologists for ranking
98  marked on a channel-by-channel basis by two board-certified neurologists for all channels involved i
99 ated on the basis of source documentation by board-certified neurologists masked to subjects' ethnici
100 ation of lesion composition was performed by board-certified neuropathologists.
101 nd had brain autopsies that were approved by board-certified neuropathologists.
102                                            A board-certified neuropsychiatrist and team of ICU resear
103                                            A board-certified neuroradiologist classified different RO
104                All images were reviewed by a board-certified neuroradiologist, and MRI reports were s
105 ural MRIs were centrally reviewed for IFs by board-certified neuroradiologists and findings were desc
106                                          Two board-certified neuroradiologists evaluated a total of 1
107                                         Four board-certified neuroradiologists scored the SOC and AI-
108 e was evaluated and compared directly to two board-certified neuroradiologists.
109                   Diagnostic results by four board-certified non-retinal specialized ophthalmologists
110  workstations by 2 radiology residents and 1 board-certified nuclear medicine physician independently
111               The studies were reviewed by 2 board-certified nuclear medicine specialists, independen
112 cal records were reviewed retrospectively by board-certified nuclear radiologists to determine true o
113 l photographs were interpreted remotely by a board-certified ophthalmologist and communicated to part
114                     Cases were selected by a board-certified ophthalmologist, to represent various pa
115 uite with a Zeiss surgical microscope by two board-certified ophthalmologists under topical anesthesi
116                          A masked panel of 8 board-certified ophthalmologists were asked to distingui
117                            A total of 12,844 board-certified ophthalmologists were included.
118                    The percentage of female, board-certified ophthalmologists who practiced in the Un
119 rate data sets, both graded by at least 7 US board-certified ophthalmologists with high intragrader c
120 e non-ophthalmologists were evaluated by two board-certified ophthalmologists.
121 Comparisons were made to the gender ratio of board-certified ophthalmologists.
122                          All physicians were board certified or board eligible in the primary special
123 c chemotherapy orders to physicians who were board-certified or -eligible in hematology or medical, p
124     Each case was initially interpreted by a board-certified or board-eligible radiologist during eva
125                                              Board-certified otolaryngologists at a single US univers
126 tation from an interprofessional team led by board-certified palliative care providers within 48 hour
127 determined by histology and interpreted by a board-certified pathologist.
128 thod leverages >1.6 million annotations from board-certified pathologists across >5700 samples to tra
129                       Serial annotation by 3 board-certified pathologists served as ground truth for
130 of 98.5% with the manual assessments made by board-certified pathologists, including identifying real
131                       A blind comparison, by board-certified pathologists, of this virtual staining m
132  of mucocutaneous features was verified by 2 board-certified pediatric dermatologists.
133 were considered to have a PICU if they had a board-certified pediatric intensivist on staff, and eith
134  from patients diagnosed as having BESS by a board-certified pediatric neuroradiologist were also rev
135                                          Two board-certified pediatricians, including a board-certifi
136 ought for potential cases and adjudicated by board-certified pediatricians.
137 y implant navigation systems, among American board-certified periodontists.
138 e reconstructed by the same nuclear medicine board-certified physician for 50 patients and by 2 diffe
139 e model equals or exceeds the performance of board-certified physicians (97.6% vs 88.7% total accurac
140  which could diminish quality of care if non-board-certified physicians expand their role in cardioth
141                        Respondents were 2058 board-certified physicians from family medicine, interna
142 sion or definitive progression by an expert (board-certified plastic craniofacial surgeon) and nonexp
143 ataset annotated by a consensus committee of board-certified practicing cardiologists, the DNN achiev
144  to be generalists, osteopaths, older, male, board-certified, practicing in the Northeast, and in sol
145  commercial plans had a higher proportion of board-certified primary care physicians (81% vs 73%; P =
146 erformed during the past 5 years by the same board-certified private practice periodontist (DH).
147 IV was administered to all participants by a board-certified psychiatrist.
148 st-estimate final diagnoses were made by two board-certified psychiatrists.
149 OR], 9.2; 95% CI, 1.9 to 45.0), at least one board-certified radiation oncologist (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1
150  as positive were reviewed by an experienced board-certified radiologist.
151                                A majority of board certified radiologists preferred CXRs taken with t
152         Independent pancreas outlines by two board-certified radiologists (n = 30) yielded an ICC of
153                                              Board-certified radiologists achieved almost perfect agr
154                                         Four board-certified radiologists analyzed 60 CT examinations
155  performed and retrospectively reviewed by 2 board-certified radiologists and a radiology resident in
156                                              Board-certified radiologists and pathologists performed
157                                      Spanish board-certified radiologists and trainees completed an o
158                                        Three board-certified radiologists annotated the chest radiogr
159                                           13 board-certified radiologists are engaged to discern betw
160 he relative performance of board-eligible or board-certified radiologists at night compared with duri
161                           Diagnoses given by board-certified radiologists at nonfocused abdominopelvi
162  is measured as a diminution in uncertainty, board-certified radiologists contribute substantial valu
163                       The composite group of board-certified radiologists demonstrated performance su
164                                          Two board-certified radiologists determined iliac vein compr
165                                          Two board-certified radiologists independently evaluated BH
166                                              Board-certified radiologists provided initial preliminar
167                                          Two board-certified radiologists reviewed the examinations o
168 st 3 months were retrospectively reviewed by board-certified radiologists to determine the presence o
169 t that they manually tracked changes made by board-certified radiologists to each of their radiologic
170 ed in-house to keep track of changes made by board-certified radiologists to preliminary reports crea
171 -view digital mammograms were interpreted by board-certified radiologists using Breast Imaging Report
172                                         Five board-certified radiologists were then asked to compare
173         Algorithm accuracy was referenced to board-certified radiologists who evaluated supine chest
174 the majority BD category determined by seven board-certified radiologists who independently visually
175 nd the adjudicated manual annotations of two board-certified radiologists with 16 and 3 years of post
176 ynthetic chest X-ray images (as confirmed by board-certified radiologists) whose appearance can be co
177 mpare model accuracy with the performance of board-certified radiologists, a third dataset of 1638 im
178         Our findings reveal that compared to board-certified radiologists, these foundation models co
179 graphic interpretation and the final read by board-certified radiologists.
180  respectively, and performs on-par with four board-certified radiologists.
181 and compared against visual assessment by 15 board-certified radiologists.
182 ologists, with majority vote adjudication by board-certified radiologists.
183 rst-year nonradiologist in training and four board-certified radiologists.
184  AI-generated reports by engaging a panel of board-certified radiologists.
185  to bronchoscopy results" by two experienced board-certified radiologists.
186  ADC maps was independently evaluated by two board-certified radiologists.
187               Segmentations were verified by board-certified radiology and nuclear medicine physician
188 minorities (vs white) were less likely to be board certified, ranging from 83.5% vs 95.6% in the pedi
189 n of 200 MBq of (68)Ga-NODAGA-E[c(RGDyK)](2) Board-certified specialists in nuclear medicine and radi
190  the creation of Child Abuse Pediatrics as a board certified specialty in the United States.
191 MS), non-board certified surgeons (NBC), and board certified surgeons (BC) was compared using 3D vers
192 al performance of medical students (MS), non-board certified surgeons (NBC), and board certified surg
193 merican Board of Surgery, currently 13.5% of board-certified surgeons are women.
194 that patients with RAAAs who were treated by board-certified surgeons had significantly better surviv
195   We used a modified Delphi procedure with 5 board-certified surgeons to further refine this list by
196                                      Of 5328 board-certified surgeons, there were 1848 (34.7%) GME-re
197  graduate medical education (GME) and became board-certified surgeons.
198 decreased from 26.7% for physicians who were board certified the previous year to 6.9% for physicians
199 eve that this procedure is best performed by board-certified thoracic surgeons.
200 ographic results were analyzed by one of two board-certified ultrasonographers without knowledge of v
201 New England division for having at least one board-certified urologist (odds ratio [OR], 9.2; 95% CI,
202                           A case review by a board-certified urologist suggested they could be IC.
203 versity of Chicago to distribute a survey to board-certified vascular neurologists identified through
204         Stroke was adjudicated by a panel of board-certified vascular neurologists with secondary cen

 
Page Top