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 tual monitored values were used to trigger a clinical alert.
2  death cohort, 19.5% displayed a significant clinical alert.
3  interrogation by an electrophysiologist for clinical alerts.
4 nical alert) to 1996 (2 years after the ACAS clinical alert), adjusted for age and sex.
5 ors surveyed, although 91% were aware of the Clinical Alert and 76% felt the findings were valid, >50
6  train a recurrent neural network to predict clinical alerts and adverse clinical outcomes in the sub
7 clinical alert model is able to predict both clinical alerts (Area under both the Receiver Operator C
8  Adjusting for clinical factors and the BARI Clinical Alert did not alter this variability.
9 ability of the concentration is considered a clinical alert for a wide range of metabolic malfunction
10  felt the findings were valid, >50% felt the Clinical Alert had limited or no impact on their persona
11 e, randomized, clinical trial and subsequent Clinical Alert had no measurable impact on this practice
12           Over the 4 years of the study, the Clinical Alert had no significant impact on the proporti
13                               Our continuous clinical alert model is able to predict both clinical al
14 he influence of the BARI findings and of the Clinical Alert on practice patterns is unknown.
15 ot change substantially after release of the clinical alerts or after journal publication.
16 ization (28.6% before versus 26.8% after the Clinical Alert; P=0.06).
17 tomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET clinical alert released February 1991) and the Asymptoma
18 ptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS clinical alert released September 1994).
19                                  Significant clinical alerts (sustained tachyarrhythmias or an elevat
20                Our wearable based continuous clinical alert system outperforms episodic clinical supp
21                              Afterthe NASCET clinical alert, the adjusted CEA rate increased 3.4% per
22                               After the ACAS clinical alert, the CEA rate increased 7.3 % per month (
23                               After the ACAS clinical alert, the CEA rate increased more in patients
24 onal Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) "Clinical Alert." The influence of the BARI findings and
25 h month from 1989 (2 years before the NASCET clinical alert) to 1996 (2 years after the ACAS clinical
26 After a 1999 National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical alert was issued, chemoradiotherapy has become
27 symptom reporting with nursing follow-up for clinical alerts was associated with a reduction in poten
28 tion dissemination of CEA trial results with clinical alerts was associated with prompt and substanti