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 were nine or greater (clinically acceptable cut point).
2 standard corresponding to the signal at the cut point.
3 atients had levels above the 99th percentile cut point.
4 versus 73%; P=0.3), considering 50% stenosis cut point.
5 eceiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) cut point.
6 dose-dependent fashion, without an apparent cut point.
7 9, p = .02) than those with levels below the cut-point.
8 elow the cut-point and 25% and 29% above the cut-point.
9 owever, most false positives fall below this cut-point.
10 e ability similar to the alternate PR and PD cut points.
11 diagnostic information or explicit biomarker cut points.
12 he expert radiologist identify the impact of cut points.
13 n when categorized using clinically relevant cut points.
14 ity lipoprotein cholesterol, or triglyceride cut points.
15 ative complications when used at appropriate cut points.
16 e assay has been considered for establishing cut points.
17 those treated with standard therapy at both cut points.
18 SLO) parameters, using odds ratios at binary cut points.
19 sus its false-positive rate for all possible cut points.
20 d sensitivities less than 80% at traditional cut points.
21 DL-C (LDL-CN or LDL-CF) category by clinical cut points.
22 e demonstrated good agreement with guideline cut points.
23 rous standard-setting to determine pass/fail cut points.
24 ere analyzed continuously and by established cut points.
25 and posttreatment remission status based on cut points.
26 tudy tested treatment strategies by troponin cut points.
27 5) having glucose levels above each of these cut-points.
28 ts having glucose levels above each of these cut-points.
29 rror percentage for "shift" and dichotomized cut-points.
30 usly when TB response is near interpretation cut-points.
31 ed activities to determine the accelerometer cut-points.
33 .56 SUVR) gaussian mixture modeling (optimal cut point, 1.55 SUVR), and comparison with cerebrospinal
34 rves based on visual classification (optimal cut point, 1.55 SUVR), ROC curves based on clinical clas
35 es based on clinical classification (optimal cut point, 1.56 SUVR) gaussian mixture modeling (optimal
37 year predicted risk of 1.66% or greater as a cut point, 2.8% of women younger than 50 years old and 3
38 lograms divided by height in meters squared) cut points 25.0 and 30.0, respectively; change in BMI du
40 her BI-RADS category 4a or category 3 as the cut point (52% and 52% [95% CI: -7.3%, 6.0%], and from 2
41 4 to quartile 1 for each exposure (quartile cut points: 689.7, 746.5, and 799.4 min/d for total sede
42 ely) were substantially lower than guideline cut points (7 and 10 cm/s, respectively), whereas E/e' a
44 y values of 96-97% showed that the developed cut-points accurately detected physical activity, and se
45 ng/ml increasingly appears arbitrary, but no cut-point achieves both high sensitivity and high specif
47 and clinical decision making over a range of cut points, alone and with cardiac troponin I (cTnI), in
56 al analysis with test/validation set-defined cut points and Kaplan-Meier estimated outcome measures o
57 lly, the Hubaux-Vos technique of calculating cut points and limits of detection from predication inte
58 eved using receiver operating characteristic cut points and logistic regression models derived from t
63 atients should not be based on the same eGFR cut points as for younger age groups and would benefit f
64 riately treat patients on either side of the cut-point as 2 homogenous risk groups, fail to incorpora
66 The optimal ELN threshold was defined as the cut-point associated with a 95% probability of identifyi
67 aracteristic analysis defined an optimal FFR cut point at >/=0.96; at this threshold, the sensitivity
68 nificantly superior survival differences for cut points at up to 40 LNs, always in favor of more LNs
69 , 95% CI: 0.61, 0.65); however there were no cut points at which sensitivity and specificity were bot
70 value of assessment data, independent of the cutting points, base rates, or particular application.
71 the reference laboratory (ALT > 43) and the cut point based on the 95th percentile of healthy subjec
73 ved risk discrimination over guideline-based cut points based on the integrated discrimination improv
74 epression--require that a somewhat arbitrary cut-point be chosen on a continuous scale of measurement
76 2000 and 2007-2008 except at the highest BMI cut point (BMI for age > or = 97th percentile) among all
77 ment methods are confounded by the choice of cutting points, by the base rates of the events, and by
79 atio, both as a continuous variable and as a cut point-categorized variable, was independent of all m
80 ates from this exploratory analysis with age cut-point chosen after trial completion should be viewed
81 portion of women predicted to meet the 1.66% cut point commonly used to determine eligibility for bre
86 , our analysis suggests that the optimal age cut point depends profoundly on the morbidity of the tre
88 and the clinically motivated 99th percentile cut point detected a significant association at 1q32 (rs
90 lower for all dichotomizations tested using cut-points (e.g. mRS 1; 6.8%+/-2.89; overall p<0.001).
93 ounts (>2%), as well as to determine whether cut points existed that would maximize the sensitivity a
96 ge, 0-1,120 versus 1.3, 0-750; P < 0.001); a cut point for a S/N ratio of 5.0 correctly identified 44
100 or the CASPAR Study Group criteria, the best cut point for classification remained a score of >/= 3 a
103 regression was used to determine the optimal cut point for each dual-energy CT delta to predict disea
105 mous cells of undetermined significance as a cut point for referral resulted in 77.7% sensitivity and
108 ver operating characteristic analysis showed cut points for baseline R5-20 (1.5 cm H(2)O . L(-1) . s)
109 ity were defined using age- and sex-specific cut points for BMI as recommended by the International O
110 ting characteristics curves, and the optimal cut points for both tests (relative light units [RLU]/po
112 tic regression established optimal predicted cut points for cognitive status classification (</= 28 =
113 t vs. non-dominant wrist, thus, we developed cut points for dominant wrist based on ENMO to classify
114 010 American Diabetes Association diagnostic cut points for glycated hemoglobin and microvascular out
115 proportion of individuals exceeding clinical cut points for high LDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol
117 ears old), we identified MONW women based on cut points for insulin sensitivity (normal = glucose dis
123 itivity and cancer detection rate, while the cut points for specificity, recall, and PPV(1) and PPV(2
124 which occurs because experts have different cut points for the amounts of vascular abnormality requi
126 young people, however low muscular strength cut points for the detection of high metabolic risk in L
128 bias for each expert consistent with unique cut points for the diagnosis of plus disease and preplus
132 l in the validation set: Based on an optimal cut-point for a negative predictive value of 0.97, deriv
133 or uncertainty, rather than a single, binary cut-point for assigning benign and deleterious evidence.
137 C) was 0.79 for the RDQ, and the optimum RDQ cut-point for identifying TS was 3.18 (sensitivity, 63.2
139 uals who are insulin resistant is to use the cut-points for either triglyceride concentration or the
142 nsulin secretion below the 1st percentile of cut-points (for parents) or below the 10th percentile (f
143 e minimal and suggest 19 ELNs as the optimal cut-points, for evaluating quality of lymph node examina
148 System (BI-RADS) category 3 was used as the cut point (from 90% to 94%; 95% confidence interval [CI]
149 y 97.1%) but moderately good rule-out value (cut-point >31.8; negative predictive value 80.0%).
150 to have first-phase insulin secretion above cut-points (>1st percentile for parents, >10th percentil
151 (using the International Diabetes Federation cut-points [>/=80 cm for women and >/=94 cm for men]) we
157 idence interval, 0.65-0.95]), but above this cut point, higher levels conferred greater risk (hazard
159 associated with poor OS (>25(th) percentile cut-point, HR = 2.01, 95%CI = 1.33-3.05) and higher C3M/
162 allenge the appropriateness of a patient age cut point in current staging systems for PTC and argue f
165 se Control/American Heart Association hs-CRP cut points in such a population remain relatively unexpl
167 point in the medial temporal region and two cut points in the temporoparietal region were identified
169 t gain initiating examinations when the risk cut point is surpassed), e-ROP IMAGING (trained reader g
172 lity as a rule-in test for smear positivity (cut-point </=20.2; sensitivity 32.3%, specificity 97.1%)
176 valid and population-specific accelerometer cut-points may improve the classification of physical ac
177 , regardless of day or modified Rankin Scale cut point (mean odds ratio 12.51, range [6.01, 22.56] fo
178 the Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status cut point of </=28, we defined 4 groups of cognitive cha
183 ulations of women, but using the traditional cut point of 2 or more resulted in low sensitivities (38
185 with NT-proBNP levels above the prespecified cut point of 389 pg/mL were at a markedly increased risk
188 o-treat analysis using the prespecified CrCl cut point of 50 mL/min and additional exploratory cut po
190 Risk score performance was compared with the cut point of 7c on the Functional Assessment Staging (FA
199 centile reference limit (0.04 microg/l), the cut point of the predecessor assay (0.1 microg/l), and 1
200 ne aminotransferase (ALT) elevation over the cut point of the reference laboratory (ALT > 43) and the
203 hologic parameters and poor OS, with optimal cut points of 26 ng/mL and 450 pg/mL, respectively.
204 unt were defined as high or low according to cut points of 3 mg/L, 14 mumol/L, and 9 x10(9)/L, respec
207 rical net reclassification improvement using cut points of less than 7.5% to 22.5% or greater was 0.2
210 was trichotomized using previously reported cut points of no dozing, some dozing, and significant do
211 based on previously established abnormality cut points of standardized uptake value ratio 1.48 (A) a
214 pplying the polymerase chain reaction with a cut-point of >or=421 to the second cohort resulted in a
215 vourable event; from a 60% reduction under a cut-point of 1.00 to a 79% reduction when the MPR cut-po
216 0.87, indicating very good discrimination; a cut-point of 37.1 mg/L best discriminated confirmed bact
222 an of C-peptide, instead of tertiles, as the cut-point of hyperinsulinaemia, a similar pattern of ass
224 iles of corrected creatinine clearance, with cut-points of 46.2, 63.1 and 81.5 ml/min per 72 kg.
229 A; for urinary LAM strip test, grade 1 and 2 cut-points performed similarly, irrespective of HIV stat
234 man partial correlation analyses, applying a cut-point (|r| >= 0.15) and Bonferroni correction (P < 1
235 and responsiveness of RCAT and to estimate a cut-point score and minimal important difference (MID).
238 nalyzed continuous or categorical (.71 ng/mL cut point) serum B-CTx in stepwise forward multivariate
240 o fall outside one or more of the identified cut points should be reviewed in the context of an overa
241 ose performance falls outside the identified cut points should be reviewed in the context of their sp
242 ression analysis using sex-specific quartile cut points, subjects in quartile 4 in comparison with qu
247 idelines recommend use of a cardiac troponin cut point that corresponds to the 99 th percentile of a
249 Examination scores at or below the screening cut point, the HR was 1.77 (95% CI, 0.74-4.23; P =.20) i
254 Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) or use of a cut point to define depression from standardized rating
257 eristic analysis determined the optimal BMPC cut point to predict for 1-year mortality in patients wi
258 time, the Panel cannot recommend a specific cut point to trigger a biopsy for men taking a 5-ARI.
261 ed model to develop an ordinal NEC score and cut points to develop a dichotomous case definition base
266 the curve of 0.648 (p < 0.001); the optimal cut-point to predict six-month mortality ranged from 5 t
268 d when treating stenoses below physiological cut points; treating stenoses with fractional flow reser
269 diagnostic test; however, they depend on the cut point used to define "positive" and "negative" test
270 milar findings were observed with 30-day PRU cut points used to define high on-treatment platelet rea
272 varies both by the prostate-specific antigen cut-point used and by the primary therapy employed.
274 in patients treated with beta-blockers, the cut point value of 14 mg x kg(-1) x min(-1) for referral
276 ce of sustained weight loss, and of baseline cut-point values of FINDRISC score, fasting plasma gluco
280 ce of LDL-C discordance as defined by median cut points was 11.6%, 18.9%, and 24.3% for NHDL-C, apoB,
283 Decreasing the value of MPR, at which a cut-point was taken, was associated with a progressively
284 CAGE questionnaire and the SAAST at standard cut-points was lowest for Mexican-American women (0.21 a
286 patients, and the residual risk after these cut points were 0.2% for low-risk, 5.0% for medium-risk,
289 h round of scoring, all expert radiologists' cut points were summarized into a mean, median, mode, an
291 ective sensitivity and specificity for these cut-points were 67%, 64%, and 57% and 71%, 68%, and 85%.
293 best markers of insulin resistance; optimal cut-points were identified and analyzed for predictive p
294 ty varies considerably with new and standard cut-points, which makes it impractical to use the new on
300 physician's performance falling outside the cut points would result in a recommendation to consider