ライフサイエンスコーパス: cutoff value

1 using 50% of a remote control segment as the cutoff value.

2 o determine the myocardial enhancement ratio cutoff value.

3 ularly with respect to the aortic valve area cutoff value.

4 ant in 47% with the known FFR, using 0.80 as cutoff value.

5 only, without the requirement of a distance cutoff value.

6 y segments and the FFR value is close to the cutoff value.

7 ecificity of detection to vary with positive cutoff value.

8 are defined with an 83% nucleotide identity cutoff value.

9 are defined with an 84% nucleotide identity cutoff value.

10 e standard, sonographer blinding status, and cutoff value.

11 mV is more accurate than previously reported cutoff values.

12 erating characteristic analysis to calculate cutoff values.

13 erating characteristic analysis to calculate cutoff values.

14 lternative pairs of uniform and sex-specific cutoff values.

15 ty, which can be improved by using optimized cutoff values.

16 curve was used to calculate optimal referral cutoff values.

17 spectively, which is well below the clinical cutoff values.

18 s for each blood marker based on recommended cutoff values.

19 s curves were generated to determine optimal cutoff values.

20 nes of various material and molecular-weight cutoff values.

21 by Cohen's kappa coefficient with different cutoff values.

22 With the use of the uniform cutoff value, 127 women (14.5%) and 345 men (18.6%) rece

23 value, 42.92 pg/mL), and cathelicidin LL-37 (cutoff value, 3221.01 pg/mL) is presented with a sensiti

24 sed on CSF concentrations of interleukin 13 (cutoff value, 37.26 pg/mL), vascular endothelial growth

25 bited 80.5% sensitivity for the same cohort (cutoff value, 40 mg of antigen-specific antibodies [mgA]

26 pg/mL), vascular endothelial growth factor (cutoff value, 42.92 pg/mL), and cathelicidin LL-37 (cuto

27 Numeric cutoff values (5 cm for diameters and 65 cm(3) for volum

28 n) had the best overall predictive accuracy (cutoff value, 50.37; 94.9% sensitivity, 91.7% specificit

29 se in the fraction of CD14(+)/CD16(-) cells (cutoff value, 94.0%).

30 Rounded cutoff values above the limit of detection may not have

31 AUROC (pAUROC) >= specificities 90 and 95%, cutoff values and sensitivities at specificities 90 and

32 vised classifier converged with previous PET cutoff values and the established CSF Abeta1-42 cutoff l

33 Tumors were classified using predefined cutoff values, and all were correctly identified in blin

34 for the detection of AVS selectivity at all cutoff values, and for all ratios, the cutoff value of a

35 that are sufficient to reach a predetermined cutoff value are considered invalid and discarded.

36 Currently applied UV cutoff values are based on studies that lacked epicardia

37 c curve identified >15.5 mm as the best size cutoff value (area under the curve 0.747).

38 ntly higher specificity (P<.0001) than sIgE (cutoff value at 0.35 IU/mL) and the specificity was not

39 For asthma and hay fever, SPT (cutoff value at 3 mm) had a significantly higher specifi

40 Levels of inflammatory markers under the cutoff value between postoperative days 3 and 5 ensure s

41 ponemal signal strength ratio values above a cutoff value can be used in lieu of repeat treponemal te

42 Ideally, the accuracy of our target ROI and cutoff value could be further validated with PET-autopsy

43 LSI clinical breakpoints and epidemiological cutoff value criteria, as appropriate.

44 between CAR and prognosis, regardless of the cutoff value, cutoff value selection, treatment method,

45 Cutoff values define low- and high-risk groups and impro

46 The PET cutoff values derived from an unsupervised classifier co

47 Applying the optimal cutoff values, determined from this cohort, to populatio

48 7 ratio of 4.7 was identified as the optimal cutoff value discriminating sensitive and refractory pat

49 es selection of seed alignment sequences and cutoff values during protein family construction.

50 The calculated optimal cutoff values during the course of disease from the eval

51 This is also the epidemiological cutoff value (ECV) (ie, the end of the wild-type suscept

52 Using the epidemiological cutoff value (ECV) of 0.12 mug/ml for both caspofungin a

53 Using the epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) of 0.12 mug/ml for caspofungin and

54 For these combinations, epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) provide a methodology for categoriz

55 ithout fluconazole CBPs, the epidemiological cutoff values (ECVs) were used to differentiate wild-typ

56 with >15% of SPTRX3-positive spermatozoa, a cutoff value established by ROC analysis, had their chan

57 Stratifying by cutoff value for a positive test result or removal of di

58 iagnostic performance of FITs depends on the cutoff value for a positive test result.

59 ity testing and the biosensor assay when the cutoff value for attenuation of light transmission was 6

60 For prediagnostic cases below cutoff value for CA19-9, the combination with LRG1 and T

61 immunohistochemical staining and generate a cutoff value for differentiation between normal prostate

62 ic curves were used to determine a potential cutoff value for discharge home.

63 The optimal cutoff value for face mask-delivered noninvasive mechani

64 A cutoff value for global myocardial T2 of >/=60 ms provid

65 ocess was the automated determination of the cutoff value for group separation, which was dependent o

66 The optimal cutoff value for HMR was 2.5 mm Hg/cm per second.

67 The cutoff value for ICG Ingress was 106.23 AU with sensitiv

68 r operating characteristic analysis with the cutoff value for MA of 65 mm or greater returned area un

69 basis of ROC curves, the most discriminative cutoff value for MTV values was an MTV threshold of 60%

70 tribution, the estimation of the optimal PRU cutoff value for predicting clinical outcome, and the id

71 Using a cutoff value for proadrenomedullin taken 6 hours after a

72 aracteristic analysis identified the optimal cutoff value for proven meningitis to be 66 pg/ml (sensi

73 n splines were used to determine the optimal cutoff value for separating transcripts with high and lo

74 ered with histology to determine the optimal cutoff value for strut coverage by OCT which was defined

75 election of a region of interest (ROI) and a cutoff value for the automated classification of subject

76 g characteristic curve analysis, the optimal cutoff value for the composite endpoint was PRU >/=234 (

77 ction of mortality, assessed the appropriate cutoff value for the dichotomized score, and compared th

78 The cutoff value for the extensively validated 30% of positi

79 The cutoff value for the highest SUVmax of (18)F-FDG aiming

80 A data-driven cutoff value for the ratio of septal apical to basal LSs

81 n of an optimal target ROI and an associated cutoff value for the separation of subjects into the Abe

82 elded an optimal mean fluorescence intensity cutoff value for tumor detection of 5,775 (sensitivity o

83 intermediate-, or high-risk groups based on cutoff values for 2 of the following: NAFLD fibrosis sco

84 ensitivity for CRC improved with lower assay cutoff values for a positive test result (for example, 0

85 The goal of this study was to determine cutoff values for absolute MBF and to evaluate the diagn

86 ties were used to identify treatment-related cutoff values for cerebellar ICH.

87 The best cutoff values for circulating BMP-9 to predict MetS was

88 akpoints and, more recently, epidemiological cutoff values for clinically relevant fungal pathogens.

89 (SPE based method), which are lower than the cutoff values for confirmative conclusions regarding coc

90 analysis to determine the best symptom score cutoff values for detection of remission.

91 sCD48 optimal cutoff values for differentiating asthma from health wer

92 Optimal cutoff values for distinguishing advanced fibrosis were

93 ults in a large data set define and optimize cutoff values for early diagnosis of molecular relapse.

94 Youden cutoff values for F>=F2, F>=F3, and F=F4 were 8.2 kPa, 9

95 Cutoff values for fibrosis stages >/=F1, >/=F2, >/=F3, a

96 Cutoff values for FISH with the pancreatobiliary probes

97 e terms, but there are no uniformly accepted cutoff values for hemodynamically significant CAD.

98 ularization decisions based on either binary cutoff values for iFR and Pd/Pa or hybrid strategies inc

99 Binary cutoff values for iFR and Pd/Pa result in misclassificat

100 uction >/=1.4%LV were identified as the best cutoff values for MACE prediction.

101 T1 cutoff values for oedematous versus necrotic myocardium

102 The cutoff values for optimal identification of significant

103 Cutoff values for patient outcome were determined using

104 Cutoff values for RA area were significantly different i

105 rees of unreliability, instead of relying on cutoff values for reliability indices.

106 Youden cutoff values for S>=S1, S>=S2, and S>=S3 were 302 dB/m,

107 ETATION: Our findings challenge the proposed cutoff values for spirometry, the order in which the lun

108 The cutoff values for SSI and FibroScan for staging fibrosis

109 Optimized cutoff values for subclinical keratoconus increased the

110 max (bSUVmax) and HT risk was assessed using cutoff values for SUVmax >10 and >20.

111 Therefore, 2 different cutoff values for the age groups 4-10 and 11-18 were cal

112 tic curves were used to identify the optimal cutoff values for the textural features and TLG.

113 r studies are needed to evaluate the correct cutoff values for these ages.

114 ation is needed of new age- and sex-specific cutoff values for this assay.

115 nfections to validate the test and determine cutoff values for use in a cascading diagnostic algorith

116 r curve analysis was used to select critical cutoff values for use in clinical settings in which a ba

117 After successful internal validation of the cutoff values generated by the training cohort for DFS (

118 Use of a fat fraction cutoff value greater than 1.8% yielded a sensitivity of

119 lysis indicated that the NCAR cylinder test (cutoff value >/= 0.875 D) was the best test for screenin

120 dictive value for both tests was 95% using a cutoff value >/=1 ISU/l with poor corresponding sensitiv

121 Using the manufacturer's cutoff value (>/=80 pg/ml), the sensitivity and specific

122 esponse to TMVR after 6 months of follow-up (cutoff value, >/= 6.4%; area under the curve, 0.81; P =

123 Cutoff values, guidelines, and clinical recommendations

124 All higher rounded cutoff values had sensitivities less than 98.0%.

125 iac arrest, but the relevance of recommended cutoff values has been questioned due to the lack of a s

126 Optimized cutoff values identified subjects with celiac disease on

127 The use of an optimized cutoff value improved pneumococcal etiology determinatio

128 ls of hs-cTnT were already above the uniform cutoff value in 427 patients (sensitivity, 91.3% [95% CI

129 of 5.95 mo were determined to be the optimal cutoff values in the prediction of a positive (11)C-chol

130 ategorical measure using the 85th percentile cutoff value) in controls and rates of cognitive decline

131 These parameters need to be considered when cutoff values indicating the need for treatment or even

132 rebrospinal fluid (CSF), and the appropriate cutoff value is unknown.

133 t (for example, 0.89 [CI, 0.80 to 0.95] at a cutoff value less than 20 microg/g vs. 0.70 [CI, 0.55 to

134 best predictive value for ICU mortality with cutoff values less than or equal to 1.25 arbitrary perfu

135 wice: once using the uniform 99th percentile cutoff value level of 14 ng/L and once using sex-specifi

136 When assessed using categorical cutoff values, LNR had a somewhat better prognostic perf

137 ve value to discriminate patients with LVNC (cutoff value <5.8 degrees ; sensitivity, 82%; specificit

138 revalence, negative predictive values of CLQ cutoff values (men, 0.99 [573 of 582]; women, 0.97 [745

139 However, new cutoff values might be needed to differentiate subclinic

140 ns (16%; P = 0.78) by pyrosequencing using a cutoff value of >/= 2.0%, and at 125 codons (28%; P < 0.

141 Using a score cutoff value of >/=1.8, the Biotyper correctly identifie

142 6% specificity for SPA incompleteness with a cutoff value of >10 seconds and a 59% sensitivity and 60

143 A cutoff value of >40 sfu/2.5 x 10(5) cells for either IE-

144 a 59% sensitivity and 60% specificity with a cutoff value of >5 seconds.

145 ed for elevated versus normal levels using a cutoff value of >7.0 mmol/l.

146 Of 3 cutoff values, the cutoff value of >=40 mum yielded the best sensitivity (9

147 estionnaire (RBDSQ) and dichotomized using a cutoff value of >=6.

148 Detection of a carbapenemase gene at a C(T) cutoff value of </=35 was culture confirmed in 23/24 (96

149 Using a higher C(T) cutoff value of <=40, 90% sensitivity was achieved for u

150 A TAG320 cutoff value of -15.1 HU/10 mm as previously described w

151 a weight for length z score (WLZ) below the cutoff value of -3 SDs from the median as per the WHO 20

152 A cutoff value of -47 provided sensitivity of 92.0%, speci

153 Use of a cutoff value of -80 to differentiate edematous vertebral

154 Using a cutoff value of 0.3 ng/mL for PCT and 20 mg/L for CRP, n

155 A PCI cutoff value of 0.32 had 100% sensitivity and 45% specif

156 The ROC curve analysis identified an optimal cutoff value of 0.334/min for K(trans) to predict HT ris

157 cocaine in hair was found to comply with the cutoff value of 0.5 ng/mg recommended by the Society of

158 ount [HC] and low-count [LC]-MBL) based on a cutoff value of 0.5 x 10(9)/L clonal B cells.

159 its/(final-initial hematocrit+0.01)), with a cutoff value of 0.75.

160 Using an FFR cutoff value of 0.80, the sensitivity, specificity, and

161 predicting pressure wire-derived FFR using a cutoff value of 0.80.

162 An [18F]-AV-1451 SUVR cutoff value of 1.19 (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 86

163 The use of an initial cholesterol cutoff value of 1.35 MoM (95th percentile) plus a mutati

164 pecificity were 67% and 77% (p=0.003) at the cutoff value of 1.5 for b=600 s/mm(2), and 79% and 62% (

165 The use of a prespecified cholesterol cutoff value of 1.53 multiples of the median (MoM, corre

166 lammatory response syndrome criteria average cutoff value of 1.72 had 51% sensitivity and 77% specifi

167 A cutoff value of 1.8 D for ACA had 90.2% sensitivity and

168 00 s/mm(2), and 79% and 62% (p=0.004) at the cutoff value of 1.99 for b=1000 s/mm(2) as regards the d

169 Against the composite diagnostic standard, a cutoff value of 10,000 copies/ml for good-quality sputum

170 An LTB4 cutoff value of 11 pg/mL EBC provides 100% sensitivity a

171 al = 0.996-1.000, p < 0.001) with an optimal cutoff value of 11.5%.

172 A cutoff value of 138 pg/mL provided 100% sensitivity and

173 Using GAM, the cutoff value of 14.7 mug/L for pi-GST showed the best pe

174 on of relapse in 77% of patients exceeding a cutoff value of 150 RUNX1-RUNX1T1 TLs in BM, and in 84%

175 d difference of calcium volume score, with a cutoff value of 2.5.

176 A cutoff value of 2.7 ng/mL separated the 2 groups.

177 00 s/mm(2), and 86% and 61% (p=0.003) at the cutoff value of 2.9 for b=1000 s/mm(2) as regrads the di

178 The incidence of malignancy was 88% above a cutoff value of 20 HU in the ten (18)F-FDG-equivocal lym

179 A cutoff value of 20 points identified patients in remissi

180 At a cutoff value of 22.3 kPa, sensitivity, specificity, posi

181 ghest agreement (kappa=.44) was found with a cutoff value of 3 and 5 mm for SPT, and 3.5 IU/mL for sI

182 At the cutoff value of 3 mm for SPT and 0.35 IU/mL for sIgE, SP

183 a were also reviewed according to a clinical cutoff value of 3 mug/mL.

184 At the model-predicted cutoff value of 3,000 ng/mL, sensitivity was 100%, speci

185 pecificity were 78% and 79% (p=0.001) at the cutoff value of 3.1 for b=600 s/mm(2), and 86% and 61% (

186 T SUV max with a cutoff value of 3.2 is the best prognostic indicator.

187 T SUV max with a cutoff value of 3.2 was the most significant prognostic

188 g prostate cancer development, identifying a cutoff value of 3.25 ng/mL with a sensitivity and a spec

189 OMA-IR values as a continuous variable and a cutoff value of 3.8 confirmed the association between re

190 al right ventricular scar, an endocardial UV cutoff value of 3.9 mV is more accurate than previously

191 ejection proportional regression analysis, a cutoff value of 33.7% was optimal, with a sensitivity of

192 liver transplantation, we identified an SMI cutoff value of 48 cm/m to predict post-transplant morta

193 ith CLL, from which it is discriminated by a cutoff value of 5 x 10(9)/L circulating clonal B cells.

194 esion revascularization at 1-year follow-up (cutoff value of 5.1 mm(2); P=0.05).

195 A cutoff value of 50 points identified patients in remissi

196 A cutoff value of 51.0 kPa at 4 cm proximal to the medial

197 With application of a low troponin I cutoff value of 6 ng/L, the rule-out algorithm showed a

198 Thus, a cutoff value of 600 U/L was utilized.

199 ormed similarly to the previously identified cutoff value of 8,000 copies/ml for NP swab lytA rtPCR (

200 A TLF10 cutoff value of 8,000 discriminated survivors from nonsu

201 With a cutoff value of 84% on day 4 for the diagnosis of alloge

202 Considering %NVQ only, a cutoff value of 90% correctly categorized 28 of 30 patie

203 5% CI, 0.73-0.95]; P < .001) revealed, for a cutoff value of 91.13 milliseconds, a sensitivity of 78.

204 t all cutoff values, and for all ratios, the cutoff value of at least 2 has the best sensitivity for

205 0 to 14 mL/min per kg were dichotomized by a cutoff value of BNP of 506 pg/mL, those with BNP<506 pg/

206 A cutoff value of CAP of 249 dB/m rules in liver steatosis

207 In addition, we aimed to identify a cutoff value of Cn for outcome prediction in this settin

208 The cutoff value of DT for prediction of 1-y survival was 55

209 e CRYSTAL and OPUS trials, respectively, the cutoff value of ETS >/= 20% (v < 20%) identified patient

210 teristic analysis indicated that the optimal cutoff value of FFR for demonstrating reversible ischemi

211 7] at 24 hours after inclusion by applying a cutoff value of greater than or equal to 0.6 (ng/mL)/1,0

212 activator receptor performed best by using a cutoff value of greater than or equal to 8.53 ng/mL (sen

213 with cfDNA at 24 h concentrations above the cutoff value of healthy patients (>850 ng/ml) had a sign

214 assess the clinical implications and optimal cutoff value of high platelet reactivity (HPR) in patien

215 Using a cutoff value of IP-10 >/=44.2 pg/mL, the model identifie

216 idence interval [CI]: 1.302-25.543), and the cutoff value of level of serum LDL-C was 3.08 mmol/l.

217 present study was to assess the appropriate cutoff value of neointimal thickness of stent strut cove

218 an accuracy of 0.79 (0.66-0.93), the optimal cutoff value of pre-LT BNP serum level to predict ICU mo

219 6 (CI 0.91-1.0) for gland distortion, with a cutoff value of six distorted glands yielding a sensitiv

220 The optimal cutoff value of these parameters was defined using a rec

221 A cutoff value of urinary CCL2: Cr 34.8 ng/mmol yielded a

222 The optimal cutoff value of water uptake distinguishing stroke onset

223 was based upon a standard normal transformed cutoff value of z = 3 for chromosome 21 and z = 3.95 for

224 rsus FFR </=0.80 was calculated using binary cutoff values of </=0.90 for iFR and </=0.92 for Pd/Pa,

225 . 68%, respectively, P = 0.02), with optimal cutoff values of 1.86 mL/min/g and 2.30, respectively.

226 Additional cutoff values of 15 and 40 optimized sensitivity (>0.80)

227 urately classified ATB and LTBI status, with cutoff values of 18%, 60%, and 5% for CD38+IFN-gamma+, H

228 isk score weighted by the OR was built using cutoff values of 2.2 or greater for international normal

229 n 20 microg/g vs. 0.70 [CI, 0.55 to 0.81] at cutoff values of 20 to 50 microg/g) but with a correspon

230 n and were dichotomized with 80th percentile cutoff values of 268 and 1703, respectively.

231 sBT measurements higher than the cutoff values of 5.7 and 14.5 were associated with 50% a

232 Screening cutoff values of 8-OHdG >50 ng/mg of creatinine or urine

233 alysis, demographic factors, glycohemoglobin cutoff values of 8.0%, 8.5%, and 9.0%, and mean glycohem

234 icity (area under the curve [AUC] of 1) with cutoff values of 80 and 60, respectively.

235 The sensitivity and specificity for the cutoff values of at least 3, at least 2, and at least 1.

236 teristic curve analysis evidenced predictive cutoff values of bronchial neutrophils and nasal/bronchi

237 Optimal cutoff values of CTCA-derived parameters were determined

238 The cutoff values of LSM were selected based on the accuracy

239 antibody (multiple regression analysis), and cutoff values of measures for 2 titers of anti-Dsg with

240 Second, to identify age-appropriate cutoff values of ONSD to be used in the diagnosis of int

241 We investigated whether two widely accepted cutoff values of PaO2/FIO2 and positive end-expiratory p

242 The best cutoff values of PET-derived parameters discriminating b

243 The optimal cutoff values of SUVmax and TNR were 4.8 and 2.0, respec

244 The best cutoff values of the absolute change in pulse pressure v

245 Different cutoff values of the degree of circumferential angle clo

246 operating characteristic (ROC) curve optimal cutoff value (P = .001, P = .018, P = .032, P = .008, an

247 for combined ratios (sensitivity at the >/=2 cutoff value: P < .0001 for combined ratio vs Ca/Cp rati

248 This cutoff value performed similarly to the previously ident

249 the range from 0 to 50 ng/mL, covering most cutoff values proposed in previous studies.

250 , Aa/Ap ratio, and combined ratios for three cutoff values reported in the literature.

251 The AUC, sensitivity, specificity and the cutoff value, respectively, for differentiating low- fro

252 d prognosis, regardless of the cutoff value, cutoff value selection, treatment method, country, sampl

253 For MBF, these cutoff values showed a sensitivity, specificity, and acc

254 We further identified a saliva viral load cutoff value that reliably distinguished between true-po

255 Of 3 cutoff values, the cutoff value of >=40 mum yielded the

256 then determined goodness-of-fit and optimal cutoff values through receiver operator characteristic a

257 alue increased above 95% when increasing the cutoff value to 5.41 kUA /l.

258 The best cutoff value to differentiate between asymptomatic volun

259 group over miR-22/29a group could serve as a cutoff value to distinguish normal cervix from CIN and f

260 ss >=40 mum by OCT yielded the most accurate cutoff value to identify stent strut coverage validated

261 ysis identified 0.65 mmol/L cFFA as the best cutoff value to predict adequate (18)F-FDG uptake suppre

262 racteristic analysis showed that the optimal cutoff value to predict lung tissue recruitment for the

263 ability of the proposed endoscopic response cutoff value to predict midterm CFREM should be validate

264 Cutoff values to distinguish between physiologic and pat

265 Optimal cutoff values to predict flow-limiting coronary lesion w

266 the new method is superior to the 300 ng/mL cutoff values used by the only other portable analysis s

267 This study aimed to define endocardial UV cutoff values using computed tomography-derived fat info

268 The CLQ cutoff value was 0.16 for men and 0.56 for women.

269 The cutoff value was 15.0% for EW and 3.7% for OVM.

270 To dichotomize the population, an hENT1 cutoff value was defined using primary PDAC samples from

271 mor detection, a mean fluorescence intensity cutoff value was determined from the formalin-fixed tiss

272 The so-derived cutoff value was validated in a prospective cohort from

273 Under different coverage cutoff values, we compare four algorithms and calculate

274 and 60% decrease from baseline at week 10 as cutoff values, we determined that the respective sensiti

275 The optimal cutoff values were 2.3 and 2.5 for hyperemic MBF and myo

276 the same method was applied to SUVrange, the cutoff values were 5.8 for (18)F-FDG (specificity, 71%)

277 For HER2 GCN, the optimal cutoff values were 9.4, 10.0, and 9.5, respectively (P =

278 When lower cutoff values were applied, it appeared that subjects at

279 g the resolution of OCT is 10 to 20 mum, the cutoff values were assessed at >=20, >=40, and >=60 mum.

280 The following cutoff values were associated with low BDI: biliary bica

281 Epidemiological cutoff values were calculated and determined to be 256 m

282 Laboratory test cutoff values were calculated based on receiver operatin

283 For this reason, 2 different cutoff values were calculated for age groups 4-10 and 11

284 Burn size cutoff values were determined for mortality, burn wound

285 Cutoff values were determined using the receiver-operati

286 The PET cutoff values were established using a mixture-modeling

287 No significant cutoff values were found for SUVmax or SUVmean at univar

288 Optimal PSV cutoff values were less than 67 cm/sec and 39 cm/sec for

289 Antibody assay cutoff values were selected to provide 100% diagnostic s

290 Different cutoff values were set for endoscopic response based on

291 Cutoff values were then determined by using Youden's Ind

292 ession tree analysis, combined LV EF and LAS cutoff values were used to stratify patients into three

293 for quantitative lesion differentiation and cutoff values were validated in an independent data set.

294 ach study (mean vitamin B-12 insufficiency / cutoff value), which internally corrected for geographic

295 n index, 30 was determined to be the optimal cutoff value with a sensitivity 0.62 and specificity of

296 ed likelihood ratios of result intervals and cutoff values with 100% negative (NPV) and positive (PPV

297 Cutoff values with 100% positive and negative predictive

298 High NSE cutoff values with false positive rates </=5% and tight

299 most of the changes took place close to the cutoff values, with only few exceptions of overall left

300 on provided the following optimum diagnostic cutoff values: women 0.36 U/ml (area under curve [AUC]: