ライフサイエンスコーパス: disagreement

1 eeting after polling (79.0% agreement, 21.0% disagreement).

2 ta often cited as a potential reason for the disagreement.

3 nd providing a range of outcomes in areas of disagreement.

4 is analysis to define areas of agreement and disagreement.

5 stematic and blinded process for reconciling disagreement.

6 nsus group) met to discuss all CT scans with disagreement.

7 les for establishing consensus and agreement/disagreement.

8 FR or Pd/Pa will result in similar levels of disagreement.

9 ine Serum Albumin (BSA), showed considerable disagreement.

10 rograms are the focus of often deep partisan disagreement.

11 etastable phase, despite their compositional disagreement.

12 s with an emphasis on areas of agreement and disagreement.

13 nce is sought to minimize a quadratic weight disagreement.

14 RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to quantify disagreement.

15 haracteristics and image quality on observer disagreement.

16 presence of acute DVT and a third in case of disagreement.

17 liver segments, significantly influenced the disagreement.

18 studies that were cited as evidence of this disagreement.

19 Consensus was reached in cases of disagreement.

20 the theory from those that represent genuine disagreement.

21 , there are some factors causing interreader disagreement.

22 less likely to alter opinions in the face of disagreement.

23 isting research and areas of uncertainty and disagreement.

24 d cognitive reflection explain much of moral disagreement.

25 nts that allow human groups to resolve moral disagreement.

26 he asymmetric treatment of messages during a disagreement.

27 nd identification of factors associated with disagreement.

28 s continues to be limited by interlaboratory disagreement.

29 ns of our framework, and explore substantial disagreements.

30 iatives to avoid unforeseen consequences and disagreements.

31 There were no disagreements.

32 the NEI- and TRI-based EmRs have significant disagreements.

33 ng a data extraction form and met to resolve disagreements.

34 ials and there is no reliable way to predict disagreements.

35 h study and a third resolved study inclusion disagreements.

36 A reading supervisor adjudicated disagreements.

37 teristics; a third investigator resolved any disagreements.

38 The following represents our major disagreements.

39 s of species); and (iii) caused even greater disagreement (20-60%) in a downstream conservation appli

40 I, -0.10% to 0.04% points; or rate of reader disagreements, 20,471 [3.43%] vs 20,793 [3.48%]; differe

41 esponse rate) rated the indicators (1=strong disagreement, 9=strong agreement) as targeting important

42 x 160 nodules = 4480 possible agreements or disagreements), a discordant nodule classification was f

43 However, there is wide disagreement about how to define teaching, and how to in

44 lidity of the concept, there is considerable disagreement about its utility for explaining the increa

45 concept is universally agreed, there remains disagreement about operationalizing aspects of it, such

46 However, there is substantial disagreement about the extent to which myosin II drives

47 There is disagreement about the filament assembly mechanism of Vo

48 There is also disagreement about the role of ICU nurses in palliative

49 itive behaviors, though there is substantive disagreement about the specific purpose of these DA sign

50 l mass of haemoglobin can be identified; and disagreement about the validity of the level 1 evidence

51 Because there is considerable disagreement about whether contemporary wind trends supp

52 ine is used predominantly, yet there remains disagreement about whether hypertonic saline or mannitol

53 with the potential to produce them, there is disagreement about whether they really are a problem for

54 mice use to identify odors have led to some disagreements about odor-processing mechanics, including

55 igh variability in affinity measurements and disagreements about positive interactions between publis

56 ave endorsed a seven-step process to resolve disagreements about potentially inappropriate treatments

57 Disagreements about the phenotype of estrogen receptor b

58 posed 2-step framework helps resolve current disagreements about the role of environmental forces in

59 mendations to prevent and manage intractable disagreements about the use of such treatments in intens

60 Disagreements about the value of the utility discount ra

61 ve constraints but cannot settle fundamental disagreements about what those constraints are.

62 has proven equally contentious, with ongoing disagreements about whether echolocating bats are paraph

63 Implicit in the long-standing disagreements about whether humans' fundamental nature i

64 es for which all SNP loci were scored had no disagreements across the three replicates (except one lo

65 In cases of disagreement, agencies most often (71%) underestimated e

66 Of 100 CT scans, there was disagreement among all 9 reviewers and the radiology rep

67 ic input, and 24% (n = 16) of cases involved disagreement among consultants.

68 We found a substantial color-code disagreement among devices in patients with relapsing-re

69 Consensus agreement or disagreement among Latin American experts was reached fo

70 Key processes where assumptions caused disagreement among models included nutrient limitations

71 esized controversial stimuli to maximize the disagreement among models which employed different archi

72 ative thresholds may be helpful to arbitrate disagreement among raters or in borderline cases.

73 cal incident analysis, 62-68% had intra-PICU disagreement among respondents.

74 There is still disagreement among studies with respect to the magnitude

75 augmented approach for cases where there was disagreement among the classifiers further improved accu

76 Broadly, there is disagreement among the proposed mechanisms about whether

77 4) Are there disagreements among teams and family?

78 For cases where the classifiers were in disagreement, an independent board-certified cardiothora

79 Disagreement and conflict are a fact of social life.

80 conducted decades ago described substantial disagreement and errors in physicians' angiographic inte

81 The relationship between disagreement and nodule morphologic characteristics was

82 sources, and we present and discuss areas of disagreement and other caveats.

83 Further, disagreement and redundancy across basic terms limit the

84 Studies have suggested that this disagreement and the poor commutability of standards may

85 y 2 blinded reviewers with an overreader for disagreements and committee review for remaining discrep

86 d by RFA and DCA devices, which could create disagreements and miscommunication among dentistry profe

87 In cases of diagnostic disagreement, appropriate follow-up was suggested.

88 Sources of disagreement are highlighted, exposing the thought proce

89 The major disagreements are with the level of blood pressure defin

90 eptics of moral knowledge to show that moral disagreement arises from non-rational origins.

91 trasts in thresholds for acceptable risk and disagreement as to how to define endangered species reco

92 There is disagreement as to whether Maintenance of Certification

93 There was marked disagreement as to whether the morbidity and mortality c

94 However, there has been disagreement as to whether this dysfunction reflects a p

95 een a mixed and pure genotype call, and full disagreement at individual alleles in only 0 to 3% of re

96 bgroup in an online social network to find a disagreement beneficial and what that benefit could be.

97 We examined agreement and disagreement between 2 biomarkers of beta-amyloid (Abeta

98 Disagreement between alternative and reference laborator

99 However, disagreement between archaeozoological studies and ancie

100 There was a high disagreement between assessments of all clinicians and s

101 There was disagreement between clinical examination and the consen

102 Previous studies demonstrate substantial disagreement between clinical registry and administrativ

103 Filtering the rules based on the extent of disagreement between clinician-assessed risk and empiric

104 This dispute reflects a larger disagreement between cognitive neuroscience and ethology

105 els can be equivalent, and that the apparent disagreement between direct and indirect measurements ca

106 Disagreement between EC(50) values derived using the WHA

107 The significant disagreement between first and second readings for LSM a

108 In conclusion, we found substantial disagreement between information from the CMS Medical Ev

109 (AB, 55%; TC, 41%; AD, 46%) and the highest disagreement between kits (kappa value of 0.63).

110 e negative ignores the fact that much of the disagreement between liberals and conservatives is over

111 for amino-acid insertion have been made, yet disagreement between most experimental and theoretical s

112 Disagreement between observers was found in four cases o

113 While the disagreement between observers was recorded in two cases

114 There is substantial disagreement between OCT and FFA findings in detecting a

115 n the Southern Hemisphere, and by persistent disagreement between paleo-data and models concerning th

116 utcomeMeasures: Frequency of IOP measurement disagreement between physicians and technicians, defined

117 Our results thus argue that the disagreement between SAXS and smFRET is statistically si

118 There is considerable disagreement between self-reported and claims-identified

119 However, there is disagreement between several published theories and expe

120 There is a substantial disagreement between SPT and sIgE for diagnosing allergi

121 There was disagreement between studies with regard to cardiac outp

122 icant changes were noted in the frequency of disagreement between technicians and physicians immediat

123 agreement, respectively, whereas the average disagreement between technicians and physicians was 25%

124 This finding suggests that the agreement or disagreement between the aligners' called INDEL and the

125 This finding eliminates some apparent disagreement between the computational results published

126 abdominal radiologist for examinations with disagreement between the original report and the researc

127 to 287 mug/m(3) Hg(0) in air), the relative disagreement between the two approaches ranged from (1.0

128 The disagreement between the two experiments is the SAXS-FRE

129 The level of disagreement between these data sources raises concerns

130 We also identify several aspects of disagreement between these empirical results and the pop

131 The disagreement between these patterns can be partly explai

132 Some studies have suggested a disagreement between these two methods, and little is kn

133 Significant disagreement between two readings was defined as >95% li

134 nions and cations are discussed and eventual disagreements between different sources are critically r

135 lude addressing sources of and legitimacy of disagreements between orthology calls, the context depen

136 ce', which helps us see where the biological disagreements between proponents of kin selection and gr

137 secondary outcomes were rates of recall and disagreements between readers.

138 Disagreements between reviewers abstracting and checking

139 different definitions, resulting in frequent disagreements between the two documents (i.e., different

140 and CALIOP data showed large aerosol profile disagreements, both random and systematic.

141 rd-dose mammograms (P < .001), with a larger disagreement by 1.56% in women with highly dense breast

142 Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluation

143 We resolved disagreements by consensus.

144 Most of the disagreements came in response to our claim that increas

145 Nevertheless, there remained significant disagreements, centered largely on the interpretation of

146 Disagreement concerning the underlying randomized contro

147 integrated remain unclear, with longstanding disagreement concerning whether integration is strictly

148 Consequently, disagreement continues about the neuropathological aspec

149 The disagreement could be due to uncertainties associated wi

150 Weighted kappa values, agreement and disagreement counts, and Krippendorff alpha reliability

151 ere to identify areas of broad agreement and disagreement, develop consensus, and determine future di

152 a similar time on a different day; complete disagreement did not occur.

153 greement was >=93% (kappa >= 0.66); complete disagreement did not occur.

154 s rule provides valuable intuition, there is disagreement even among experts as to how the quantities

155 and in individual river basins there can be disagreement even on the sign of change, indicating larg

156 n difficult with morphological characters as disagreement exists among researchers with character cho

157 on the same day; complete disagreement (ie, disagreement for all 3 tomographic features in an image)

158 oses were associated with the probability of disagreement for symptoms of blurry vision, pain or disc

159 ken within minutes on the same day; complete disagreement (ie, disagreement for all 3 tomographic fea

160 on among the consensus group, there remained disagreement in 10 cases (kappa = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.9

161 The DCNNs had disagreement in 13 of the 150 test cases, which were bli

162 athological diagnosis in 86.15% (n = 56) and disagreement in 13.85% (n = 9) of the cases (p < 0.007).

163 Disagreement in assessment was resolved by consensus dis

164 Because there is strong disagreement in climate predictions from different GCMs,

165 However, there is disagreement in how Reco will respond to future global c

166 to management; (ii) resulted in considerable disagreement in species classifications (12% and 5% for

167 The majority of disagreement in surveillance interval brought patients b

168 We hypothesized there would be significant disagreement in the diagnosis of a ventral hernia recurr

169 r secondary aim was to determine reasons for disagreement in the interpretation of CT scans.

170 ible are unknown, in part because there is a disagreement in the literature concerning whether corres

171 This discrepancy resolved a disagreement in the literature of a requirement for ATM

172 There is disagreement in the literature regarding the exact solva

173 ial brain, offers a different perspective on disagreement in trust in wider society, and motivates ne

174 The size of disagreement in VCDR correlated weakly with cup area in

175 tics at multi-signal GWAS loci can reconcile disagreements in colocalization classification between t

176 on and other factors, clinically significant disagreements in interpretation were uncommon and theref

177 shown an increasing level of agreement, but disagreements in some regions still persist, in part bec

178 sses and technical artifacts that led to the disagreements in the first place.

179 We suggest that earlier disagreements in the literature may reflect model misspe

180 Offspring characteristics associated with disagreement included male sex, northern rural residence

181 A disagreement index was then calculated, with values less

182 Disagreement is largest in model sensitivity to rising a

183 arisons at the grid cell level indicate that disagreement is mainly related to LULC type definitions

184 Thus, the only real disagreement is that the ACC/AHA guidelines maintain tha

185 ant in 31% of cases and yielded considerable disagreement (kappa = 0.177).

186 esponse covers three main dimensions of this disagreement: nature versus nurture, coherent theories v

187 structure in the gas-phase are oftentimes in disagreement not only within the discipline but also as

188 taken over the course of a morning; complete disagreement occurred in <=6% of images.

189 than the core region of a protein structure, disagreement of a model to the native needs to be evalua

190 ng CA indices remains limited, partly due to disagreement of different studies by using real physiolo

191 nization potential and isotope shifts, while disagreement of hyperfine structure constants indicates

192 onsensus has been reached, with a very large disagreement of the order of 2,000 K for the ICB tempera

193 The Bland-Altman analysis revealed levels of disagreement of up to 30 and 27 units for the ORI-Efron

194 double grading system, with adjudication of disagreements of two or more steps between duplicate gra

195 ter than one respondent (41%) had intra-PICU disagreement on all three key elements.

196 Most of their concerns stem from disagreement on data inclusion criteria and analysis, mi

197 methodology, which resolves a long-standing disagreement on defect structures and the mechanism of i

198 There is disagreement on how best to define and investigate fear.

199 s on the cell surface, however there is some disagreement on just how.

200 We also give voice to a friendly disagreement on oxidation states in these remarkable mol

201 ve clinicians' or surrogate decision makers' disagreement on setting a time limit.

202 However, there is disagreement on the impact of interventions at different

203 For three trials, there was disagreement on the number of randomized participants be

204 nodule categorization were mainly caused by disagreement on the size and presence of a solid compone

205 tality in the developing world, but there is disagreement on what policies can increase sanitation co

206 Despite years of study, fundamental disagreements on the extent and speed of mitochondrial C

207 This is at least partially due to disagreement over Lp(a) measurement methodologies, its p

208 Since the 19th century, there has been disagreement over the fundamental question of whether "e

209 There is disagreement over the mechanism of indole import and exp

210 There is also continuing disagreement over the more fundamental questions of whic

211 However, there is disagreement over the relative contribution of various m

212 Different diagnostic systems and disagreements over criteria have slowed progress in the

213 ased prioritization can sometimes exacerbate disagreements over priorities.

214 sis is incompletely understood and there are disagreements over the cells of origin.

215 th 16 financial officials, we found striking disagreements over the perceived risks of demonstrating

216 f future areas for protection is hampered by disagreements over what the ecological targets of conser

217 Analysis of disagreement patterns across all tasks suggest that blin

218 Gaps remain in data, and disagreements persist about the value of mechanistic mod

219 gnostic items and the reasons for diagnostic disagreement prevented this information from being used

220 Disagreement primarily occurred in the "nothing in bed"

221 r accounting for the influence of diagnostic disagreement, progression of hard tissue diagnoses in th

222 In part, this disagreement reflects secondary chemistry that can produ

223 There was a disagreement regarding imaging findings between CT and M

224 To date, there is disagreement regarding the correspondence, or lack there

225 Previous studies have shown disagreement regarding the mobility or immobility of fer

226 of key ingredients as helpful, but there was disagreement regarding the origin and structure of those

227 However, there is disagreement regarding the prevalence, timing, and neuro

228 However, there is a degree of empirical disagreement regarding the range of spatial frequency in

229 otor cortex are complex, and there is marked disagreement regarding which movement parameters are rep

230 on of villin in tuft cells there are several disagreements related to tuft cell lineage commitment an

231 sustained work over the last three decades, disagreements remain regarding the events that trigger t

232 ion has received increasing recognition, but disagreement remains about their function at the circuit

233 nt for annotation review and inter-annotator disagreement resolution to improve corpus quality.

234 extracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.

235 scored each rapid diagnostic test, with any disagreements resolved by a third.

236 independently screened by two reviewers and disagreements resolved by consensus or consultation with

237 easuring IOP using >2 and >3 mm Hg to define disagreement, respectively, whereas the average disagree

238 The disagreement stems from the lack of methods to determine

239 QWK progressively penalizes disagreements that exceed 1 level.

240 I argue that many of the contentious disagreements that exist today in the field in which I c

241 As there are repeated suggestions, although disagreement, that Levy walks have functional advantages

242 Among subjects showing the most disagreement, the 2 discordant groups had different prof

243 In case of disagreement, the final opinion was made by the third ra

244 to estimate, after accounting for diagnostic disagreement, the frequency of diagnostic progression an

245 In view of this disagreement, this study critically examined the validit

246 aters using the kappa statistic and resolved disagreements through iterative discussion.

247 We attribute this disagreement to incomplete platform counts and emission

248 op an explicit bound on the amount of weight disagreement under which the relaxation is guaranteed to

249 However, a more troubling disagreement underlies these debates: There's no consens

250 overly charitable to the argument that moral disagreement undermines moral knowledge.

251 further review by a third author in cases of disagreement until consensus was reached.

252 The main factor associated with disagreement was a Glasgow Coma Scale score between 10 a

253 The main factor associated with disagreement was a Glasgow Coma Scale score between 10 a

254 Disagreement was also recorded in only one case of aceta

255 The largest disagreement was between benefit-of-the-doubt-derived an

256 Disagreement was defined as a negative symptom report or

257 in 17% of patients' eyes, and this amount of disagreement was even higher when comparing physicians t

258 Disagreement was greater at IOPs greater than 20 mm Hg.

259 eement), in which the most frequent cause of disagreement was lung nodules.

260 Disagreement was most frequent between conclusions of ot

261 Stronger disagreement was observed when calculated energies of he

262 Disagreement was resolved by consensus.

263 To address the disagreement, we discuss possible novel pathways of ener

264 Studying the rules with greatest disagreement, we identified problems with the training d

265 Uncertainty and model disagreement were greatest in the Arctic and smallest in

266 Disagreements were addressed through discussion.

267 Disagreements were adjudicated by a third radiologist.

268 Disagreements were confined to PMR and SMD.

269 Disagreements were not systematically under- or overcate

270 dently reviewed and extracted relevant data; disagreements were reconciled by consensus.

271 All disagreements were resolved after discussion with a thir

272 e publications to determine eligibility, and disagreements were resolved by a third author.

273 sed on predetermined exclusion criteria, and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer.

274 Disagreements were resolved by discussion with another a

275 ages to identify specific signs of ischemia; disagreements were resolved in consensus with a third ga

276 Disagreements were resolved via consensus of all authors

277 Disagreements were reviewed with the principal investiga

278 A total of 163 disagreements were seen out of 801 observations (79.6% t

279 ycle is not totally disentangled, leading to disagreement whether this process induces lands to be a

280 Here we test the claim that such disagreements will become less important as conservation

281 Our results are in qualitative disagreement with all known theories of microphase separ

282 insurmountably high free energy barriers and disagreement with calculated (18)O KIEs.

283 ing a web-based survey assessed agreement or disagreement with definitions and statements linked to a

284 29)I (half-life = 15.7 million years) are in disagreement with each other if both nuclei are produced

285 sification criteria, indicating agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 9-step scale.

286 In cases of disagreement with GPA, the expert consensus classificati

287 These findings are in disagreement with mechanisms proposed previously.

288 ersonality characteristics, and agreement or disagreement with other potential informants.

289 Consequently, my comment is not so much a disagreement with P&G but a query about the logic of for

290 ions of these studies, the reasons for their disagreement with previous negative findings, the nature

291 In disagreement with prior scenarios that favored malonyl-C

292 eir approach to address specific reasons for disagreement with surrogates.

293 ssified patients treated based on FFR and in disagreement with the angiography-based a priori decisio

294 th crystallographic data of scorodite and in disagreement with the chain model.

295 studies in US and UK populations were not in disagreement with the clinically based estimates.

296 s, which suggest no compaction, leading to a disagreement with the FRET experiments.

297 Disagreement with the reference diagnosis was statistica

298 cted CO(2) remains the subject of widespread disagreement, with different models predicting either wh

299 The metric quantifies the disagreement within the network due to disturbances and

300 s, with a systematic process for reconciling disagreement, yielding 42 papers, of which 37 had suffic