ライフサイエンスコーパス: grading of

1 scores resulted in correct glaucoma severity grading of 32.5% of participants (p < 0.001).

2 ited reading center using modified Wisconsin grading of 4-field mydriatic photographs.

3 ed imaging, when compared with expert fundus grading of 468 patients and 2145 fundus images are: 98.6

4 tly correlated with histopathologic activity grading of ACR (P < 0.01).

5 In 98% of AMD eyes, SD-OCT grading of all characteristics was successful, detecting

6 Grading of anaplasia may be a useful adjunct to standard

7 atients with Canadian Cardiovascular Society grading of angina pectoris class 1 (n=1107, 18 events).

8 atients with Canadian Cardiovascular Society grading of angina pectoris class 2 or higher (n=839, 34

9 ificant LTPAxCanadian Cardiovascular Society grading of angina pectoris class interaction was observe

10 infarction, Canadian Cardiovascular Society grading of angina pectoris class, and exercise capacity

11 s a moderate to high correlation between the grading of aniseikonia and the difference in central ret

12 d development of late AMD by central, masked grading of annual retinal photographs or by treatment hi

13 e scans were imported into software enabling grading of areas in B-scans and computing of planimetric

14 The reproducibility of digital grading of AREDS2 images was assessed by reproducibility

15 Grading of baseline lesion opacity may be used in future

16 agreement and kappa statistics for duplicate gradings of baseline color non- simultaneous stereoscopi

17 ked to all eye examination results, previous gradings of both eyes, current grading of the fellow eye

18 The results of the 2 independent gradings of both FAF and OCT images were compared to ass

19 Masked grading of capillary nonperfusion on 3-layer PR-OCTA det

20 nd filling pressures to augment angiographic grading of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV); however

21 1 of 43 samples) and good performance in the grading of cartilage damage (accuracy, 0.74; 32 of 43 sa

22 The value of DT imaging in the diagnosis and grading of cartilage damage was assessed with logistic r

23 a cataract" to be considered in the clinical grading of cataracts in patients with this condition.

24 ision-threatening late AMD as well as manual grading of CFP.

25 es of Health Consensus Criteria for improved grading of chronic GVHD.

26 Grading of CLD revealed significant differences in obser

27 included objective change assessed by masked grading of color fundus photography and Early Treatment

28 d incidence of macular edema as assessed via grading of color stereo film fundus photographs.

29 dy analyzed data to assess the incidence and grading of complications and evaluate outcomes associate

30 coronary anatomy and for early detection and grading of coronary lesions in non-diabetic patients.

31 Agreement among investigators for grading of DD was poor (36% of CM patients).

32 be of clinical utility in the evaluation and grading of diabetic eye disease.

33 Exact grading of diastolic function might improve risk stratif

34 may potentially eliminate the need for human gradings of disc photographs.

35 As a quantifiable measure, it may allow grading of disease activity, monitoring progress, and gu

36 t with dilated retinal biomicroscopy for the grading of DR.

37 for diagnosis, classification, and severity grading of dry eye disease.

38 the PEP clinical management pathway and the Grading of Evidence, Assessment, Development and Evaluat

39 Concordance between external and internal grading of external studies was improved when diagnostic

40 robserver and intraobserver agreement in the grading of extrapancreatic necrosis was assessed by usin

41 At 73 borders, grading of eye-tracked follow-up SD OCT line scans showe

42 Quantitative MRI enables the diagnosis and grading of fatty pancreas through simple chemical shift

43 To determine the symmetry on retinal image grading of fellow eyes for retinopathy of prematurity (R

44 ness measurements (r = 0.97, P < 0.0001) and grading of foci morphology (r = 0.97, P < 0.0001).

45 for the subjective and morphologic clinical grading of Fuchs' dystrophy is only moderate.

46 Interobserver agreement for clinical grading of Fuchs' dystrophy was moderate (kappa = 0.32;

47 ar pseudodrusen (RPD) was assessed by masked grading of fundus images and was confirmed with optical

48 AMD was diagnosed by grading of fundus photographs.

49 origenesis and a parameter used in pathology grading of glandular tumors.

50 The preoperative grading of gliomas, which is critical for guiding therap

51 VIM) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in the grading of gliomas.

52 differentiation of cerebral lesions and the grading of gliomas.

53 ive, accurate estimation of the presence and grading of hepatic steatosis in patients with NAFLD.

54 Grading of hepatitis activity (A) and staging of fibrosi

55 ual acuity, digital retinal photography, and grading of images at Moorfields Eye Hospital Reading Cen

56 The Physicians grading of images from a digital hand-held non-mydriatic

57 Remote grading of images of an eye at a single session had sens

58 The reproducibility of the grading of index AMD lesion components and for the AREDS

59 The masked grading of IVCM images reliably distinguished normal con

60 performance of semi-quantitative ultrasound grading of knee femoral articular cartilage, osteophytes

61 P < 0.001), (3) fewer injections until first grading of lesion inactivity (<=3 vs. >3 injections: OR,

62 as starting at the first clinician-reported grading of lesion inactivity.

63 Manual grading of lesions in retinal images is relevant to clin

64 The sparsity of established tools for the grading of limbal stem cell deficiency hinder objective

65 tinal lesions was determined by standardized grading of macular SD OCT scans and photographs of 3 sta

66 that laser-extracted lipids allow immediate grading of medulloblastoma tumors into prognostically im

67 Grading of MG loss using meibograde effectively diagnose

68 yte injury and assist in unambiguous staging/grading of NASH.

69 Accurate grading of non-muscle-invasive urothelial cell carcinoma

70 whose results were compared to the clinical grading of NPDR, the gold standard.

71 The percentage of correct grading of NV using SS-OCTA and FA was assessed for each

72 Anterior chamber temperature during PPC and grading of ocular inflammation, corneal endothelial dama

73 Concordant grading of OMR severity with both techniques was observe

74 e Rotterdam criteria and (2) ophthalmologist grading of optic disc photographs for characteristic fea

75 Glaucoma was diagnosed based on a masked grading of optic disc stereophotographs.

76 This validation study compared the grading of optic nerves from smartphone images with thos

77 Grading of other characteristics on optical coherence to

78 of this study may not be relevant to mosaic grading of other retinal vascular conditions.

79 lue during the clinical characterisation and grading of pathological conditions, such as pancreatitis

80 Accurate grading of patients with neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs)

81 f luminal water imaging in the detection and grading of PCa.

82 risk assessment, pressure ulcer prevention, grading of pressure ulcers and treatment decisions.

83 Grading of prophylaxis was done using strength of recomm

84 MR) imaging technique, for the detection and grading of prostate cancer (PCa).

85 en years of subject reporting and photograph grading of PRP and FP were compared in EDIC subjects.

86 all recent molecular progress, architectural grading of pulmonary ADCs according to the novel IASLC/A

87 odological quality of included studies using Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Ev

88 The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Ev

89 ngth of recommendations were rated using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Ev

90 recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Ev

91 endations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and E

92 ngth of recommendations were rated using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and E

93 recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and E

94 tions providing recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and E

95 developed using the system developed by the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and

96 o December, 2018, are presented along with a Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Ev

97 The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

98 to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

99 thin five paradigmatic situations offered by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

100 grading system, which is based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

101 ut initial treatment approaches by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

102 ades the recommendations by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

103 review was developed in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

104 their quality was determined by using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

105 Evidence was graded according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

106 s assessed evidence quality using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

107 y of evidence were assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

108 nd rated recommendations by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

109 ality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

110 he quality of the studies was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

111 ished by the BTS, the guideline has used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

112 uality of evidence was rated based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

113 We evaluated the quality of evidence using grading of recommendations assessment, development and e

114 grading system, which is based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

115 The results were summarized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

116 d the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

117 endations was based on the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

118 rom Bayesian network meta-analysis, and used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

119 The overall Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

120 and rated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

121 The task force used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

122 valuated, and quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

123 data and developed recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

124 f the evidence was rated with the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

125 k meta-analysis for all treatments, and used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

126 f evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

127 of a systematic literature review using the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

128 of a systematic literature review using the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

129 ation of treatment recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

130 quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

131 ysis and assessed evidence quality using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

132 of evidence for primary outcomes by using a Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

133 oping relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

134 of evidence was then graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

135 Analysis of the body of evidence as per the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

136 The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

137 were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

138 of this approach included the use of: 1) the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

139 The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

140 ommendations were graded by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

141 GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

142 review was completed in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

143 outcomes were evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

144 following clinical outcomes using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

145 advanced 41 recommendations using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

146 iew of the literature was completed, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

147 nd rated recommendations by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

148 and 42 key recommendations using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

149 ritical care guideline recommendations using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

150 ow recommendations (4/47; 8.5%) were outside Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

151 The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

152 Strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

153 ecommendations in accordance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

154 re made, avoid such pairings when outside of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

155 cts of interest were followed and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

156 The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

157 The widely used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

158 review was developed in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

159 s recommendations, a category discouraged by Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

160 public perspective; full adoption of GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

161 independent literature reviews and using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and E

162 The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

163 d assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

164 Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2 and the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and

165 e certainty in the evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

166 rval = 3.21-18.61; 10 studies; I(2) = 20.3%; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

167 According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

168 vidence and recommendations using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

169 interval = 2.45-3.59; 4 studies; I(2) = 0%; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

170 high-quality evidence as examined using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and

171 m 2008 to 2017 and were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

172 rength of evidence was adjudicated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

173 reak of Ebola virus disease, we employed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

174 appraised the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

175 was developed in accordance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

176 The committee followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

177 The evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

178 Subcommittee members completed their Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

179 ew of the literature ranked according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

180 ssessed confidence in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

181 Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

182 body of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

183 CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

184 Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

185 ent, Development, and Evaluation system, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

186 The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

187 Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

188 lity-of-evidence assessment according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

189 ssessed confidence in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

190 of evidence was assessed in duplicate using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

191 The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

192 ated each of 26 recommendations by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

193 Quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

194 The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

195 Recommendations were generated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

196 e assessed the risk of bias with Cochrane or Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

197 a scores (NOS) and quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

198 ommendations were developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

199 The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

200 of evidence was rated as moderate using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

201 interval = 4.36-11.64; 5 studies; I(2) = 0%; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

202 ulated, written, and graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

203 t approach for network meta-analysis and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

204 his technical review was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

205 ed recommendations were formulated using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and

206 e was assessed at an outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

207 The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

208 ssed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

209 y the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

210 Recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

211 g a summary of the findings according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

212 or intervention effects was summarized using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

213 nt of the certainty in the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and

214 ecommendations, of which the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment,Development and Ev

215 evidence was critically appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

216 then conducted a systematic review using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

217 According to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

218 We assessed certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

219 Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

220 Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

221 sion by an expert committee according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

222 The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

223 The evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

224 Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

225 e Studies, and graded for evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

226 tified and critically appraised by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

227 The Expert Panel used GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

228 Evidence certainty was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

229 ssed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and

230 Using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

231 of the relevant literature, and applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

232 for conflicts of interest, according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

233 ce (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

234 ulated, written, and graded using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

235 ce (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

236 random-effects models and classified by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

237 mary of the science and its quality based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

238 determined the strength of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

239 A modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

240 nalyses of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

241 matic evidence syntheses, which followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

242 uality of each study was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

243 en formulated, written, and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

244 The Cochrane risk of bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

245 Using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

246 nd recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

247 nd recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

248 c systematic reviews were performed, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

249 The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

250 erformed 15 systematic reviews, applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

251 stitial lung disease and HP using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

252 The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

253 The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

254 certainty of evidence was explored using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

255 ed the certainty of evidence on the basis of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

256 e studies (up to July 2018) and followed the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

257 ertainty of the evidence on the basis of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

258 reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

259 Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and

260 Meta-analyses were conducted with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and

261 we developed an innovative adaptation of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and

262 Using Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and

263 eses were used to inform the formulation and grading of recommendations.

264 or diabetic retinopathy (DR) by expert human grading of retinal images is challenging.

265 A hierarchical grading of rotamer states based on the conformational fr

266 The pathological grading of sarcomatoid HCC was more advanced compared wi

267 nterview, venous blood specimens, and masked grading of seven standard field retinal photographs were

268 Grading of severe (aortic valve area <=1 cm(2)) aortic s

269 algorithm was based on the Cameron clinical grading of shield ulcers.

270 algorithm was based on the Cameron clinical grading of shield ulcers.

271 y (BCVA), visual evoked potential (VEP), and grading of skin and hair pigmentation were used to quant

272 The machine-grading of slopes involved during ski run construction c

273 iagnosed when identified by 2 investigators' grading of spectral-domain optical coherence tomography

274 ns and interobserver agreement in the visual grading of splenic switch-off was excellent (kappa = 0.9

275 PDFF, but not CAP, enabled the grading of steatosis (P < .0001).

276 0.89) and 86% (kappa = 0.78) in the ex vivo grading of steatosis and fibrosis, respectively.

277 erall accuracy of 87% (kappa = 0.81) for the grading of steatosis.

278 calized RNFL defects were detected by masked grading of stereophotographs.

279 ol), retinopathy level (determined by masked grading of stereoscopic color fundus photographs), and N

280 everity of AMD were determined by systematic grading of stereoscopic color fundus photographs.

281 AMD presence and severity were assessed from grading of stereoscopic fundus photographs taken in 2001

282 Semi-quantitative grading of tau-positive cellular lesions and neuronal lo

283 hange in VA from baseline, (3) time to first grading of the choroidal neovascular lesion as inactive,

284 The exact grading of the CrAgSQ results has some subjectivity, wit

285 Gold standard labels from reading center grading of the FAF images were transferred to the corres

286 lts, previous gradings of both eyes, current grading of the fellow eye, and demographic data.

287 t a standard that enabled independent remote grading of the images comparable to those acquired using

288 f the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) band, grading of the inner-segment ellipsoid (ISe) band integr

289 By combining compositional grading of the QD's interior for hindering Auger decay w

290 rveillance data, proposed a clinically based grading of the severity of local AEs caused by SLIT.

291 Therefore grading of the severity of local side effects was percei

292 on to improve the diagnostic accuracy in the grading of the tissue around the furcal lesion, thus pot

293 Grading of the truth, discrimination, and feasibility of

294 Comparison of the 2 masked gradings of the generated en face images of patients wit

295 degree of inter-examiner reliability between grading of these clinical variables in real-time examina

296 cteristic can help in the classification and grading of these distinctive neoplasms.

297 assist in the diagnostic classification and grading of these distinctive neoplasms.Deep penetrating

298 is surpassed), e-ROP IMAGING (trained reader grading of type 1 or 2 ROP initiates diagnostic examinat

299 e used for the fully automated detection and grading of urothelial cell carcinoma.

300 Grading of written descriptions for observational and de