ライフサイエンスコーパス: intermediate-risk group

1 ely, and the other quintiles were set as the intermediate risk group.

2 2A rearrangements classified in the 2017 ELN intermediate-risk group.

3 s in the high-risk group versus those in the intermediate-risk group.

4 a significant survival advantage only in the intermediate-risk group.

5 derate hypofractionation for patients in the intermediate-risk group.

6 ts in the general community, particularly in intermediate-risk groups.

7 n survival was greater in the favorable- and intermediate-risk groups.

8 ty of the CHD events occur in the "low" and "intermediate" risk groups.

9 the low-risk group (0 factors), 30.9% in the intermediate-risk group (1 factor), and 41.9% in the hig

10 Specifically, 80% of the patients in the intermediate-risk group (1992 AJCC T2b, or biopsy Gleaso

11 15] to 42.4% [181 of 427]) compared with the intermediate-risk group (2.2% [4 of 185] to 67.6% [325 o

12 sk group (46% of all patients analyzed), the intermediate-risk group (41%), and the high-risk group (

13 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) intermediate risk group (47.6%), 449 were treated with r

14 up (low-risk) (21-50 years), 103 were in the intermediate-risk group (51-70 years), and 28 were in th

15 In the intermediate-risk group, a RegFrac >=50% as indicator fo

16 ompared with 54 (16%) of 513 patients in the intermediate-risk group (adjusted sub-distribution HR 1.

17 L) and normal karyotype are classified in an intermediate-risk group, albeit this subset is heterogen

18 were in the low risk group, 68% were in the intermediate risk group and 6% were in the high risk gro

19 rovided complete separation from the low and intermediate risk groups and predicted mortality and adv

20 refine cardiovascular risk assessment in the intermediate-risk group and identify candidates for aggr

21 ent amblyopia of 61%, compared to 42% in the intermediate-risk group and only 6% in the low-risk grou

22 n cardiovascular death or MI in the low- and intermediate-risk groups and an 11.1% absolute risk redu

23 f patients with DLBCL belong to the low- and intermediate-risk groups and have a CNS relapse risk < 5

24 highest risk group, 47 and 61 months for the intermediate risk groups, and the median was not reached

25 A' (lowest) risk group, score 2 to 3 as 'B' (intermediate) risk group, and score 4 to 5 as 'C' (high)

26 the good-risk group, 22 of 211 (10%) in the intermediate-risk group, and 27 of 95 (28%) in the poor-

27 5% CI, 21%-26%) for the 2355 patients in the intermediate-risk group, and 36% (95% CI, 33%-39%) for t

28 relapse, compared with 24 of 98 (24%) in the intermediate-risk group, and 37 of 82 (45%) in the poor-

29 the low-risk group, 17.7 (15.2-20.2) in the intermediate-risk group, and 40.8 (25.1-56.4) in the hig

30 sk group, 89.2% (95% CI, 63.1%-97.2%) in the intermediate-risk group, and 57.9% (95% CI, 34.6%-75.5%)

31 roup, 94.8% (91.7-96.7; n=339 [32%]) for the intermediate-risk group, and 77.6% (72.1-82.1; n=291 [27

32 % (94% at 0 months, 99% at 24 months) in the intermediate-risk group, and by 22% (71% at 0 months to

33 RR is higher at younger ages, in intermediate-risk groups, and when a questionnaire is us

34 .0% (58.2-71.8) and 79.2% (73.4-85.0) in the intermediate-risk group; and 21.2% (11.4-31.1) and 35.5%

35 For low- and intermediate-risk groups, average RDR recurrence detecti

36 on reduced RR, it did not improve OS for the intermediate-risk group but was probably of benefit in h

37 Analyzing only the patients in the intermediate-risk group consolidated per protocol by aut

38 nt recommendations that patients within this intermediate risk group could be identified with a simil

39 a traditional risk model was modest for the intermediate risk group for composite CVD among men (5-y

40 ion (by biomarkers or imaging) constitute an intermediate-risk group for whom there is controversy on

41 their incorrect stratification to the low-to-intermediate risk group, for which the score does not in

42 groups have suggested CAC screening only in intermediate-risk groups (FRS, 10% to 20%).

43 and postoperative ctDNA status identifies an intermediate risk group, improving disease stratificatio

44 ntly improved discrimination metrics for the intermediate-risk group in both AusDiab and Busselton He

45 he GEP 70-gene low-risk group to identify an intermediate-risk group in multiple myeloma (MM).

46 o of bacteremia for the high-risk versus the intermediate-risk group is 4.4 (95% confidence interval,

47 group (n=76), 16.6 months (14.9-17.9) in the intermediate risk group (n=529), and 5.4 months (4.7-6.8

48 ates of 6.0% (high-risk group, n=40), 44.9% (intermediate-risk group, n=36), and 84.4% (low-risk grou

49 comparison with 5 years of TAM in a low- to intermediate-risk group of postmenopausal patients.

50 tify children with poor outcomes in the low-/intermediate-risk groups of BCP-ALL and that BMP4 could

51 of visual field progression compared with an intermediate risk group over 3 years (hazard ratio, 0.52

52 High/intermediate risk groups stratified by ITASs or Composit

53 hospital mortality rate of 0.4%, whereas the intermediate-risk group (STS, 4-8) had an in-hospital mo

54 achieved less commonly in the CVD high- and intermediate-risk groups than in the low-risk group.

55 In the intermediate-risk group, the estimated disease-free surv

56 Among patients in the two intermediate-risk groups, those treated with tamoxifen o

57 the HR for mortality of the patients in the intermediate-risk group versus those in the favorable-ri

58 Median survival time in the intermediate-risk group was 14 months.

59 ore than 2 (high-risk; > 1 RF) compared with intermediate-risk group was 6.9 (3.8, 12.4).

60 c group, the hazard ratios for the high- and intermediate-risk groups were 4.3 (95% CI, 3.6 to 5.1; P

61 re (FRS) may underperform within the diverse intermediate-risk group, which includes individuals requ

62 n time to progression (TTP) of 1.8 years, an intermediate-risk group with a median TTP of 4.8 years,