戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

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 els were developed that include clinical and laboratory markers.
2 lantation requires information from suitable laboratory markers.
3 essentially non-specific, clinical signs and laboratory markers.
4 tment) and the association with clinical and laboratory markers.
5                    Baseline characteristics, laboratory markers, 30-day in-hospital outcomes, ventila
6                   In conclusion, no specific laboratory marker alone is reliable to identify patients
7 (95%-CI [0.631-0.947]), outperforming single laboratory markers and APACHE II score.
8  registries have revealed that both selected laboratory markers and clinical phenotyping may aid in d
9                We recorded patient symptoms, laboratory markers, and clinical outcomes, with a focus
10 ve information included data on medications, laboratory markers, and disease activity and damage as m
11      We aimed to evaluate changes in weight, laboratory markers, and metabolic-related clinical event
12 ata were collected on clinical presentation, laboratory markers, and outcome of infants with HPeV inf
13 se diagnosis, treatment thereof, or relevant laboratory markers are associated with NTG.
14 h UC, scintigraphy with (99m)Tc-WBC and most laboratory markers are of limited value in assessing dis
15 c findings together with patient history and laboratory markers at admission to predict critical illn
16               Concerning predictive roles of laboratory markers at admission, deceased subjects compa
17 or consensus regarding imaging, clinical, or laboratory markers before an IACS injection to screen fo
18 s correlated with clinical information and 2 laboratory markers (C-reactive protein and white blood c
19 have been published recently suggesting that laboratory markers can predict distinctions between low-
20 y quantified the performance of clinical and laboratory markers covering the early period of dengue.
21                     To better understand how laboratory markers currently used to evaluate HIV diseas
22 zootic viruses, several in vitro and in vivo laboratory markers distinguishing the viruses have been
23          No significant differences in other laboratory markers, duration of hospital stay, or other
24 ough a majority of patients with normalizing laboratory markers experienced improved LGE, in a small
25 es that post-UV plasmid hypermutability is a laboratory marker for members of melanoma-prone families
26                     There are no established laboratory markers for non-celiac gluten sensitivity, al
27 dditionally, the research sought to identify laboratory markers for rapidly distinguishing refractory
28  thrombosis and miscarriage, they are useful laboratory markers for the antiphospholipid syndrome.
29                                           No laboratory marker has been shown to differentiate the tw
30  screening test for excluding acute PE, this laboratory marker has not been widely integrated into cl
31             Based on available data, several laboratory markers have shown promise as biomarkers for
32 ular clinical findings, cardiac imaging, and laboratory markers in children presenting with the novel
33 itudinal hemodynamic, cardiac structural and laboratory markers in obstructive HCM patients.
34                                   Concerning laboratory markers include overt proteinuria, macroalbum
35  inflammation of SCD and may be a measurable laboratory marker of vaso-occlusive crisis.
36 ary outcome was immunogenicity assessed with laboratory markers of cell-mediated immunity in blood an
37 ation is challenging in older children since laboratory markers of congenital rubella virus (RUBV) in
38                                              Laboratory markers of disease severity were highly corre
39 s associated with patient race/ethnicity and laboratory markers of disease severity.
40              Studies to identify noninvasive laboratory markers of histological activity and stage, e
41 -dose CT enterography (LDCTE), assessment of laboratory markers of inflammation and clinical CD activ
42 asurements were correlated with clinical and laboratory markers of inflammation and histology.
43 ase activity in patients with CD with raised laboratory markers of inflammation and in healthy subjec
44 dual SNVs were assessed for association with laboratory markers of inflammation and mortality.
45 adiographs, associated demographic data, and laboratory markers of inflammation from patients in inte
46 ues, duration of hospital stay, or any other laboratory markers of inflammation measured.
47 elationship between perfusion parameters and laboratory markers of inflammation.
48 d rapid improvement in clinical symptoms and laboratory markers of inflammation.
49 ate with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and laboratory markers of intestinal active inflammation.
50  severity of PAH (r = 0.58, P < .001) and to laboratory markers of intravascular hemolysis, such as r
51                                     Baseline laboratory markers of liver disease severity were worse
52  concentrations are the most frequently-used laboratory markers of liver disease, a major cause of mo
53 m sIL-2R concentrations were correlated with laboratory markers of liver diseases, cytokine / chemoki
54 iate and multivariate correlations with some laboratory markers of nutrition (serum albumin, prealbum
55 patient comorbidities, frailty measures, and laboratory markers of nutritional status.
56 nt for demographic factors, comorbidity, and laboratory markers of nutritional status.
57 ding by comorbidities, frailty measures, and laboratory markers of nutritional status.
58 s to describe the demographic, clinical, and laboratory markers of oral cGVHD in alloHSCT patients (N
59 relation between change in ADC and change in laboratory markers of response (r = -0.614; P = .001).
60 this study was to identify potentially novel laboratory markers of risk in chronic heart failure pati
61 ncy and leukocytosis, the network identified laboratory markers of the severity of hemolytic anemia a
62                                       Of the laboratory markers, only the post-HAART CD4+ cell count
63 ing historical features, symptoms, signs, or laboratory markers or were radiologic studies compared w
64  Both baseline values and changes in the two laboratory markers over time correlated well with clinic
65                                      Two key laboratory markers--plasma RNA and CD4+ lymphocyte count
66                                   Post-HAART laboratory markers predicted death and new AIDS-defining
67          Any added diagnostic value of these laboratory markers remains unclear.
68                     Clinical evaluation with laboratory markers specific for BPH or LUTS is currently
69                        A model that includes laboratory markers that are easy to measure (eg, platele
70 sistently after recovery, we evaluated other laboratory markers to distinguish recruits who could pro
71                  To determine whether adding laboratory markers to evaluation of signs and symptoms i
72      In the absence of alarming symptoms and laboratory markers, watchful waiting could be an appropr
73                  Mean Outcomes and Measures: Laboratory markers were added as a single test to a basi
74                                              Laboratory markers were measured in blood.