ライフサイエンスコーパス: patient selection

1 an elevated risk of spending - a measure of patient selection).

2 their mechanism of action and biomarkers for patient selection.

3 can improve AF ablation outcomes by refining patient selection.

4 cardiographic parameters should help improve patient selection.

5 lore MTAP status as a biomarker strategy for patient selection.

6 ng immunotherapy would significantly improve patient selection.

7 n repair, which may have been exaggerated by patient selection.

8 e antibodies for HLA-DR to improve anti-PD-1 patient selection.

9 all-cause mortality after TEVAR to aid with patient selection.

10 ching was used to account for differences in patient selection.

11 reimbursement of DBT and facilitate improved patient selection.

12 Surgical experience significantly impacts patient selection.

13 pathway, providing a potential strategy for patient selection.

14 id not improve PFS, despite biomarker-driven patient selection.

15 rapy with cetuximab, indicating the need for patient selection.

16 ents, highlights the need for more strategic patient selection.

17 There was no consensus on dosage and patient selection.

18 hich can be reduced with training and proper patient selection.

19 e, emphasizing the importance of appropriate patient selection.

20 rs for mortality and should be considered in patient selection.

21 ial combination therapies and biomarkers for patient selection.

22 rical aberration may be a consideration with patient selection.

23 nclusion and exclusion criteria are used for patient selection.

24 focused on aSBO patients that may facilitate patient selection.

25 se and may serve as potential biomarkers for patient selection.

26 IHC for MMR assessment is a useful tool for patient selection.

27 changes may improve risk stratification and patient selection, a critical first step in developing h

28 s a structured process to ensure appropriate patient selection, accurate and reproducible data acquis

29 ocused on lessons learned regarding adequate patient selection, along with current and future perspec

30 There is a need to improve patient selection and a paucity of research concerning t

31 ety of EVAR vs OAR may depend on appropriate patient selection and adequate access to multidisciplina

32 ed brain networks an important criterion for patient selection and an individualized approach to the

33 el device-based strategies including optimal patient selection and appropriate end points to establis

34 We highlight the importance of patient selection and appropriate statistical analytical

35 g reliable biomarkers of response to improve patient selection and avoid toxicities will be critical

36 F2-CXCL3-CXCR2 axis provides a framework for patient selection and combination therapies to enhance t

37 utcome predictors that may facilitate future patient selection and decision making.

38 significantly impact anti-GD2 immunotherapy patient selection and enable noninvasive probing of corr

39 Comprehensive patient selection and examination, combined with knowled

40 etic acid) ((68)Ga-PSMA) PET/CT was used for patient selection and follow-up after PSMA RLT.

41 be enhanced and could have implications for patient selection and future development of new combinat

42 Patient selection and geriatric evaluation are critical

43 ry T cells, dendritic cells, or macrophages; patient selection and immunosuppression mirrored the RGT

44 esults could have important implications for patient selection and improved communication of risks be

45 Most studies had high risk of patient selection and index test bias but low risk in ot

46 Ms in particular, may pave the way to better patient selection and innovative combinations of convent

47 imal time interval for re-resection for both patient selection and long-term survival is not known.

48 Appropriate patient selection and low risk of fetal demise with FAV

49 e of CRT nonresponders persists despite good patient selection and LV lead position, but site identif

50 oke is likely to be a critical factor aiding patient selection and management as TAVR use becomes wid

51 Based on these data, appropriate patient selection and medical optimization appear to be

52 hortcomings comparative studies with uniform patient selection and monitoring are lacking.

53 ms of action, and the role of biomarkers for patient selection and monitoring are still unknown.

54 Therefore, careful patient selection and monitoring of the treatment respon

55 gh safety data indicate the need for careful patient selection and monitoring, our preliminary effica

56 Improved patient selection and more active systemic regimens are

57 lung cancer when coupled to genomics-guided patient selection and observation.

58 d by experienced operators using appropriate patient selection and optimal technique.

59 icular they provide the potential to improve patient selection and optimisation of cardiovascular int

60 anted to attempt to improve outcomes through patient selection and optimization of transplantation pr

61 lt of technical advances and improvements in patient selection and perioperative management, survival

62 are limited prospective, nationwide data on patient selection and procedural characteristics.

63 Continued efforts are needed to improve patient selection and procedural/postprocedural care to

64 These data serve to inform patient selection and prognostic counselling.

65 vival among clinical trials are explained by patient selection and quality of supportive care.

66 Recent research has focused on better patient selection and reduced radioiodine doses for remn

67 Improved patient selection and reduction in cold ischemia time ap

68 isk of bias was identified in the domains of patient selection and reference standard.

69 eing increasingly investigated as a tool for patient selection and response evaluation.

70 or, with several implications for predicting patient selection and response rates to this therapy and

71 Our results provide useful data for proper patient selection and sample size calculations in the de

72 When patient selection and statistical analysis involve multi

73 of anti-myostatin approaches and may inform patient selection and stratification for future trials.

74 IRT in metastatic colorectal cancer, careful patient selection and studies investigating the role of

75 and hospital volume highlights the need for patient selection and surgical experience in successful

76 s with any heart valve-preserving procedure, patient selection and surgical expertise are keys to suc

77 Therefore, adjustments in patient selection and technique have been performed but

78 Risk adjustment of patient selection and technique in ALPPS resulted in a c

79 t profile for these procedures could enhance patient selection and the overall use of surgery for the

80 ther high-quality evidence regarding optimal patient selection and timing of initiation of noninvasiv

81 override a loss in Lrp5 has implications for patient selection and timing of Wnt pathway inhibitors i

82 istration of these agents, including optimal patient selection and toxicity associated with their use

83 t can be integrated into clinical trials for patient selection and treatment evaluation, and implicat

84 This makes it an excellent technology for patient selection and treatment planning and follow-up.

85 and combination strategies, and thus optimal patient selection and treatment sequencing are increasin

86 Variations in patient selection and treatment were compared across cou

87 ents are occurring at a high pace, affecting patient selection and treatment.

88 te markers of therapeutic success, to aid in patient selection and/or modification of interventions i

89 he principles of surgical revascularization, patient selection, and expected outcomes, while highligh

90 inding may be biased as a result of targeted patient selection, and further, high-quality long-term c

91 r better biomarkers to detect disease, guide patient selection, and monitor for response.

92 TAVR with improvements in valve technology, patient selection, and operator experience.

93 egies for improved drug design, more nuanced patient selection, and optimized use of available therap

94 are the prediction of efficacy and toxicity, patient selection, and response optimisation.

95 2), continued changes to device technology, patient selection, and surgical techniques will undoubte

96 ncluding the rationale for the intervention, patient selection, and the treatments available.

97 onary lesions; however, the temporal trends, patient selection, and variation in use of CA have not b

98 Biomarkers for patient selection are essential for the successful and r

99 es of advanced MRI and CT imaging to enhance patient selection are investigating alteplase, other thr

100 National guidelines to better elucidate patient selection are needed.

101 assess its safety and the optimal method for patient selection are scarce.

102 Large series with homogenous patient selection are scarce.

103 These findings will facilitate patient selection as development of this drug class cont

104 ssential in improving current techniques and patient selection, as well as evaluating new technologie

105 outcomes, and should be prevented by careful patient selection, awareness of surgeons' learning curve

106 opment of FAK inhibitors in combination with patient selection based on cancer cell CD80 expression,

107 Accuracy for QCT patient selection based on these primary predictors was

108 pecific preoperative variables may help with patient selection before elective splenectomy for certai

109 There were no differential changes in patient selection between BPCI and control hospitals.

110 In the context of limited evidence in older patients, selection between these two regimens on the ba

111 Most studies were at high or unclear risk of patient selection bias (74%) or index test bias (67%).

112 with historical controls suggest a potential patient selection bias and may preclude generalizability

113 iven primarily by 1 clinical trial, possible patient selection bias in the ablation group, lack of pa

114 everal decades and series of resection after patient selection by neoadjuvant therapy.

115 se therapies and how an important bottleneck-patient selection-can be approached.

116 vel oral anticoagulants, with an emphasis on patient selection, choice of therapy, and appropriate do

117 Poor patient selection contributes to a high alarm volume wit

118 llenges of implementing this therapy include patient selection, cost, and risk of side effects includ

119 A predictive test enabling better patient selection could avoid unneccessary radiation exp

120 eatment of prostate cancer, but personalised patient selection could improve outcomes and spare unnec

121 ween Jan 1, 1995, and Aug 30, 2016, in which patient selection criteria and geographical setting were

122 ne, surgeons should carefully consider their patient selection criteria and surgical plans when trans

123 Patient selection criteria included diagnosis of uveal m

124 Patient selection criteria included diagnosis of uveal m

125 Careful analyses of the effect of these patient selection criteria on outcomes in prior trials p

126 coming more common, results vary widely, and patient selection criteria remain poorly defined.

127 Patient selection criteria that predict outcomes after M

128 rogram, a formal OPAT care team, a policy on patient selection criteria, and a treatment and monitori

129 of the techniques and challenges, rationale, patient selection criteria, complications, postintervent

130 udies to randomized clinical trials based on patient selection criteria, interventions, and outcomes.

131 s add value to drug development by improving patient selection criteria, safety monitoring, endpoint

132 Unresolved issues include optimal patient selection criteria, the role of devices in patie

133 and were transparent about their methods and patient selection criteria.

134 time, operative technique, meshes used, and patient selection criteria.

135 ts success has led over the years to relaxed patient selection criteria; for example, it is now not u

136 hniques and technologies and improvements in patient selection, current percutaneous coronary interve

137 Considerable challenges remain in patient selection, deciding on the most appropriate orde

138 Registry has important information regarding patient selection, delivery of care, science, education,

139 Secondary outcomes included changes in patient selection, discharge to postacute care, length o

140 ture research should address gaps related to patient selection, dosage, team culture, and expertise.

141 This could be potentially attributed to patient selection due to the lack of validated predictiv

142 ense physician-patient relationship, ethical patient selection, ensuring patients have adequate repre

143 ary care interpretation of guidelines to aid patient selection, establishment of disease management p

144 s further investigation into its utility for patient selection, evaluation of optimal time to deliver

145 lity comparative effectiveness data to guide patient selection, existing evidence suggests that outco

146 o successful outcomes begin with appropriate patient selection, expectation counseling, and preoperat

147 sed prostate cancer biomarkers geared toward patient selection for active surveillance, identificatio

148 ychosocial risk is an important component of patient selection for advanced heart failure therapies.

149 ung volume reduction and provide guidance on patient selection for available therapies.

150 ovement in medical management, or a shift in patient selection for CABG.

151 very, and has significant potential to guide patient selection for cardioverter-defibrillator implant

152 suggesting a need to quantify ITH to improve patient selection for checkpoint blockade therapy.

153 e the syndrome of HFpEF to inform diagnosis, patient selection for clinical trials, and, ultimately,

154 ults of this study will improve and simplify patient selection for COA intervention and potentially i

155 r national guidelines are needed to optimize patient selection for colectomy.

156 on the role of these parameters in enhancing patient selection for CRT implantation should be conduct

157 nary rates suggests opportunities to improve patient selection for diagnostic coronary angiography.

158 his simple risk score may be used to improve patient selection for emergent coronary angiography amon

159 and diffusion or perfusion MRI might assist patient selection for endovascular thrombectomy.

160 ADPKD based on HtTKV and age should optimize patient selection for enrollment into clinical trials an

161 idney disease (ADPKD), necessitating optimal patient selection for enrollment into clinical trials.

162 These data underscore the utility of patient selection for EVT on the basis of collateral ves

163 with a high liver tumor burden should inform patient selection for future studies.

164 r Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is challenging, and patient selection for genetic testing relies on diagnost

165 The diagnosis of vEDS is challenging and patient selection for genetic testing relies on diagnost

166 ransformation holds promise for more precise patient selection for HSCT.

167 Tumor genetics guides patient selection for many new therapies, and cell cultu

168 will have a poor outcome, as well as inform patient selection for more invasive treatments, is parti

169 nformative, method can improve rectal cancer patient selection for neoadjuvant therapy.

170 hma phenotyping, which might prove useful in patient selection for novel therapies.

171 CCL26 and CCL17) in combination might allow patient selection for novel type 2 therapeutics.

172 ular characteristics that would allow better patient selection for operative resection.

173 y with the proposed model and may help guide patient selection for optimal treatment and enhance a ta

174 eded to clarify incidence, risk factors, and patient selection for outpatient monitoring.

175 These findings may help inform patient selection for PA stenting.

176 This technique may enable patient selection for PD-1 and PD-L1-targeted therapy.

177 developed to critically evaluate and improve patient selection for percutaneous coronary intervention

178 ciated with inducible VT and may help refine patient selection for programmed VT-stimulation when app

179 Future studies should focus on optimum patient selection for prolonged mechanical ventilation a

180 Further research is needed to inform optimal patient selection for prolonged mechanical ventilation.

181 improve sudden death risk stratification and patient selection for prophylactic ICD therapy.

182 offers potential to provide improvements in patient selection for prostate cancer screening; PSA int

183 TATE are suited equally well for staging and patient selection for PRRT with (177)Lu-DOTATATE.

184 ntracardiac data might be useful in refining patient selection for resynchronization therapy.

185 if prospectively validated, may refine OPSCC patient selection for risk-adaptive therapy.

186 tology can identify abnormal nodes and guide patient selection for SLN surgery.

187 Patient selection for SN biopsy can be assisted by Natio

188 ents before tumor resection is essential for patient selection for surgery and is conventionally done

189 ents before tumor resection is essential for patient selection for surgery and is conventionally done

190 Differences in patient selection for surgery, especially in patients ol

191 uantification may not have an added value in patient selection for surgery.

192 risk stratification is necessary to optimize patient selection for surgery.

193 ions for future research focusing on optimal patient selection for surgery.

194 c testing offers opportunities for improving patient selection for systemic therapies and, ultimately

195 Predictive biomarkers can facilitate optimal patient selection for targeted cancer therapies.

196 ccessible biospecimens, could greatly enable patient selection for targeted therapy.

197 ese findings have important implications for patient selection for TAVR when transfemoral access is n

198 Better patient selection for the "resection first" approach and

199 Given these data, sex should not influence patient selection for the administration of potent P2Y12

200 on-making techniques is warranted to improve patient selection for the appropriate intervention to tr

201 nt patterns of tumor progression may improve patient selection for therapy.

202 This should be taken into account during patient selection for this procedure.

203 nt outcomes, this study might aid in optimal patient selection for this therapy.

204 Patient selection for transcatheter aortic valve replace

205 onds to these therapies, and optimization of patient selection for treatment is imperative to avoid a

206 Potential applications include improving patient selection for treatment with CRS & HIPEC and in

207 be useful in clinical outcome prediction and patient selection for trials based on subtyping.

208 ch predictors may allow for more appropriate patient selection for ultrasound-facilitated catheter-di

209 n transplantable recurrence (NTR) to improve patient selection for upfront LR or LT at initial diagno

210 ion in relation to the onset of SBS, optimal patient selection for use, duration of treatment and cos

211 To optimally facilitate patient selection for Wee1 inhibition and uncover potent

212 In addition, we discuss how patient selection from differing phases of HBV impacts t

213 To date, patient selection has not been performed using the local

214 ng experience and a standardized approach to patient selection, impacted outcomes.

215 membrane oxygenation management encompassing patient selection, implantation strategy, and preoperati

216 Further investigation of risk factors and patient selection in a long-term follow-up is warranted.

217 A survey indicated risk adjustment of patient selection in all centers and ALPPS technique in

218 atients; this may be attributable to careful patient selection in case of ALF, though improvement of

219 a lack of precise predictive biomarkers for patient selection in clinical trials of inhibitors targe

220 These findings may inform patient selection in future trials of IGF1R inhibitors i

221 These CMR thresholds should be used for patient selection in future trials to determine if tricu

222 TK2 expression may be a useful biomarker for patient selection in future trials.

223 fit, PD-L1 testing alone is insufficient for patient selection in most malignancies.

224 I3R could serve as a potential biomarker for patient selection in SMO antagonist clinical trials.

225 This underscores the importance of patient selection in supporting more consistent health s

226 Our findings pave the way for patient selection in the clinical use of checkpoint inhi

227 n in TAMs is warranted to define appropriate patient selection in the use of PD-L1 blockade.

228 ed RNF43 mutations identifies rules to guide patient selection, including that truncation or point mu

229 d low risk of bias for all QUADAS-2 domains (patient selection, index test, reference test, and flow

230 23, 2014 and structured into 5 sessions: (1) patient selection, indications, and timing; (2) technica

231 Patient selection is critical--outcomes with percutaneou

232 n, research into optimal surgical timing and patient selection is critical.

233 and the high cost associated with biologics, patient selection is crucial in order to implement such

234 Patient selection is currently based on advanced imaging

235 Patient selection is currently based on tumor size.

236 Careful patient selection is necessary to achieve optimal postsu

237 Improving patient selection is of vital importance for the operati

238 oronary venous pacing depends on appropriate patient selection, lead implantation, and device program

239 ct many facets of immuno-oncology, including patient selection, management, and development of novel

240 ents on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: patient selection, management, mitigation of complicatio

241 racteristic, the area between curves and the patient selection matrix.

242 lexity over time, suggesting that changes in patient selection may account for some of these observed

243 pancreatic cancers and the optimal assay for patient selection may inform clinical trial design for i

244 ent selection perspective and appraise trial patient selection methodologies in relation to outcomes.

245 ect is diverse, complicated by heterogeneous patient selection methods, design, and reporting.

246 cal pathway was introduced, which focused on patient selection, nutrition, renal protection, pain man

247 surgical procedures, and the differences in patients' selection of pain management, over the counter

248 owever, little is known about differences in patients' selection of surgeons and hospitals.

249 Further study is required to determine if patient selection on the basis of objective criteria der

250 xposure definitions, analytical methods, and patient selection on the estimated effect size of metfor

251 ecade likely attributable to improvements in patient selection, operator skills, and technological ad

252 Furthermore, patient selection, optimal chemotherapeutic regimen and

253 umor burden and has the potential to improve patient selection, optimize the dose and schedule, and r

254 power and value of early trials by improving patient selection, optimizing dose and schedule, and rat

255 ging in choroideremia, and could be used for patient selection or as an outcome parameter in interven

256 Whether this was because of patient selection or better access site practice among t

257 radiolabeled inhibitor has been proposed for patient selection, outcome prediction, dose optimization

258 ndently associated with a risk adjustment in patient selection (P < 0.001; OR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.36-1.9

259 and CABG was not associated with changes in patient selection, payments, length of stay, or clinical

260 Patient selection, perioperative data (severe complicati

261 ent and ongoing HFpEF clinical trials from a patient selection perspective and appraise trial patient

262 el practices identified included appropriate patient selection, pharmacist-driven patient education,

263 include a wider patient population, careful patient selection, pre-treatment cardiac evaluation, and

264 In this article, we formulated the patient selection problem as a multi-class classificatio

265 unch of a LAA occlusion program and optimize patient selection, procedural performance, and outcome.

266 ing a multidisciplinary heart team approach, patient selection, procedural planning, and device impla

267 ng traditional practice models is to improve patient selection, procedural planning, and management o

268 ntials interventionists and promotes optimal patient selection, procedural-technique, and outcomes.

269 A rigorous patient-selection process is necessary to maximize patie

270 These data support a similar approach to ICD patient selection, regardless of race or ethnicity.

271 ge), dosing, number of high-dose cycles, and patient selection remain to be defined.

272 opoietic cell transplantation and to improve patient selection/risk stratification for clinical trial

273 Appropriate patient selection (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.25), and pro

274 Refinements in procedure and patient selection seem possible and necessary before omi

275 Careful patient selection should be considered for CRT-D implant

276 sing, improved immune monitoring, and better patient selection should be performed.

277 linical trials for a variety of cancers, but patient selection strategies remain limited.

278 underlie heterogeneous patient responses for patient-selection strategies.

279 is study, we report the discovery of a novel patient selection strategy for the p53-HDM2 inhibitor NV

280 ory activity of avadomide and the need for a patient-selection strategy, we applied the gene expressi

281 innovative drug treatments through effective patient selection, stratification and measurement of out

282 We critique the evidence for patient selection techniques and summarize what is known

283 dysphotopsias will allow for IOL design and patient selection that maximize satisfaction after catar

284 nsensus, supported by grade A-C evidence, on patient selection, the safety of short-term nonoperative

285 With ideal patient selection, this finding could potentially increa

286 Guidelines are needed for patient selection to list for and receipt of simultaneou

287 embolization will be discussed, ranging from patient selection to treatment response and future appli

288 sis and direction of care and as a potential patient selection tool for clinical trials.

289 gs support the use of NAT, particularly as a patient selection tool, in the management of resectable

290 lineation of appropriate clinical scenarios, patient selection, training, IT support and robust infor

291 In patient selection, treatment guidance, and follow-up, di

292 improvement may also have been due to better patient selection, use of high-resolution HLA typing for

293 nce with high operator volumes; 2) improving patient selection using multidisciplinary heart teams; 3

294 The purpose of this study is to determine if patient selection varies based on years of surgical prac

295 Patient selection was based on the concurrent availabili

296 Patient selection was not based on PD-L1 expression or e

297 Patient selection was not based on PD-L1 expression or M

298 participating sites showed that appropriate patient selection was performed at 31 sites, pharmacist-

299 Patient selection was the most frequent factor that affe

300 However, LCSD is not curative and patient selection will be critical when potentially cons