ライフサイエンスコーパス: rater

1 ropathologists from both universities (n = 5 raters).

2 raters), and to a subset of 80 scans (three raters).

3 Method for the ICU and 47% by the reference rater.

4 .04) was achieved with the more experienced rater.

5 ent, the final opinion was made by the third rater.

6 nario was evaluated by two interprofessional raters.

7 ities were analyzed by 2 independent blinded raters.

8 g it against the performance of expert human raters.

9 ility was described as the agreement between raters.

10 ohen kappa statistics for pairs of different raters.

11 pa) statistic to determine consistency among raters.

12 y an expert neuroradiologist and 3 clinician raters.

13 e Examination were performed by 76 different raters.

14 ensus was defined as agreement by >/= 75% of raters.

15 mmunity social workers and assessed by blind raters.

16 ich were independently evaluated by pairs of raters.

17 rrelations, was extracted independently by 2 raters.

18 es and direct observations of city blocks by raters.

19 ficantly more consistent scoring than novice raters.

20 rved and rated by patient actors and faculty raters.

21 ion pre, intra, and postoperatively by blind raters.

22 (N = 6) and an expert/novice (N = 6) pair of raters.

23 rds as well as musical sophistication of the raters.

24 ), as assessed by blinded central AIMS video raters.

25 Cs ranging from 0.96 to 0.99 with 5 separate raters.

26 D revealed by fundus photography and trained raters.

27 scored on the criteria by 2 of 3 independent raters.

28 esonance imaging features by two independent raters.

29 e randomly selected patients (15 patients by rater 1, and 16 patients by rater 2), followed by USG.

30 = 0.69, P < .001; and r = 0.54, P < .01 for raters 1, 2, and 3, respectively).

31 (15 patients by rater 1, and 16 patients by rater 2), followed by USG.

32 Patients were assessed by blind raters 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after treatment.

33 he degree of agreement among 100 independent raters about the likely location to contain a target obj

34 c analysis of participants with a consistent rater across the trial revealed greater improvement in t

35 Raters agreed on 272 of 288 subscore ratings (94.4%).

36 A plurality of raters agreed on operative performance ratings (OPRs) fo

37 Raters agreed on the appropriateness of 94% of e-consult

38 Positive and negative agreement and inter-rater agreement (kappa) were calculated.

39 hat the revised MBT-r has an excellent inter-rater agreement and has the ability to identify a subgro

40 The inter-rater agreement between 2 experts and between 1 expert a

41 There was very good inter-rater agreement between the imaging-based diagnosis and

42 There was moderate inter-rater agreement between the ophthalmologist and the firs

43 Inter-rater agreement between the ophthalmologist and the seco

44 Inter-rater agreement for identifying stacked breaths was high

45 Inter-rater agreement for ischemia improved from fair to moder

46 The intra-rater agreement for overall retinal pathologies, retinal

47 The inter-rater agreement for PHOMS was 97.9% (kappa = 0.951).

48 ll commonly used statistics assess the inter-rater agreement for the PASI.

49 The physician rater agreement in choosing "yes" was highest for "routi

50 In patients with septic shock, inter-rater agreement of electrocardiogram interpretation for

51 h septic shock, we assessed intra- and inter-rater agreement of electrocardiogram interpretation, and

52 relation coefficient overestimated the inter-rater agreement of PASI as compared with the intra-class

53 is study aims to assess the intra- and inter-rater agreement of retinal pathologies observed on fundu

54 nresponsiveness score showed excellent inter-rater agreement overall and at each of the five hospital

55 Manchester Triage System shows a wide inter-rater agreement range with a prevalence of good and very

56 atistics (r and rho) for assessing the inter-rater agreement reliability of asymmetrically distribute

57 analysis to patients with a PASI <20, inter-rater agreement severely decreased (r=0.38, rho=0.41, IC

58 A moderate inter-rater agreement was achieved with Krippendorff's alpha o

59 Inter-rater agreement was excellent for FBB and FMM.

60 Inter-rater agreement was fair for ischemia (kappa 0.29), mode

61 Inter-rater agreement, measured using intraclass correlations,

62 tistic were used to analyze intra- and inter-rater agreement.

63 Intra-rater and inter-rater agreements were assessed for the ophthalmologist a

64 Raters also judged each article on indicators of good re

65 Intra-rater and inter-rater agreements were assessed for the o

66 Inter-rater and interitem reliability were 0.883 and 0.986.

67 ts (three with the trait scored by an expert rater and one with the trait self-reported).

68 3, IQR 2-5, range 0-15) with excellent inter-rater and test-retest reliability (kappa=0.86, 95% CI 0.

69 e (UPDRS) or Hoehn&Yahr (H&Y) staging is its rater and time-of-assessment dependency.

70 For 118 raters and 80 stimuli models, we used a 3D scanner to ex

71 ificant correlation between counts by visual raters and automated detection of ePVSs in the same sect

72 The classification reliability between human raters and between human raters and the neural network c

73 owed substantial or better agreement between raters and modalities (kappa or ICC > 0.6).

74 rements exhibited strong correlation between raters and modalities, although not universally.

75 association between attractive VHI in female raters and preferences for attractive (low) WCR in male

76 een carefully validated against expert human raters and previous methods, and can easily be extended

77 Outcomes were assessed by independent raters and self-report at baseline, at weeks 8 and 16, a

78 ility between human raters and between human raters and the neural network classifier was better than

79 The agreement between the raters and the USG was 0.37 using Spearman's rho.

80 ase in BMI increased the discrepancy between raters and USG by 0.26 cm (p = 0.012).

81 and were delineated on T2w MRI by two expert raters and were used to construct statistical shape atla

82 ronto-insula) were applied to 257 scans (two raters), and to a subset of 80 scans (three raters).

83 New lesion counts were compared across raters, as was classification of patients as MRI active

84 Independent raters assessed effect sizes, study quality, and allegia

85 Two raters assessed leptomeningeal collaterals on baseline C

86 Two independent raters assessed the simulations and subjects completed a

87 Two independent raters assessed the total thickness, morphology, and the

88 m the reanalysis of images (intra- and inter-rater assessment), by calculating the coefficient of var

89 cale, and 10 were assessed twice by the same rater at different times to assess intrarater reliabilit

90 Assessments were completed by blind raters at baseline and 5 (midpoint), 10 (end of treatmen

91 is considerable variation in the ability of raters at different levels of training to identify inapp

92 he interobserver reliability between the two raters (attorneys) in interpretation of six items charac

93 only relatively simple, isolated measures of rater attractiveness.

94 ge analysis of both scans was performed by a rater blind to the participant group.

95 Patients' symptoms were assessed by a rater blind to treatment group, and they underwent funct

96 milton Depression Rating Scale (completed by raters blind to diagnosis and randomization status), sel

97 he Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale applied by raters blind to group assignment.

98 Two independent raters blind to the clinical data determined the presenc

99 In a multicenter, randomized, rater-blind clinical trial involving 239 outpatients wit

100 patient resuscitations and coded by trained raters blinded to condition assignment and study hypothe

101 nces were video recorded and assessed by two raters blinded to group allocation using the modified Ad

102 less at both weeks 10 and 12, as assessed by raters blinded to treatment.

103 ession Rating Scale (HAM-D), administered by raters blinded to treatment.

104 We did a rater-blinded 2-year extension study at 36 centres in 15

105 A multicenter randomized, sham-controlled, rater-blinded and patient-blinded trial was conducted fr

106 In a 3-year, rater-blinded phase 2 study (the CAMMS223 study) in pati

107 OCD youth-in a randomized rater-blinded trial-were re-scanned after 12-14 weeks of

108 We performed a single-center, rater-blinded, balanced (1:1), split-face, placebo-contr

109 This was a pragmatic, patient- and rater-blinded, noninferiority trial of patients with maj

110 We performed a split-body, rater-blinded, parallel-group, balanced (1:1), placebo-c

111 DESIGN Prospective, randomized, controlled, rater-blinded, split-scar trial.

112 re observed in either sex between aspects of rater body shape and strength of preferences for attract

113 ttractive opposite-sex body shapes, and that rater body traits -with the exception of VHI in female r

114 ttractive traits in opposite-sex bodies, and raters' body shape, self-perceived attractiveness, and s

115 visual analyses were highly variable between raters but were superior to automated analyses.

116 Two surgeon raters categorized comments relating to operative skills

117 troencephalography reviews were performed by raters certified in standardized continuous electroencep

118 Most visual raters classified 1 control (10%) and 8 AD (80%) and 2 F

119 ome measure was based on ADHD assessments by raters closest to the therapeutic setting, all dietary (

120 was classified differently by the clinician raters compared with the neuroradiologist or computer pr

121 Our first study explores an inter-rater comparison, showing that smaller lesions cannot be

122 chs-Carpenter Quality of Life Scale, which a rater completes on the basis of the patient's self-repor

123 Subjective rater confidence was analyzed by using a logistic regres

124 he revised COMFORT behavioral scale; and (2) Rater-context problems caused by (a) unfamiliarity with

125 Scan-rescan, intra- and inter-rater COV values were 3.2%, 4.4% and 5.3%, respectively.

126 For pooled rater data, performance of computed radiography was comp

127 al spine conditions using time-consuming and rater-dependent manual techniques.

128 When most raters determined that demineralization was present at b

129 When the majority of the raters determined that rachitic changes were absent at b

130 The neuroradiologist raters did not achieve comparable results to the softwar

131 ity disorder in adults are best explained by rater effects.

132 This translates into 37% and 54% of raters' estimates falling within 2 and 3 cm of USG estim

133 Two raters examined the homogeneity of fat saturation to det

134 Two independent raters experienced in analyzing OCT images evaluated the

135 orangutans) whose well-being was assessed by raters familiar with the individual apes.

136 Variability among the clinical raters for estimates of new T2 lesions was affected most

137 Sensitivity of individual raters for identifying inappropriate tests ranged from 4

138 nd sensitivity and specificity of individual raters for identifying inappropriate tests were calculat

139 dian redness score reported by the 2 blinded raters for the treatment and control sides was 2.0 (inte

140 The percentage agreement among physician raters for treatment decisions in 28 stroke patients was

141 The two attorney raters found the description of acceptable outcome inade

142 Expert surgeon raters from multiple institutions, blinded to resident c

143 Phase 2: OSAD was feasible, reliable [inter-rater ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient) = 0.88, t

144 Using 10 judges adjusted for rater idiosyncrasies.

145 frame-by-frame by an experimentally blinded rater; (ii) automatic retrieval of proxies by TracMouse

146 s able to account for 58% of the variance in raters' impressions of previously unseen faces, and fact

147 Studies were independently reviewed by 12 raters in 3 groups using a systematic and blinded proces

148 ined objectively on coded images by multiple raters in a standardized fashion.

149 should also be paid to the mix of cases and raters in order to assure fair judgments about operative

150 tment decisions was remarkably similar among raters in presence or absence of advanced healthcare dir

151 o-recorded, anonymized, and presented to the raters in random order.

152 tour and from manual contours provided by 10 raters in regard to four intensity discretization scheme

153 Visual rating was performed by three raters, including one neuroradiologist, after establishe

154 s more accurate in final infarct prediction, rater independent, and provided exclusive information on

155 The CCFS scale is rater-independent and could be used in a multicentre con

156 It allows rater-independent quantification of bone metastasis in m

157 Two raters independently assessed risk of bias.

158 The 4 raters independently evaluated all websites belonging to

159 a prospective multicenter study, two blinded raters independently examined cervical spine magnetic re

160 In the second part of the study, the two raters independently performed the scratch test on separ

161 Three pairs of raters independently reviewed 1,681 abstracts, with a sy

162 Two raters independently screened 3679 abstracts (which yiel

163 ed and the scratch test was performed by two raters independently, followed by ultrasound (USG) as th

164 0.99 across studies and follow-up) and inter-rater (intraclass correlation, 0.97) reliability were fo

165 Inter-rater k agreement was used to determine the strength of

166 ng-RADS classification was assessed using bi-rater kappa.

167 verall observed agreement of 93.4% among the raters (kappa = 0.84, P < 0.0001).

168 The central review committee, EDSS raters, laboratory personnel, and radiologists were mask

169 re, cluster-randomised controlled trial with raters masked to an online computer-generated randomisat

170 ing, first, visual assessment by independent raters masked to clinical information and, second, semia

171 Static PET images were evaluated by trained raters masked to clinical status and regional analysis.

172 a live, two-way video by remote, centralized raters masked to study design and treatment.

173 In our 2 year, rater-masked, randomised controlled phase 3 trial, we en

174 In our 2 year, rater-masked, randomised controlled phase 3 trial, we en

175 traits -with the exception of VHI in female raters- may not be good predictors of these preferences

176 eristics as determined by separate groups of raters (n = 2,751) across 14 nations.

177 We examined the extent to which American raters' (n = 515) perceptions of the benefit-generation

178 Trained raters observed General Surgery residents performing lap

179 and the videotapes were rated by two blinded raters on a scale of 0=normal, 1=mild convergence spasm

180 reliability and intrarater reliability by 5 raters on a set of 80 total patient scars, 20 of which w

181 tumor delineation upon the agreement between raters on radiomics features was examined via interclass

182 Agreement between raters on the scratch test was very high, with an intra-

183 or each dilemma was rated by two independent raters on wisdom criteria, i.e., metacognitive humility,

184 y be helpful to arbitrate disagreement among raters or in borderline cases.

185 bility of criteria during retesting, between raters, over time, and across settings), 2) content vali

186 ts' symptom ratings indicate that some proxy raters overestimate whereas others underestimate patient

187 liability showed significant agreement among raters (P < 0.001).

188 mantic content analysis of the interviews, a rater panel trained in this method independently coded a

189 One rater performed region-of-interest analysis in the corti

190 to examine associations between strength of rater preferences for attractive traits in opposite-sex

191 This effect was independent of raters' prior sexual experience and variation in female

192 scoring by expert versus novices-ie, expert raters produce significantly more consistent scoring tha

193 Two independent raters rated each videotape at 31 predetermined time poi

194 These results suggest that among male raters, rater self-perceived attractiveness and sociosex

195 There were high inter-rater reliabilities and correlations between the BCoS ap

196 Inter-rater reliabilities for each parameter using this system

197 Inter-rater reliability (0.85) and reliability of the pass/fai

198 All scales demonstrated inter-rater reliability (alpha = 0.58-0.76), though only the g

199 Inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa) was acceptable for bot

200 ach patient with a high intrarater and inter-rater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients 0

201 ecision of data entry was confirmed by inter-rater reliability (IRR).

202 Inter-rater reliability (kappa) of diagnosis among evaluators

203 were always assessable with excellent inter-rater reliability (numeric rating scale intraclass corre

204 tra-rater reliability was 0.89 and for inter-rater reliability 0.80.

205 Inter-rater reliability among the participants' ratings was go

206 Inter-rater reliability analysis of the presence (rating 1 or

207 Means for inter-rater reliability and accuracy were all the same (p = 0.

208 dity, internal consistency, inter- and intra-rater reliability and sensitivity to change.

209 Inter-rater reliability and the reliability of the pass/fail d

210 ation coefficient was used to evaluate inter-rater reliability between the nurse and the physician fo

211 Inter-rater reliability confirmed the level of evidence.

212 g a pre-determined extraction form and inter-rater reliability evaluations were conducted.

213 Inter-rater reliability for blinded diagnosis was kappa of 0.8

214 method surveys; (ii) determination of inter-rater reliability for each type of pathology in each reg

215 Inter-rater reliability for noncardiologist raters was modest

216 Inter-rater reliability for the 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria

217 strating feasibility, we tested it for inter-rater reliability in 40 subjects.

218 lass correlation coefficient (ICC) for inter-rater reliability of 0.76 (95% confirdence interval (CI)

219 There was poor inter-rater reliability of Alpha/Beta classification (mean kap

220 to assess system sensitivity; examine inter-rater reliability of ratings; investigate concurrent con

221 We sought to determine inter-rater reliability of the 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria f

222 Inter-rater reliability of the Appropriate Use Criteria was as

223 s of experts and provided evidence for inter-rater reliability of the formula.

224 t reports on a study that examined the inter-rater reliability of the Full Outline of Unresponsivenes

225 h pemphigus to estimate the inter- and intra-rater reliability of the PDAI and the recently described

226 the psychometric properties including inter-rater reliability of the prototype SPLINTS behavioural r

227 Future studies should evaluate inter-rater reliability of the SIOP scale.

228 Inter-rater reliability showed significant agreement among rat

229 m response modelling (Rasch analysis), inter-rater reliability testing, construct analysis and correl

230 he studies investigated the inter- and intra-rater reliability using the "kappa" statistic; the valid

231 lass correlation coefficient for MUNIX intra-rater reliability was 0.89 and for inter-rater reliabili

232 Inter-rater reliability was assessed by calculating intraclass

233 Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intraclass correlat

234 The inter-rater reliability was excellent (kappa = 0.815, P < 0.00

235 The tool was feasible to use and inter-rater reliability was excellent (r = 0.96, P < 0.001).

236 Inter-rater reliability was excellent [0.87 (95%-confidence in

237 Inter-rater reliability was excellent.

238 Inter-rater reliability was good for all frameworks.

239 Inter-rater reliability was high for the checklist scores (0.8

240 In phase II, inter-rater reliability was measured using intra-class correla

241 The level of inter-rater reliability was similar when rating teams and atte

242 Intra and inter-rater reliability were largely "excellent" (intraclass c

243 .86), and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.71-0.86) for intra-rater reliability, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.63-0.80), 0.67 (9

244 Test-retest and inter-rater reliability, construct validity (convergent, discr

245 content, construct validity, intra- or inter-rater reliability, or consistency (28.5%).

246 dies to develop and test: feasibility, inter-rater reliability, repeatability and external validity.

247 Inter- and intra-rater reliability, validity, responsiveness, and complet

248 d for delirium features with excellent inter-rater reliability.

249 st content validity, acceptability and inter-rater reliability.

250 was found to have a higher inter- and intra-rater reliability.

251 ed by a second psychologist to measure inter-rater reliability.

252 ly assigned these categories to assess inter-rater reliability.

253 I, 0.57-0.91) representing substantial inter-rater reliability.

254 0.75) and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.56-0.77) for inter-rater reliability.

255 o timepoints 3 months apart to confirm intra-rater reliability.

256 Assessment Method for the ICU and reference rater, respectively.

257 Experienced raters reviewed all scans for cortical infarctions, lacu

258 Meta-analysis of the three expert-rater-scored cohorts revealed six associated loci harbor

259 counted for 45% of the observed variation in raters' scores for the borderline videos (P < .001).

260 hese results suggest that among male raters, rater self-perceived attractiveness and sociosexuality a

261 index [VHI] in both sexes) and also measured rater self-perceived attractiveness and sociosexuality.

262 Moreover, male rater self-perceived attractiveness was positively assoc

263 Results indicated that male rater sociosexuality scores were positively associated w

264 Intra-rater test-retest reliability demonstrated an ICC of 0.9

265 Unit also contained sufficient data on inter-rater/test-retest reliability, responsiveness, and feasi

266 Across all three raters, the frequency of moderate to severe dyspnea was

267 Raters then assessed accuracy of imitation by reconstruc

268 We asked raters to assess free-ranging rhesus macaques at two tim

269 ract and full-text review by two independent raters to identify suitable citations.

270 n=11) support the ability of two independent raters to obtain similar results when calculating total

271 Rater training was described for 26 tools.

272 ate their fellows more highly than the ROSCE raters, typically there was agreement between the progra

273 s selected a priori were estimated by expert raters unaware of case status.

274 no more than 1 hair whorl was present) by 2 raters unaware of sexual orientation.

275 and -Altman plot indicated that, on average, raters underestimated the distance from the right costal

276 of the remaining 312 articles, eight trained raters used a coding system to record standardized nursi

277 performance was assessed by a blinded expert rater using Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic

278 room (OR) assessed by 3 independent, masked raters using a previously validated task-specific assess

279 nd secondary outcomes from treatment-blinded raters using an intention-to-treat analysis.

280 We assessed concordance between raters using the kappa statistic and resolved disagreeme

281 -up period as assessed by blinded diagnostic raters using the telephone-administered Structured Clini

282 Between-rater variability in new T2 lesion counts may be reduced

283 noise distribution from published mRS inter-rater variability to generate an error percentage for "s

284 rey matter at C2/C3 level was close to inter-rater variability, reaching an accuracy (DSC) of 0.826 f

285 ements with accuracy equivalent to the inter-rater variability, with a Dice score (DSC) of 0.967 at C

286 ales may be affected by intrarater and inter-rater variability.

287 Inter-rater reliability for noncardiologist raters was modest (unweighted Cohen kappa, 0.51, 95% con

288 class correlation coefficients (ICC) between raters were 0.99 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.98-1.0

289 Clinical raters were blinded to treatment assignment.

290 Patients, treaters, and raters were effectively masked.

291 excellent (kappa > 0.6), and scores between raters were highly correlated (r = 0.957).

292 s features vary in response to the number of raters were largely feature-dependent.

293 All patients, investigators, and independent raters were masked to study treatment.

294 Only the raters were masked to treatment assignment.

295 lue (PPV and NPV) for the two Arabic CAM-ICU raters, where calculations were based on considering the

296 Face validity was assessed by surveying raters who used both the Adapted Cognitive Exam and Mini

297 clinical symptoms was evaluated by 3 blinded raters with a standardized video protocol and clinical r

298 Raters with different levels of training (including card

299 benefit as assessed by central, independent raters with the Parkinson's disease-adapted scale for as

300 the overall SCAR score predicted whether the rater would consider the scar undesirable, with an odds