ライフサイエンスコーパス: rating

1 were assessed using the ROBIS tool and GRADE rating.

2 ulation increase preceded the maximum damage rating.

3 o both the computed features and behavioural ratings.

4 rsus low-depressive strata based on baseline ratings.

5 related with spectators' emotional intensity ratings.

6 vigilance task (PVT) and subjective fatigue ratings.

7 low" or "critically low" AMSTAR 2 confidence ratings.

8 rrors were categorised and assigned severity ratings.

9 aster illusion onset and increased vividness ratings.

10 0.001), depression (<0.05) and gait (<0.001) ratings.

11 rated illusion onset and increased vividness ratings.

12 creased with subjective self-other closeness ratings.

13 sociated with 2 year increases in worthwhile ratings.

14 y when comparing participants' and reference ratings.

15 nd mood, anxiety, craving, and sleep quality ratings.

16 st scores (0.82-0.97) but moderate for GEARS ratings (0.40-0.67).

17 rated discussion RESULTS:: After 2 rounds of rating, 24 indicators were rated as valid, covering the

18 tential IMS calibrants on the basis of their rating against seven criteria for suitable standards and

19 gnificant differences in success and failure ratings among methods.

20 2 closed questions: (1) clinical performance rating and (2) selection of action required.

21 eduction in relatedness and negative valence rating and attenuation of neural activation in the anter

22 luding new EH risk factors, notably evidence rating and global exposure assessment.

23 as discrepancy in loudness between tinnitus rating and matching.

24 ur study is to evaluate NINM effects on pain rating and nerve conduction velocity in DPN patients.

25 wer compensation reported increased appetite ratings and beliefs that healthy behaviors can compensat

26 Bottom-up assessment instruments obtain self-ratings and collateral ratings of behavioral, emotional,

27 within individuals, as well as in the affect ratings and emotion labels associated with each pattern.

28 fested by the attentional modulation of pain ratings and enhanced pain responses in pregenual anterio

29 Pain ratings and psychological state/trait measures were reco

30 d cross-validation, consensus technologists' rating, and consensus radiologists' rating to the ground

31 rmination of SID thresholds, intelligibility ratings, and a fast syllable repetition task.

32 Demographics, anthropometrics, liking ratings, and neural responses to varying concentrations

33 tcomes included cognitive test scores, GEARS ratings, and robot familiarity checklist scores.

34 en-QoL), Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-Rating Depression Scale

35 and socioeconomic status, higher worthwhile ratings are associated with stronger personal relationsh

36 (ADNI) and relying on the Clinical Dementia Rating as group-defining instrument, we hypothesised tha

37 dure successfully elicited subjective stress ratings as well as stress relevant physiological paramte

38 cs that were combined into an average health rating at four points during exposure and recovery.

39 (1)H-MRS and clinical ratings at baseline were assessed for ability to predict

40 between teams' and attending surgeons' NOTSS ratings at category [Pearson coefficient 0.86, 95% confi

41 ts (YUFOs) that included pairwise similarity ratings at the beginning, middle, and end of training, a

42 re developed to predict the expert consensus ratings based on the hand kinematic data records.

43 The kappa statistic was used to compare ratings between examiners.

44 eporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses and rating by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess SRs 2 were used i

45 ssment and were assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologist.

46 ssment and were assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologist.

47 assessment and assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologist.

48 eria and were assigned a quality-of-evidence rating by the panel methodologist.

49 assessment and assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologist.

50 nd subsequently assigned a level of evidence rating by the panel methodologists.

51 rehensive assessment data, software compares ratings by different informants.

52 y lower work functioning, and general health ratings compared to participants in the normal group.

53 acic radiologists circled pulmonary nodules, rating confidence that the nodule was a 5-mm-or-greater

54 al decision is often followed by a period of rating confidence where one evaluates the likely accurac

55 This is because crop rating data naturally encapsulates the broad expert know

56 MADRS ratings decreased significantly from 29.6 (SD +/- 4) at

57 Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) and Hamilton Rating Scale

58 (ISI), Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), sleep parameters recorded

59 tal circuit activations associated with pain rating, discrimination, experimenter trust and extranoci

60 The dwarf mistletoe rating (DMR), a measure of infection intensity, varied a

61 Despite similar hunger ratings due to fasting in both conditions, participants

62 tionships: Neither differential SCR nor fear ratings during fear acquisition or extinction training c

63 re informed about the obtained reward before rating either their own or the partner's effort.

64 lts with and without anxiety disorders while rating fear and memory of ambiguous threats.

65 When rating fear, activation in the vmPFC differed between th

66 Behavioral ratings, fNIRS and EEG data showed positive correlations

67 derwent acute thermal pain and provided pain ratings followed by confidence judgments on continuous v

68 hodologist then assigned a level of evidence rating for each study.

69 atings for satiety responsiveness, or higher ratings for food responsiveness had greater increases in

70 ions: those with higher weight status, lower ratings for satiety responsiveness, or higher ratings fo

71 Ratings for skill did not correlate with overall 30-day

72 Predicted versus panel ratings for tying had slopes from 0.39 to 0.88, and inte

73 ase patients with the same Clinical Dementia Rating global score (mean UPDRS-III scores 20.71 versus

74 Mutation carriers with a Clinical Dementia Rating global score of 2 exhibited more pronounced motor

75 However, surgeons with higher skill ratings had lower rates of specific surgical complicatio

76 -referent encoding task [SRET]) and clinical ratings (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D], Sympt

77 al involvement in people's food pleasantness ratings, hunger, and weight.

78 tion as rated by clinicians and with patient ratings improving.

79 tivation was not related to other subjective ratings including alcohol-induced sedation, stimulation,

80 were patient-reported disability (Disability Rating Index), health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5

81 second edition [BOT-2]), and on the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF).

82 sitivity; examine inter-rater reliability of ratings; investigate concurrent construct validity; and

83 In contrast, when rating memory for task stimuli, activation in the inferi

84 eye fixations and reaction time during pain rating might serve as implicit markers of confidence.

85 First impression ratings (n = 227) of Barbary macaques' social and health

86 Surgeons in the top quartile for self:peer ratings (n=6, ratio 1.58) had lower overall mean peer-sc

87 ent factors associated with moderate or high rating of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess SRs 2 were public

88 A visual rating of anatomic features (T1 weighted, T1 weighted wi

89 enign and malignant lesions were a PSMA RADS rating of at least 4, an SUV(max) of at least 4.1, and S

90 inical recovery was assessed with the global rating of change scale and Boston Carpal Tunnel Question

91 Up and Go test, and the score on the Global Rating of Change scale, all assessed at 1 year.

92 The overall rating of confidence in the results according to a tool

93 yopia (AOR = 2.36; 95%CI: 1.2-4.66) and self-rating of current vision as good (AOR = 3.5; 95%CI: 1.61

94 w this combined signal is transformed into a rating of discomfort or pupil response.

95 nly determines the presence of saponin via a rating of either 'acceptable' or 'unacceptable'.

96 Problem rating of hot flushes and subdomains of quality of life

97 higher level of gaps during RALS and a lower rating of perceived exertion, also for the legs, after R

98 Cohen kappa value comparing the consensus rating of ResNet-50 iterations from fivefold cross-valid

99 s. unpleasant) on emotional attribution (the rating of subtle emotional faces: fearful, neutral, or h

100 Individual overall self-rating of surgical skill varied between 2.5 to 5.

101 outcomes that matter to women and provided a rating of the certainty of evidence.

102 of-care instrument scoresheets and tested on ratings of 140 children videos from YouTube.

103 osite score was derived from multi-informant ratings of ADHD symptomatology.

104 We obtained ratings of anxiety, irritability, and ADHD, and 10 minut

105 op 5" practices from among those with median ratings of at least +2 for all 3 criteria.

106 struments obtain self-ratings and collateral ratings of behavioral, emotional, social, and thought pr

107 ar perceptions of objectivity versus bias in ratings of blog authors favoring the candidate participa

108 We collected explicit ratings of conceptual brightness for 45 noun concepts an

109 Verubecestat did not improve clinical ratings of dementia among patients with prodromal Alzhei

110 idirectional associations between changes in ratings of doing worthwhile things in life and 32 factor

111 uring evening resting wakefulness, predicted ratings of dream anger.

112 h viewing of emotional and neutral faces and ratings of emotional responses.

113 e during terminal hospitalization and family ratings of end-of-life care for patients who died in 106

114 wk follow-up period, patients recorded daily ratings of facial pain intensity and duration; the produ

115 rtical tuning of social threat cues, whereas ratings of fearfulness showed generalization, linearly d

116 Secondary outcomes were ratings of feeling "high," drug "liking," and negative d

117 jectory modeling was applied to longitudinal ratings of four symptom domains (positive, negative, dis

118 fusiform gyri for angry faces and decreased ratings of happiness for all stimuli, but no significant

119 4 visits, subjective "liking" and "wanting" ratings of high- and low-calorie food images were acquir

120 s of vigor and slightly decreased positivity ratings of images with positive emotional content.

121 affective aspects of social interactions as ratings of interpersonal closeness between two walking s

122 gnificant delay that well match experimental ratings of perceived taste intensity to a range of sweet

123 Ratings of population samples provide norms for syndrome

124 ns for sleep disruption, 2) patient-reported ratings of potential factors affecting sleep quality, an

125 Ratings of predisposing and exciting causes were mandate

126 , ICU care was associated with higher family ratings of quality of end-of-life care than ward care.

127 m participants' verbal descriptions and self-ratings of sensory/motor/cognitive/spatiotemporal and em

128 rated that surgeons with lower peer-reviewed ratings of surgical skill had higher complication rates

129 High pleasantness ratings of the environment were linked to low physiologi

130 sponses to the absolute distance between the ratings of the stranger and the familiar choice options.

131 ture and kinematics and acquired behavioural ratings of these feature descriptors to investigate thei

132 Subjective ratings of thirst were significantly higher for imaginin

133 tle emotional faces, such that participants' ratings of valenced faces (fearful and happy), compared

134 At the highest dose, the drug also increased ratings of vigor and slightly decreased positivity ratin

135 med a visual discrimination task followed by ratings of visibility and response confidence.

136 This effect of migraine is selective for ratings of visual discomfort, in that an enhancement of

137 Subjective ratings of wanting and liking were not modulated by eith

138 Over 90% of participants provided positive ratings on each of the 6 acceptability items.

139 creasing ICU time was associated with higher ratings on these same measures (all P < 0.001 for compar

140 tner-reported variables (i.e., the partner's ratings on those variables).

141 spective regressors or asking for confidence ratings only in the second half of the experiment.

142 Conversely, increases in worthwhile ratings over 2 years were related to more favourable hea

143 Subjective ratings, physical effort, and facial reactions to matche

144 Furthermore, in behavioral ratings PP showed higher emotional distress and avoidanc

145 Longitudinally over a 4-y period, worthwhile ratings predict positive changes in social, economic, he

146 d confidence was associated with faster pain rating reaction times.

147 that (1) ranking alternatives through direct rating (response time) accurately predicts preference in

148 Analyses of pairwise similarity ratings revealed multiple dissociations between the repr

149 hizophrenia (SANS) and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS).

150 symptoms reflected on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS).

151 os Amigos scale (RLAS) score, and disability rating scale (DRS) score.

152 The Dysphagia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS), which grades how severe dysphagia i

153 ctiveness measures were the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and the Hamilton Depression Rating

154 ng Scale (HAM-A) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

155 asured using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-17), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Ra

156 easure was change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D-24) score.

157 ion Rating Scale (HAMD-17), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA), and mean reaction time/accuracy rat

158 ry Scale (SROS), 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (H

159 n Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS(17)), and the Clinical Global Impress

160 20 vs high > =20) on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and on sex (male/female).

161 easured with the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS).

162 s using the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS).

163 y using the International Cooperative Ataxia Rating Scale (ICARS).

164 ale (HAM-D-17), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and self-reported Inventory of Depr

165 tion in Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) during 12 months of DBS (timeline a

166 s completed the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) to quantify depressive symptomology

167 measure was the Montogmery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

168 by the Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

169 ing the Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

170 d using Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

171 ADAS-Cog) at week 24 and the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale (MDRS) at week 76, using intention-to-treat

172 Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor score (i.e., part III) fo

173 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part 3 (motor) score at week 12

174 isorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS).

175 Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS-III), and electrophysiological e

176 3 (3.2) vs 2.1 (2.1); p=0.001), Lille Apathy Rating Scale (mean (SD) -23.3 (9.6) vs -27.0 (4.7); p=0.

177 FA and baseline modified Friedreich's Ataxia Rating Scale (mFARS) scores between 20 and 80, were rand

178 ferences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after rand

179 Index (EASI), the peak pruritus (PP) numeric rating scale (NRS), and the Investigator's Global Assess

180 daily intensity of pruritus on the numerical rating scale (scores range from 0 [no itch] to 10 [worst

181 isorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (total score 4.6 [SD 4.4] healthy controls

182 as change in the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) parts I to III score measured in th

183 related with the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score in PD patients.

184 tal score on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS; scores range from 0 to 176, with hi

185 he 24-hour Worst Itching Intensity Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS; scores range from 0 to 10, with hi

186 ]) and clinical ratings (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAM-D], Symptom Checklist-90 Revised [SCL-

187 iety [MDS]-revised Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS] [I-III] total score, 43.4 +/- 17.8)

188 lopmental Inventory and South African Parent Rating Scale and hemoglobin, plasma ferritin, C-reactive

189 emporal Lobar Degeneration-Clinical Dementia Rating scale and MRI.

190 A numerical rating scale and the Faces, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Con

191 oms were assessed with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale at baseline and over the course of 12 weeks

192 ean peak score for pruritus on the numerical rating scale at week 4.

193 stimulation and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale changes in the first week were the most imp

194 f-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) and Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety (HAMA).

195 ve of this study was to design an ophthalmic rating scale for CLN3 disease in order to quantify disea

196 toms decreased significantly on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (effect size = -0.37, p = .0

197 actigraphy, as well as applying the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17), Self-Rating Depre

198 e versus placebo, assessed with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HSRD) over 8 weeks.

199 achieving remission (i.e., 24-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score <10 and a relative red

200 kcroft-Gault equation) or Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics score greater than 6.

201 Pain severity was measured using a numeric rating scale from 0 to 10 over the past 7 and 30 days fo

202 ion, self-rated mean fatigue scores (numeric rating scale from 1-10, primary outcome) were 3.9 +/- 1.

203 xisting conditions with a cumulative illness rating scale greater than 6, a creatinine clearance of 3

204 ve symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Rating Scale HADS) at both 24-h (P = 0.015) and 12 weeks

205 sed depression symptoms (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale HAM-D) at 4 weeks (p < 0.001) but not 4-h a

206 in scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the

207 item 3, Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale item 10, and Columbia Suicide Severity Rati

208 ty was measured with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale item 3, Montgomery- angstromsberg Depressio

209 he newly established Hamburg CLN3 ophthalmic rating scale may serve as an objective marker of ocular

210 The PRO scores were derived using rating scale models.

211 sments using the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale Motor Score (BFMMS) and Burke-Fahn-Marsden

212 ly higher on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale motor subscale than other groups.

213 g Atopic Dermatitis-sleep, and the Numerical Rating Scale of pain (Pearson correlations, P < 0.0001 f

214 isorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part 3 (UPDRS-III).

215 ong-term overall Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III (UPDRS-III) improvement (63 patien

216 correlated with Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale Part III scores.

217 isorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part III, Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-1

218 honemic verbal fluency and Clinical Dementia Rating scale plus FTD modules.

219 ure, Dermatology Life Quality Index, Numeric Rating Scale pruritus).

220 affected >=10%, and Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score >=4) with a bodyweight of 40 kg or mo

221 -7.9% to 2.1%]; P = .26), 6-month Disability Rating Scale score (6.8 vs 7.6; difference, -0.9 [95% CI

222 rticle: 28-day mortality, 6-month Disability Rating Scale score (range, 0 [no disability] to 30 [deat

223 lation was found between the CLN3 ophthalmic rating scale score and the Hamburg JNCL score (r = 0.83;

224 ssive symptoms (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score change: -13.7 +/- 9.7, p < 0.001, d =

225 Rapid reductions in the itch numerical rating scale score occurred within 36 hours (1.5% BID vs

226 Median Cumulative Illness Rating Scale score was 8 (range, 4-32).

227 Assessment, and Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score was obtained in patients.

228 state examination and the clinical dementia rating scale sum of boxes scores.

229 Pain was assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale that ranged from 0 to 10 (horizontal pain s

230 Disorder Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale total (mean (SD) 19.2 (12.7) vs 6.1 (5.7);

231 t Disorder Score-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale total scores in all A53T SNCA carriers (r -

232 Median pain intensity on the numeric rating scale was 4 (interquartile range, 2-6) in the wee

233 The initial pruritus score on the numerical rating scale was 8.4 in each group.

234 4, the peak pruritus score on the numerical rating scale was reduced from baseline by 4.5 points (ch

235 Mini-Mental State Exam and Clinical Dementia Rating Scale), emotional/behaviour symptoms as assessed

236 e patients' clinical severity (using the PSP rating scale).

237 on the Montgomery- angstromsberg Depression Rating Scale).

238 ctiveness measures included Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, World He

239 l parameters (revised amyotrophic functional rating scale, slow vital capacity, and upper motor neuro

240 on Anxiety Rating Scale, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, World Health Organization Quality of Life

241 ional cognitive instruments (Mattis Dementia Rating Scale-2 [DRS-2] and Montreal Cognitive Assessment

242 n the Movement Disorder Society - Unified PD Rating Scale-I (MDS-UPDRS-I) underwent open-label nabilo

243 ast visit on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale-Motor Exam, global measures of cognitive fu

244 ar-onset disease, and a lower ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) total score at baseline.

245 ndpoints included supine SVC, ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R), tolerability and safety

246 the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R; range, 0 to 48, with hig

247 Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised item scores from Study 19 were retr

248 ek 104 in the score on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB; scores range from 0 t

249 tive Syndrome Scale or the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale.

250 nts, caregivers, and nurses with a numerical rating scale.

251 Scale item 10, and Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

252 ween disease severity as measured by several rating scales and disease duration.

253 protocol including validated visual atrophy rating scales, and to consider volumetric analyses if av

254 ssessed by the Burke Fahn Marsden's Dystonia Rating Scales, BFMDRS-M and BFMDRS-D) was evident at 6 m

255 related to inherent limitations of clinical rating scales; these scales are insensitive to early deg

256 ; 95% CI: 0.72, 3.38; P = 0.003), and Parent Rating Score (1.10; 95% CI: 0.14, 2.07; P = 0.025), but

257 the MR images using a three-point numerical rating score.

258 r age, education, sex, and clinical dementia rating score.

259 onse times (P = 0.017) and higher depression rating scores (HAM-D P = 0.020, SCL-90-R depression P =

260 ation to predict predefined normative affect rating scores for stimuli drawn from the International A

261 Depression rating scores were negatively associated with decreased

262 However, retrospective pain ratings show an effect of expectancy but not of delivery

263 Interestingly, the behavioural ratings showed a clearer distinction between affective m

264 These ratings significantly predicted intended approach to the

265 ss, as reflected in the patients' subjective ratings, skin conductance responses and facial expressio

266 bolic depictions of other participants' pain ratings (social information) and classically conditioned

267 closely associated with subjective intensity ratings, strongly supporting that stimulation of 5-HT2AR

268 surgeons, is a useful tool for observing and rating surgical teams.

269 Conclusion: PSMA RADS rating, SUV(max), and SUV(max) ratio for lesion to blood

270 size; PSMA Reporting and Data System (RADS) rating; SUV(max); and ratio of lesion SUV(max) to liver,

271 ontrol (QC) measurements to establish a star rating system.

272 y, currently used by Medicare-based hospital rating systems, was used to classify hospitals as "safes

273 of inter-rater reliability was similar when rating teams and attending surgeons.

274 re was associated with more frequent optimal ratings than no-ICU care, including overall excellent ca

275 am led to lower self-reported pain intensity ratings than the control cream.

276 a patients completed the BrTS prospectively, rating the likelihood of each item triggering their symp

277 CI, 0.76-0.94) was achieved by additionally rating the supine chest radiograph reading score 1 as po

278 efficiencies, emphasizing the importance of rating these two stages of translation separately.

279 logist (V.K.A.) assigned a level of evidence rating to each study; 4 studies were rated level II, and

280 logists' rating, and consensus radiologists' rating to the ground truth were 0.76 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.89

281 hodologist then assigned a level of evidence rating to these studies.

282 ecreased the frequency of 'unable to assess' ratings to 11%.

283 e better for observers who gave more extreme ratings to images subsequently labeled as "high" or "low

284 Furthermore, we related these subjective ratings to style of origin and acoustical features of th

285 easures of self-reported oral health-overall rating, tooth extractions, gum bleeding, loose teeth, bo

286 The median pain rating total was highest on POD1 and declined from each

287 ation did not differ in subjective intensity ratings, tVNS led to robust pupil dilation (peaking 4-5

288 DRSP scores were captured by daily ratings using a smartphone application and were analyzed

289 emporal lobar degeneration clinical dementia rating was obtained as a measure of disease severity.

290 er-rater reliability among the participants' ratings was good except for decision-making category.

291 A set of reference ratings was provided by a multidisciplinary expert commi

292 The effect of bias on pain ratings was reduced when prediction errors (PEs) increas

293 Radiologist ratings were 7 +/- 1 (DLR), 6.2 +/- 1 (MBIR), 6.2 +/- 1

294 These ratings were again associated with polarization and, add

295 All ratings were compared with chronological age using mean

296 Image quality ratings were equal for both techniques.

297 ty acids, inflammatory markers, and activity ratings were not significantly different among groups.

298 The mixed effects model-estimated HAM-D ratings were not significantly different between the two

299 ile skin conductance response (SCR) and fear ratings were recorded.

300 ed choice procedure revealed that subjective ratings were significantly higher in response to nicotin