ライフサイエンスコーパス: reference standard

1 examination by a pain specialist physician (reference standard).

2 scopic index of severity (CDEIS) scores (the reference standard).

3 re compared to the Banff intended diagnoses (reference standard).

4 imaging analyses, or response to treatment (reference standard).

5 ompared with those from the DXA scanner (the reference standard).

6 reening among PWD using Xpert MTB/RIF as the reference standard.

7 d in each study in which MRI was used as the reference standard.

8 ated pain screen (BPISF), as compared to the reference standard.

9 out BE, using findings from endoscopy as the reference standard.

10 20 version), with the NPS result used as the reference standard.

11 ology (collagen proportionate area [CPA]) as reference standard.

12 30.6 (95% CI: 21.1, 44.4) with the clinical reference standard.

13 Quality Improvement Program was used as the reference standard.

14 pecificity than the CryptoPS compared to the reference standard.

15 ntigen (PSA) follow up, defined as composite reference standard.

16 itative metrics, using visual grading as the reference standard.

17 th the final discharge diagnosis used as the reference standard.

18 models, with consensus results of CT as the reference standard.

19 were CrAg positive (CrAg(+)) by the CrAg LFA reference standard.

20 and histopathology findings were used as the reference standard.

21 y using radiographic lymphangiography as the reference standard.

22 olymerase chain reaction test results as the reference standard.

23 nd Bland-Altmann Plots, using radiographs as reference standard.

24 fication via coinjection with nonradioactive reference standard.

25 ts were compared with molecular diagnosis as reference standard.

26 ers (neurosurgeon, radiologist) provided the reference standard.

27 etastases were determined by using CT as the reference standard.

28 ith stool specimen results being used as the reference standard.

29 viewed in a blinded manner, were used as the reference standard.

30 ely, with the latter one serving as internal reference standard.

31 t which the model is evaluated is termed the reference standard.

32 follow-up for more than 24 months served as reference standard.

33 (3)He MRI ventilation maps were used as the reference standard.

34 CT was used as the reference standard.

35 ing free-toxin results to CCCNA results as a reference standard.

36 sing findings from histology analysis as the reference standard.

37 who had (68)Ga-PSMA PET) and to a composite reference standard.

38 cal analysis and immunohistochemistry as the reference standard.

39 mage sets, and MRI manual planimetry was the reference standard.

40 ompared with T1-weighted MRI, with CT as the reference standard.

41 d studies had an independent comparison to a reference standard.

42 The prostatectomy specimen served as the reference standard.

43 hy (SDOCT) B-scans using human grades as the reference standard.

44 ew NAATs when there is no previously defined reference standard.

45 lts from stratified by patient sex, age, and reference standard.

46 using invasively measured FFR <=0.80 as the reference standard.

47 asked to PET imaging findings, was used as a reference standard.

48 d used transthoracic echocardiography as the reference standard.

49 ed using the clinical examination finding as reference standard.

50 sure detection compared to gonioscopy as the reference standard.

51 % CI: 0.85, 0.89) compared with the clinical reference standard.

52 ar prognosis compared with the expert reader reference standard.

53 s assessed using microscopy for yeast as the reference standard.

54 Xpert was used as the reference standard.

55 The ePLND was used as a reference standard.

56 nges in lean mass, using MRI-derived MV as a reference standard.

57 nsitivity analysis with Xpert MTB/RIF as the reference standard.

58 ume (n=341 versus 422) using FFR</=0.80 as a reference standard.

59 ble COVID-19 diagnosis based on the clinical reference standard.

60 ears of follow-up were used to establish the reference standard.

61 ells and ((125)I-BA)KuE as a radioligand and reference standard.

62 e additional human reviewers was used as the reference standard.

63 the BacterioScan device, with culture as the reference standard.

64 ive predictive value (NPV), using ICA as the reference standard.

65 n-demand spot sputum collection was the main reference standard.

66 th CRC, using findings from colonoscopy as a reference standard.

67 -negative patients as classified against any reference standard.

68 udies that did not use histopathology as the reference standard.

69 bution as the population used to develop the reference standard.

70 ) were calculated for MRI using CT scan as a reference standard.

71 rative and histopathologic findings were the reference standard.

72 visual capillary refill time assessment as a reference standard.

73 iles, using findings from colonoscopy as the reference standard.

74 tion of occult fractures by using MRI as the reference standard.

75 etermined by 3 readers and compared with the reference standard.

76 as AF present or absent, which served as the reference standard.

77 ty coefficient (DSC) of 0.80 compared to the reference standard.

78 arcinoma in situ (DCIS) to define a positive reference standard.

79 articipants being diagnosed with pain by the reference standard.

80 , and (c) they used surgical findings as the reference standard.

81 est characteristics using 16.5-mm scans as a reference standard.

82 of the DWI data set to those of the clinical reference standard.

83 computed from article data using a composite reference standard.

84 Histopathologic analysis served as the reference standard.

85 nce of CT was calculated using RT-PCR as the reference standard.

86 ion in retention times captured by a routine reference standard.

87 eports and 2 y of follow-up were used as the reference standard.

88 n embryos with optical imaging as an in vivo reference standard.

89 lesion localized that corresponded with the reference standard.

90 e-mount digital histopathology (WMHP) as the reference standard.

91 hen contrast-enhanced MRI was considered the reference standard.

92 ith the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) reference standard.

93 ysis and diagnostic odds ratios against both reference standards.

94 dentified by comparison to the IR spectra of reference standards.

95 us allowing virtual experiments with virtual reference standards.

96 irmed to be present in cigarette smoke using reference standards.

97 choosing the study population, setting, and reference standards.

98 athology and follow-up electronic records as reference standards.

99 ans of linear regression with the respective reference standards.

100 e cytochrome b gene) and quantitative PCR as reference standards.

101 and 6-week clinical follow-up as diagnostic reference standards.

102 alysis and follow-up imaging as the clinical reference standards.

103 as glycan microarrays, affinity resins, and reference standards.

104 results or follow-up examinations served as reference standards.

105 olic steatohepatitis categories were used as reference standards.

106 Disease Control and Prevention were used as reference standards.

107 ng variability in absolute quantification of reference standards.

108 that showed almost perfect agreement to the reference standard (0.943 and 0.931 Cohen kappa).

109 c CECs were identified; those confirmed with reference standards (45) included pharmaceuticals, herbi

110 tive percent agreement (PPA) compared to our reference standard (98.3%) followed by ePlex (91.4%) and

111 By using these expert readings as the reference standard, a CNN was developed to detect foci p

112 For the clinical reference standard, a multidisciplinary team determined

113 Using colonoscopy as the reference standard, a test for NK cell activity in whole

114 correction (pCT-IDIF) were compared with the reference standard (AIF) using the absolute percentage d

115 seven substances was confirmed by authentic reference standards, all of which exhibited an elevated

116 neous clinical syndrome without a pathologic reference standard, allowing for subjectivity and broad

117 8 commercial tests) that used culture as the reference standard and 24 data sets (21 in-house tests a

118 The greatest discordance between the reference standard and clinicians' diagnosis was when hi

119 s CNN agreement with the human expert reader reference standard and CNN prediction of incident non-VF

120 etting, index-test specific issues, suitable reference standard and comparators, study flow and speci

121 tion of arthritis compared with the clinical reference standard and to compare DWI to contrast materi

122 ransesophageal echocardiography (TEE) as the reference standard and to provide insights into the caus

123 Analysis of discrepancies between the reference standard and Virtual Pediatric Systems explici

124 enefit from the availability of standardized reference standards and improvements to the methodology.

125 l phosphate-by running a matrix spike of the reference standards and using m/z, retention time, and t

126 eveloped for this study by using adjudicated reference standards and with population-level performanc

127 vide a DR grading scale, a human grader as a reference standard, and a deep learning performance scor

128 ter subsequent tumor resection served as the reference standard, and patients were categorized as res

129 analysis after tumor resection served as the reference standard, and patients were defined as respond

130 material-enhanced images were considered the reference standard, and the predictive value of diameter

131 inst culture and a composite microbiological reference standard (any positive result).

132 PD is the reference standard approach for tumors of the pancreatic

133 We used a two-step reference standard approach to estimate disease status.

134 The candidate reference standards are suitable for use as IRRS in the

135 Arterial blood samples were collected as the reference standard (arterial input function [AIF]).

136 nd team of ICU research nurses conducted the reference standard assessments of delirium (based on Dia

137 WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol pop

138 hods for diagnosis of infection, there is no reference standard available for use as a comparator for

139 between the model estimates and those of the reference standard, bone age.

140 Measured GFR (mGFR) remains the reference standard, but the past 20 years have seen majo

141 not be calculated due to lack of a criterion reference standard, but were estimated as the proportion

142 ased on findings in the last CT study as the reference standard by using a nested case-control design

143 , a post hoc analysis was combined with a CD reference standard (CD-RS), which was based upon an obje

144 Agreement with the reference standard (Cohen's kappa 0.868) and sensitivity

145 PICU mortality was 8% in the reference standard cohort and the cohort identified by e

146 After including these patients in the reference standard cohort as an exploratory analysis, ag

147 ual Pediatric Systems explicit codes and the reference standard cohort improved (kappa = 0.73; positi

148 criteria for severe sepsis or septic shock (reference standard cohort).

149 F1 = 0.34) showed limited agreement with the reference standard cohort.

150 studies, diagnostic accuracy studies with a reference standard, cohort studies, and case-control stu

151 rep-Sure (enzyme immunoassay [EIA]), using a reference standard combining clinical diagnosis and sero

152 plicons) was performed on all samples as the reference standard comparator.

153 Ground truth was established from reference standard comparison CT or MRI.

154 ages of HCCs and overall malignancy based on reference standard confirmation.

155 A composite comparator reference standard consisting of the 3 alternate (Alt) T

156 et of identically prepared and scanned resin reference standards containing Ca, Ti, Cr, Mn, Ni, Cu, Z

157 Using the IMMY CrAg LFA as a reference standard, CrAgSQ was 93.0% sensitive (95% conf

158 By comparison to a composite reference standard (CRS) for anti-C. pneumoniae antibody

159 ture as the reference standard or a combined reference standard (CRS) for TBM.

160 nd negative likelihood ratios of DUS against reference standard CTA.

161 e rules include patient outcome, validation, reference standard, design, data usage, and accountabili

162 commonly used diagnostic system upon which a reference standard diagnosis is made, although many othe

163 The assigned diagnoses and reference standard differed by 26.1% (SD 28.1%) for path

164 imaging in x-ray angiography and the current reference standard digital subtraction angiography (DSA)

165 enetic alterations in both normal and cancer reference standard DNA samples.

166 sors may be suitable for PM monitoring where reference-standard equipment is not available or feasibl

167 chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay and a clinical reference standard established by a multidisciplinary gr

168 ve Care Delirium Screening Checklist against reference-standard expert diagnosis.

169 Applying a microbiological reference standard for assessment of sensitivity, the ov

170 with simple-appearing cysts with an adequate reference standard for benign outcome.

171 The reference standard for bone marrow edema was the combine

172 Pathology of core or surgical biopsy was the reference standard for cancer detection rate and PPV; in

173 This comprehensive cortical atlas provides a reference standard for canine brain research and will im

174 Reference standard for correct localization was on the b

175 laboratory on respiratory specimens are the reference standard for COVID-19 diagnostics.

176 Multimodal imaging was considered the reference standard for detecting different subtypes of d

177 Spirometry is the reference standard for diagnosing and assessing the seve

178 ement (LGE) and T1 mapping, is emerging as a reference standard for diagnosis and characterization of

179 Follow-up LGE imaging was used as the reference standard for final IS and viability assessment

180 The reference standard for fracture was a combined reading o

181 feline neuroanatomy but also will serve as a reference standard for future feline neuroimaging studie

182 teinizing hormone (LH) in serum, used as the reference standard for identifying the onset of puberty.

183 In the absence of a readily available reference standard for in vivo quantification, bias in P

184 refore, open surgical cut-down should be the reference standard for port implantation in comparable c

185 (PSMA)-targeting PET imaging is becoming the reference standard for prostate cancer staging, especial

186 the next annual screen were included in the reference standard for sensitivity and specificity.

187 The reference standard for strangulation was surgery.

188 Compared with the composite reference standard for the detection of disease beyond t

189 Multidetector computed tomography is the reference standard for the diagnosis of peripheral arter

190 e imaging (cMRI) has become the non-invasive reference standard for the evaluation of cardiac functio

191 rfusion imaging, whereas PET is the clinical reference standard for the quantification of myocardial

192 plification tests have become the diagnostic reference standard for viruses, and translation of bacte

193 here can be used with confidence as internal reference standards for a wide range of applications, in

194 ent between the BD FACSPresto system and the reference standards for all study participants.

195 ation and slope closest to 1 relative to the reference standards for all values was 120-140 min for h

196 This study provides reference standards for clinical outcomes that may be ac

197 ute labeling efficiencies and (3) as precise reference standards for molecular counting.

198 I, with histopathologic findings used as the reference standard, for the diagnosis of lipid-poor AMLs

199 valid estimation of associations between the reference standard frailty measure (i.e., "frailty") and

200 hods for modeling frailty in studies where a reference standard frailty measure is not directly obser

201 hildren, and World Health Organization (WHO) reference standards from birth to 18 months of age.

202 Studies which used a culture reference standard had better pooled summary estimates t

203 le type, test throughput, use of thresholds, reference standard (ideally culture), and specimen flow.

204 Quantitative analysis of reference standard images helps characterizing the perfo

205 The radiologist had an agreement with the reference standard in 81% (81 of 100) of the cases after

206 cal method can be assessed in the absence of reference standards in silico if the method is built upo

207 anium isotope ratios have been determined on reference standards in the 100 pg range bound to ion-exc

208 reLAM, against microbiological and composite reference standards (including clinical diagnoses).

209 f 10 graders not involved in determining the reference standard, including 2 of 3 GSs, and showed hig

210 ion and qualification of two internal rabies reference standards (IRRSs), calibrated against WHO SRIG

211 susceptibility testing by comparison with a reference standard leads to under-treatment of drug-resi

212 arge secondary mental healthcare database as reference standard, linked to English national records f

213 Two oligomers were quantified by means of reference standard materials at concentration levels abo

214 erpretation by using radiologist-adjudicated reference standards.Materials and MethodsDeep learning m

215 sing esophageal pressure-time product as the reference standard.Measurements and Main Results: P0.1ve

216 al for misclassification of diagnosis in the reference-standard mental healthcare data.

217 chemical threshold values (this requires the reference standard method (RAMP(R) immunoassay)) or alte

218 olecular-based and antibody tests remain the reference standard method for confirming a SARS-CoV-2 di

219 nt polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) but the reference standard method of MRI planimetry requires acc

220 nal cluster assay (this does not require any reference standard method).

221 monstrate the utility of molecular composite reference standard methodology for the clinical validati

222 reading 2, and reading 3) using a composite reference standard (MGIT-PZA, pncA sequencing, and the c

223 The rigor of the reference standard must be assessed, such as against a u

224 ent, accurate K(0) values of an ion mobility reference standard need to be used for ion mobility scal

225 s was confirmed by the chemical synthesis of reference standards, obtained through the sulfonation of

226 and specificity of 92.2% and 95.9% against a reference standard of bacteremic pneumonia.

227 mine the correlation between 3D FMBV and the reference standard of fluorescent microspheres (FMS) for

228 kidney volume measurements comparable to the reference standard of MRI planimetry can be obtained by

229 rements comparable to the resource-intensive reference standard of MRI planimetry can be obtained by

230 LISA) (Eurolyser) in comparison to that of a reference standard of Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture

231 The performance was compared to a reference standard of three laboratory-developed tests (

232 (CSF) samples against that of culture as the reference standard or a combined reference standard (CRS

233 sitivity by at least 29%, as compared to the reference standard (pain specialist evaluation).

234 compared between the 2 radiotracers and with reference-standard pathologic specimens obtained from ra

235 g follow-up (93%) or reoperation (7%) as the reference standard, PET combined with MRI discriminated

236 equations had excellent correlation with the reference standard (r(2) > 0.98).

237 n the investigational test and the composite reference standard ranged from 94.2% to 98.3% and from 9

238 Arterial blood samples were collected as a reference standard representing the arterial input funct

239 Analytical methods may not have reference standards required for testing their accuracy.

240 attribute abundance in the sample, using the reference standard (RS) material as calibrant.

241 The reference standard should at a minimum be a single, auto

242 Spearman correlation with the reference standard, simple linear regression, and root m

243 ions with routine multisection multiecho and reference standard single-section single-echo spin-echo

244 age, operator specialty and training level, reference standard, sonographer blinding status, and cut

245 s in Scotch Whisky by means of comparison to reference standards, spike-in experiments, and advanced

246 Conclusion With CT as the reference standard, synthetic CT of the sacroiliac joint

247 ccuracy of the BD FACSPresto system with the reference standard technologies demonstrated a significa

248 f BD FACSPresto system was comparable to the reference standard technologies.

249 narrow selection criteria, failure to apply reference standard tests consistently, and poor conversi

250 With RT-PCR test results as the reference standard, the AI system correctly classified c

251 With consensus interpretation as the reference standard, the AUC of DeepCOVID-XR was 0.95 (95

252 e board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was non-inferior to six othe

253 Using the microbiological reference standard, the estimated sensitivity of FujiLAM

254 Using FFA as the reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity of S

255 Against the composite reference standard, the specificity of both assays was h

256 Using a microbiological reference standard, the specificity of SILVAMP-LAM was 9

257 Lacking a reference standard, they used the consensus of results w

258 Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) is the reference standard to assess efficacy of treatments in p

259 As proposed reference standard to diagnose and stage atrophy, OCT im

260 Background Liver biopsy is the reference standard to diagnose nonalcoholic steatohepati

261 Using this reference standard to establish infected specimen status

262 The TPDS and TPDS-NA were treated as reference standard to establish the discriminative poten

263 The current reference standard to make a definitive diagnosis of SAR

264 were compared side-by-side against the same reference standard to those obtained from conventional E

265 mphasizes the need to make them available as reference standards to encourage more studies on their o

266 ests in ACF, relating to the accuracy of the reference standard under such conditions.

267 R results were prospectively correlated with reference-standard urine detection in newborns undergoin

268 Calibration against the international reference standards USGS38 (-87.90 per mille) and ISL-35

269 nblinded consensus reviewers established the reference standard using the picture archiving and commu

270 ter and centrally inserted central catheter (reference standard) using a transpulmonary thermodilutio

271 using the FDA-approved CrAg LFA (IMMY) as a reference standard via McNemar's test.

272 of ferumoxytol-enhanced MRI using CT as the reference standard was 85.4% (35 of 41), and the positiv

273 The reference standard was a bone mineral density (BMD)-base

274 Reference standard was a combination of pathological evi

275 The reference standard was biliary atresia diagnosed at the

276 The reference standard was culture positivity (fluid, biopsy

277 Reference standard was histology after surgery, or long-

278 The reference standard was histopathology or combinations of

279 Reference standard was pathologic and imaging follow-up.

280 The reference standard was positive for invasive cancer with

281 A reference standard was positive in 703 of 735 patients (

282 The reference standard was quantitative invasive angiography

283 The reference standard was set by the consensus of two other

284 The index test was preoperative MRI, and the reference standard was surgical exploration.

285 The reference standard was the concurrent invasive intracran

286 The reference standard was the manual segmentation of four L

287 he study, and the pain specialist physician (reference standard) was blinded to the outcome of the in

288 Using Nugent-scored Gram stain (NS) as the reference standard, we evaluated the performance of 3 mo

289 Using biopsy analysis as the reference standard, we found that CAP identified patient

290 n using the Arabic CAM-ICU compared with the reference standard were 81% (60%-93%) and 85% (65%-95%),

291 f survival and of response using a composite reference standard were performed.

292 Reference standards were defined by radiologist-adjudica

293 PSA levels, clinical data, and reference standards were obtained when available.

294 The obtained reference standards were used for the extension of an es

295 oglobin/g feces) and subsequent colonoscopy (reference standard) were included.

296 patients to all patients independent of the reference standard, whereas the CDR was the percentage o

297 Using a composite reference standard (which included patients with both mi

298 terize their imaging pipeline using suitable reference standards, which are stereotypic so that the s

299 ctions (bodies and faeces) and international reference standards (WHO/IUIS, two CBER/FDA), have been

300 gnostic strategies using sputum culture as a reference standard (Xpert alone, LAM alone, sequential X