ライフサイエンスコーパス: technologist

1 initially performed by a US or a mammography technologist.

2 HOP using only one dedicated HOP laboratory technologist.

3 our placement was verified by an experienced technologist.

4 6 were caused by microcolonies missed by the technologist.

5 ever, labor-intensive and requires a skilled technologist.

6 anual analysis by a trained image-processing technologist.

7 anual analysis by a trained image-processing technologist.

8 applied by a highly trained image-processing technologist.

9 level of difficulty in maintaining qualified technologists.

10 es of radiologists and certified mammography technologists.

11 The survey was mailed to 452 full-time chief technologists.

12 , like 10, contain traps for unwary decision technologists.

13 those of a 1987 survey of general radiologic technologists.

14 ey was mailed randomly to 5,000 mammographic technologists.

15 h the results obtained by trained laboratory technologists.

16 g and compression metrics for all images and technologists.

17 f agar plate images by proficient laboratory technologists.

18 questionnaires completed by radiologists and technologists.

19 y trained operating room nurses and surgical technologists.

20 ods is of primary interest to scientists and technologists.

21 concentration following radiotherapy in 1326 technologists.

22 M jasmonic acid) can be recommended for food technologists.

23 55 of 64 participants (86%) referred by two technologists.

24 ancers (n = 251) were diagnosed among 75,494 technologists (1.3 million person-years; mean follow-up

25 tive cultures falsely called negative by the technologist, 1,616 were identified as containing border

26 Within a large cohort of U.S. radiologic technologists, 150 provided a blood sample for whole chr

27 022, TR was retrospectively evaluated for 40 technologists (198 054 images; Centricity electronic med

28 onwide cohort of 56,042 female US radiologic technologists (1983-1998) who responded to two questionn

29 re), and AI IQ metrics were available for 42 technologists (211 821 images; Analytics, Volpara Health

30 ires were returned by 236 (52%) of 452 chief technologists; 219 (93%) respondents, 176 (80%) in priva

31 Laboratory technologists (22%) developed infections with Shigella s

32 = 36) as 2 SAFOV systems but requires fewer technologists (4.5 LAFOV vs. 6.8 SAFOV full-time equival

33 radiation dosimeter readings from 4 nuclear technologists, 4 nurses, and 2 administrative employees

34 %]), faculty members (319 cases [52.7%]), or technologists (54 cases [8.9%]), reported technical (33.

35 yroid cancer risk among 90,713 US radiologic technologists (69,506 women and 21,207 men) followed fro

36 (HRs) for the risk of cataract in radiologic technologists according to NM work history practices acc

37 cohort of 35,705 cataract-free US radiologic technologists aged 24-44 years was followed for nearly 2

38 d the two-point method substantially reduced technologist and camera times.

39 rt during mammography, and satisfaction with technologist and machine combinations was included as a

40 dar year 2000, measured imaging room use and technologist and radiologist times were multiplied by co

41 The technologist and volunteer were blinded to the agent.

42 The technologists and a coordinating screening radiologist r

43 rformed significantly better than a group of technologists and as well as the radiologists.(C) RSNA,

44 ve group comprising hundreds of researchers, technologists and clinicians dedicated to realising an A

45 oyment from working with fellow mammographic technologists and enjoyment from working with radiologis

46 duced by nonlaboratory personnel vs. medical technologists and evaluated day-to-day and within-day pr

47 discomfort between different combinations of technologists and machines.

48 this time (-16.9 and -16.2 mrem for nuclear technologists and nurses, respectively; P < 0.0001).

49 better than the rates achieved by top-level technologists and obstetricians in China.

50 rdizing education for nuclear and radiologic technologists and physicians specifically for this combi

51 avigators (with prior training as radiologic technologists and sonographers) facilitated communicatio

52 h solvent exposure among clinical laboratory technologists and technicians (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.07-3.

53 ng growing shortages of trained microbiology technologists and technicians.

54 d to compare dose between general radiologic technologists and those specializing in nuclear medicine

55 Three technologists and three different radiologists classifie

56 period for a large cohort of U.S. radiologic technologists and to compare dose between general radiol

57 4 days using purposeful (administrators and technologists) and convenience (medical assistant, nurse

58 nsed clinical laboratory scientists (medical technologists), and non-POLs.

59 comprehensive resources for the physician or technologist, and other articles compare echocardiograph

60 can Society for Nutrition, Institute of Food Technologists, and International Food Information Counci

61 ncologists, medical physicists, radiotherapy technologists, and oncology nurses.

62 ns, affiliated researchers, nuclear medicine technologists, and radiation oncologists and aims to ide

63 ts, nuclear medicine physicians, scientists, technologists, and referring providers, among other stak

64 SNMMI and EANM members are physicians, technologists, and scientists specializing in the resear

65 SNMMI and EANM members are physicians, technologists, and scientists specializing in the resear

66 s of hematologists, microbiologists, medical technologists, and similarly qualified laboratorians.

67 192 dermal, and 20 ocular) were extracted by technologists, and the DNA was assayed by LightCycler PC

68 er acceptance was assessed by asking nurses, technologists, anesthesiologists, and subjects or parent

69 Technologists appropriately classified all negative spec

70 port form, and general information for sleep technologists are provided.

71 gh and similar to that of general radiologic technologists, as reported in 1987.

72 Medical technologists at all 3 study sites preferred the new med

73 quality assurance program 1, nonmicrobiology technologists at satellite laboratories were required to

74 rams were single read by certified screening technologists before being double read by two certified

75 es in accuracy between laboratories, between technologists, between kit lots, or between days.

76 tool, unaffected by phenotypic variation or technologist bias, and has the potential to reduce labor

77 gated by APAS before being read by a trained technologist blinded to the APAS interpretation.

78 Technologists blinded to treatment group counted spike-w

79 resence of qualified laboratory scientist or technologist by 377 (96%) laboratories.

80 neck, and lumbar spine were performed by 11 technologists by using standard techniques and software.

81 While a technologist challenge has educational merit, having a m

82 nsitivity remained greater in the laboratory technologist cohort (P < 0.0001).

83 shortages by making the salaries of medical technologists comparable to those of similarly educated

84 -up study, only 64% of 126,628 US radiologic technologists completed a questionnaire during 1994-1997

85 A total of 81% (26 of 32) of eligible technologists completed the survey.

86 gist regularly discussed mammograms that the technologists considered suspicious but that did not pro

87 tices coincided with increases in radiologic technologist continuing education in mammography.

88 Both the radiologist and technologists detected all colorectal cancers (n = 5).

89 Most technologists did not feel the modified technique was mo

90 atient radiation doses remained similar, and technologist dose exposure were decreased with modified

91 sleep experts (e.g., physicians and clinical technologists) due to a lack of ability to explain the e

92 Hands-on time was assessed by timing two technologists each setting up six batches of five isolat

93 s should undertake limited cross-training of technologists, ensure that adequate packaging supplies a

94 The measured technologist exposure from the modified technique assumi

95 uGy, which was lower than standard technique technologist exposure of 0.088 uGy.

96 To guide the imaging process, technologists first perform a localizer scan, which is a

97 ge reviews by nuclear medicine physicians or technologists flagged potential extravasations.

98 y disease morbidity in 110,368 US radiologic technologists followed from a baseline survey (1983-1989

99 Images were read by technologists following validated laboratory protocols (

100 first intervention involved education of CT technologists, following which 795 chest CT were reviewe

101 The time taken by the technologist for patient preparation, positioning, expos

102 Agreement between technologists for both methods was >or=98% for each agen

103 s 2003-2005 and 2012-2013, 42 545 radiologic technologists from a U.S. prospective study completed qu

104 d detection (CAD) and by two of four trained technologists (>/=200 examinations, with colonoscopic ve

105 substances likely to come into contact with technologists' hands were tested.

106 For centuries scientists and technologists have sought artificial leg replacements th

107 is on presentation, U.S. hospital laboratory technologists have very limited experience in detecting

108 aniocaudal examination performed by a second technologist in this prospective institutional review bo

109 nd specific (100%) when performed by trained technologists in a carefully controlled manner using est

110 of PICC nurses and interventional radiology technologists in an angiography suite with the supervisi

111 provide valuable insights for educators and technologists in designing and implementing technology-i

112 ght cohorts of over 270,000 radiologists and technologists in various countries.

113 ve cultures can be reliably reported without technologist intervention (negative predictive values [N

114 Given the challenges facing biosensor technologists, it is natural that this approach to creat

115 Mammographic technologist job satisfaction is high and similar to tha

116 t important variable related to mammographic technologist job satisfaction is the technologist-radiol

117 Direct measurement was made of technologist labor and supply costs of a cohort of 409 c

118 laboratory efficiency by reducing laboratory technologists' labor associated with the review and inte

119 A registered polysomnographic technologist live-scored sleep stage and administered st

120 Background Screening technologists may function as readers in breast cancer s

121 idence on whether trained radiographers (ie, technologists) may be used to provide double reading.

122 identified by reviewing records from the MRI technologist, MRI nursing staff, radiologist, emergency

123 medical assistants [n = 16], nurses [n = 4], technologists [n = 4], and administrators [n = 13]) were

124 signals" (an audible and visual alert if the technologist observed an abnormality suspicious for canc

125 on study was performed comparing AI to three technologists of varying experience using serial dilutio

126 ive technically competent medical laboratory technologists of varying years of experience in clinical

127 For RAST, a technologist on the evening shift verified the data that

128 One hundred three samples diagnosed by two technologists on different days showed a repeatability o

129 a cohort of nuclear medicine (NM) radiologic technologists on the basis of their work histories and r

130 on mostly <100 mGy received by US radiologic technologists over 5 years were associated with an incre

131 : there is 1 physician per gamma camera, 1.6 technologists per gamma camera, 0.1 medical physicist pe

132 developing its scholarly basis; in contrast, technologists perform activities derived from the work o

133 This article reviews the current status of technologist-performed handheld screening breast US imag

134 Technologist-performed handheld screening breast US offe

135 approaches to training and documentation of technologist-performed handheld screening US imaging are

136 Both physician- and technologist-performed screening US imaging increases de

137 Conclusion Annual doses to U.S. radiologic technologists performing general radiologic procedures d

138 ing workflow stakeholders (eg, radiologists, technologists, picture archiving and communication syste

139 chromogenic agar and compared the results to technologist plate reading.

140 s life support systems confronts scientists, technologists, policy makers, and communities from local

141 aluated, manual correction by an experienced technologist proved to be the most accurate, although re

142 ted statistically significant improvement in technologist QC practices between 1988 and 1992.

143 st QC practices between 1990 and 1992 and in technologist QC practices between 1990 and 1995.

144 Improvements in radiologic technologist QC practices coincided with increases in ra

145 tire SNMMI membership, including physicians, technologists, radiochemists, physicists, radiopharmacis

146 graphic technologist job satisfaction is the technologist-radiologist relationship; a negative relati

147 When three technologists ran one specimen in triplicate, the precis

148 Reading times of four different technologists ranged from 22 to 44 s with the caliper an

149 standard deviation was 3.4 +/- 0.9; 83.1% of technologists rated overall satisfaction as 3 or higher

150 ages will most likely be acquired by trained technologists rather than physicians.

151 ns from fivefold cross-validation, consensus technologists' rating, and consensus radiologists' ratin

152 lysis on blood agar, and 39.5% and 83.1% for technologist reading for beta-hemolysis on blood agar ac

153 ing of chromogenic agar, 83.3% and 97.7% for technologist reading for beta-hemolysis on blood agar, a

154 e concordant between MRSA App and laboratory technologist reading for the detection of MRSA growth [s

155 lonies detected 110 orange colonies, whereas technologist reading interpreted only 93/110 specimens (

156 nd 100% for PCR testing, 87.5% and 97.7% for technologist reading of chromogenic agar, 90.6% and 94.0

157 ing radiologists who were not blinded to the technologists' reading.

158 Technologists recorded four dose surrogates in custom fi

159 tients (and not education and training of CT technologists) reduce the frequency of motion artifacts

160 A total of 1,503 technologists responded to the survey.

161 of multiple time-intensive tasks for the CT technologist, resulting in a marked reduction in examina

162 nonlaboratory personnel results; xi, medical technologist results), the average value of r2 was 0.96

163 genic agar can expedite culture results, but technologist review is still needed.

164 on with care (P <.04), and perception of the technologist's "roughness" (P <.001).

165 PEN), and the Chair of the Institute of Food Technologist's (IFT) Nutrition Division presented their

166 of parasites than humans, regardless of the technologist's experience.

167 sly read slides is a better indicator of the technologist's Gram stain interpretation proficiency.

168 ed by color using the WASPLab software and a technologist's reading from a high-definition (HD) monit

169 teams consisting of a neuroradiologist and a technologist segmented the enhancing tumor on three-dime

170 Two technologists serving as a primary reader of CT colonogr

171 lassifier (F1, 0.63; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.66) and technologist students (F1, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.67), ha

172 adiologists, medical students, and radiology technologist students.

173 The US Radiologic Technologists Study (1983-2006) is a nationwide, prospec

174 Cancer Screening Trial; and U.S. Radiologic Technologists Study).

175 Using data from the US Radiologic Technologists Study, a large, nationwide, prospective co

176 We evaluated 123 United States Radiologic Technologists subjects who wore personal UVR dosimeters

177 er when the test was performed by laboratory technologists than when it was performed by nonlaborator

178 the working dynamics of our group of imaging technologists that had an important role in the front li

179 clude a national shortage of trained medical technologists, the inability of clinical laboratories to

180 When positive scans were used to assist technologists, the MetaSystems platform had a sensitivit

181 valid and simple procedure which can reduce technologist time (and, thus, labor cost) and turnaround

182 When total costs are calculated to include technologist time and maintenance costs, traditional ide

183 The FISH procedure required more technologist time and more interpretation time per case

184 were no significant differences in costs or technologist time between the Mayo system and Southern b

185 osts and a total cost analysis that included technologist time in addition to reagent expenses and ma

186 mber not performed (n), reagent savings, and technologist time saved, respectively, were as follows:

187 Overall technologist time was significantly shorter when perform

188 f the reagents, equipment, phlebotomist, and technologist time were determined.

189 were $28,000 in reagent costs and 1,082 h of technologist time.

190 s reagent costs and, more importantly, saves technologist time.

191 All 0.3- and 0.35-T MR imaging room and technologist times exceeded those for 1.5-T MR imaging.

192 The time required for a technologist to complete a CT examination was reduced by

193 A survey was created and sent to 32 x-ray technologists to assess their perceptions of the modifie

194 screening program, mammograms are preread by technologists to identify possible abnormalities, leadin

195 y 25 min, and the assay was much simpler for technologists to learn and perform.

196 standalone diagnostic and as an assistant to technologists to review positive images.

197 yed practitioners, academic researchers, and technologists to understand the factors contributing to

198 g 12 antibiotic disks the Sirscan took 11 s; technologists took 28 s by caliper and 39 s by ruler.

199 include proper patient preparation, adequate technologist training, careful imaging protocol design,

200 An experienced technologist unaware of the angiography and other result

201 The FTA-ABS IgG procedure was performed by technologists unblinded to results of rapid plasmid reag

202 se area as measured by a single radiological technologist using Cumulus software (Canto Software, Inc

203 red with measurements obtained by laboratory technologists using an IL-1312 blood gas analyzer (Instr

204 angiography because they can be performed by technologists using widely available, multifunctional ap

205 34 (62%) participants in the U.S. Radiologic Technologists (USRT) cohort who responded to the most re

206 of linking participants in the US Radiologic Technologists (USRT) Study (n = 146,022) with the majori

207 t of 1,500 participants of the US Radiologic Technologists (USRT) Study that included whites (n = 842

208 he personnel performing the test (laboratory technologist versus nonlaboratory personnel).

209 The relative TP fraction (for technologists vs radiologist) for advanced neoplasia was

210 s for breast cancer, radiologists blinded to technologists' warning signals had lower recall rates wi

211 ose To determine the effect that blinding of technologists' warning signals has on radiologists' earl

212 Consensus between technologists was achieved in case of discordant recomme

213 The triaging by both APAS and the technologists was compared for accuracy.

214 mance of nonlaboratory personnel and medical technologists was equivalent for point-of-care testing i

215 Interrater agreement for technologists was fair (Fleiss kappa, 0.36 [95% CI: 0.29

216 Radiologists and radiologic technologists were among the earliest occupational group

217 s were resolved by repeated FTA-ABS testing (technologists were blinded to previous RPR results) and

218 The technologists were blinded to prior identification resul

219 Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified technologists were reported by 20% of facilities, with 4

220 All discrepancies between radiologists and technologists were reviewed during quality assurance ses

221 centrations in the hairs of the radiological technologists were significantly higher than those in th

222 Radiologic technologists were surveyed to determine whether their p

223 or nonblinded to the warning signals of the technologist when interpreting screening mammograms for

224 ataract surgery represents an amalgam of new technologists which may include phacoemulsification, fol

225 cataract was observed among U.S. radiologic technologists who had performed an NM procedure at least

226 f methods were more frequently observed with technologists who have less experience in parasite morph

227 Basically, there are four types of technologists who must be brought together to create a s

228 Reactions were recorded by technologists who noted types of reactions, method of in

229 onnaire completed by the radiologists and CT technologists who performed the procedures.

230 as 3 or higher compared with 86% of general technologists who reported being satisfied with their jo

231 Among 90,284 US radiologic technologists who responded to a mailed questionnaire du

232 ch was 6.6% higher than the average of three technologists, who are hold bachelor's degrees in medici

233 omes of this study provide chemists and food technologists with a useful tool in the field of food an

234 ermine the risk of cataract among radiologic technologists with respect to occupational and nonoccupa

235 ent patterns may have emerged for radiologic technologists working with nuclear medicine because of t