ライフサイエンスコーパス: Bland-Altman analysis

1 ulse sequences (Vmax) were compared with Vh (Bland-Altman analysis).

2 surements of cardiac output were compared by Bland-Altman analysis.

3 of variance (ANOVA), linear regression, and Bland-Altman analysis.

4 mbrane (approximately 57 degrees C) by using Bland-Altman analysis.

5 sing paired t tests, linear correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis.

6 red with invasive PVR measurements using the Bland-Altman analysis.

7 topsy results by using linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis.

8 FR and the pressure wire FFR, as assessed by Bland-Altman analysis.

9 plaque measured by TEMRI versus TEE using a Bland-Altman analysis.

10 h the model by using regression analysis and Bland-Altman analysis.

11 ed by intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis.

12 k test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis.

13 ed by intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis.

14 stigated using Spearman rank correlation and Bland-Altman analysis.

15 mpared using Spearman's rank correlation and Bland-Altman analysis.

16 t between the two methods as determined by a Bland-Altman analysis.

17 (RT-qPCR) as the gold standard method using Bland-Altman Analysis.

18 eir clinical differences were assessed using Bland-Altman analysis.

19 Agreement between methods was performed with Bland-Altman analysis.

20 agreement was evaluated by using a modified Bland-Altman analysis.

21 ssed by the residuals, fit parameter SD, and Bland-Altman analysis.

22 Bablok regression, and bias was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis.

23 10-40 min was assessed quantitatively using Bland-Altman analysis.

24 the two image-based methods by means of the Bland-Altman analysis.

25 d test-retest repeatability as visualized by Bland-Altman analysis.

26 the intraclass correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analysis.

27 as well as by using Spearman correlation and Bland-Altman analysis.

28 compared against PDCT IOP measurements using Bland-Altman analysis.

29 Ki values were assessed using regression and Bland-Altman analysis.

30 ompared with paired t test, correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis.

31 ng the paired t test, linear regression, and Bland-Altman analysis.

32 Pearson correlation, linear regression, and Bland-Altman analysis.

33 comes were compared by linear regression and Bland-Altman analysis.

34 ing with Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysis.

35 a- and intersubject analysis of variance and Bland-Altman analysis; a paired t test assessed change f

36 A Bland-Altman analysis, after score normalization, reveal

37 ssue samples for infarct assessment by using Bland-Altman analysis and analysis of variance.

38 Bland-Altman analysis and correlation coefficients were

39 compared with the resulting lesions by using Bland-Altman analysis and linear regression.

40 Bland-Altman analysis and t tests showed that method 1 v

41 nterobserver agreements were tested by using Bland-Altman analysis and the Lin concordance correlatio

42 r volumes were compared with paired t tests, Bland-Altman analysis, and correlation coefficients.

43 luded the Student t test, linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and kappa statistics.

44 Linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and paired t testing were perform

45 s was assessed with concordance correlation, Bland-Altman analysis, and Spearman rank correlation.

46 The Bland-Altman analysis between PVR obtained invasively an

47 0.99; P < 0.001) with no systematic bias in Bland-Altman analysis (bias 0.002 [confidence interval,

48 Bland-Altman analysis confirmed systematic underestimati

49 .139] and intercept [-0.666 to -0.074]), and Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean difference (Ap

50 Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean difference in

51 Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a mean difference of

52 In stage i, Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a reduced variance be

53 Lin concordance correlation and Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated an almost perfect con

54 Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated that each device exhi

55 Bland-Altman analysis documented a mean bias of +0.11 Hg

56 Bland-Altman analysis documented a mean bias of -0.033 (

57 Bland-Altman analysis for agreement between scleral and

58 alidation of BFV and Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis for interobserver agreement were u

59 nd midbrain as the reference region, whereas Bland-Altman analysis found a smaller bias for (18)F-FES

60 Bland-Altman analysis in comparison to clinically approv

61 A Bland-Altman analysis indicated a small positive bias ne

62 correlated at r = 0.90 with an SEE of 3.3%; Bland-Altman analysis indicated an average bias of 3.9%.

63 Conversely, Bland-Altman analysis indicated no bias between motion s

64 Bland-Altman analysis indicated no significant differenc

65 racial groups were analyzed separately, the Bland-Altman analysis indicated that the quadratic equat

66 Test-retest repeatability was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, intraclass correlation coefficien

67 he repeatability of the technique by using a Bland Altman analysis method.

68 Bland-Altman analysis of agreement and coefficient of va

69 Bland-Altman analysis of agreement revealed strong agree

70 A Bland-Altman analysis of agreement was used to assess te

71 The Bland-Altman analysis of axial length measurements with

72 parallel imaging (CS-PI) reconstruction and Bland-Altman analysis performed to assess bias and 95% l

73 Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias of 2.1 mm Hg with

74 Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean difference of 0.02

75 Bland-Altman analysis revealed a strong concordance in q

76 Bland-Altman analysis revealed close agreement between t

77 Bland-Altman analysis revealed excellent agreement betwe

78 Bland-Altman analysis revealed good agreement of CRAE an

79 Interclass correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis revealed good agreements among aut

80 The Bland-Altman analysis revealed levels of disagreement of

81 Bland-Altman analysis revealed moderate agreement betwee

82 Bland-Altman analysis revealed poorer repeatability for

83 Bland-Altman analysis revealed small systematic errors i

84 Bland-Altman analysis revealed that all bias values were

85 Bland-Altman analysis revealed that omnipolar measuremen

86 Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the Gd-DTPA-enhanced

87 Moreover, Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the limits of agreem

88 Bland-Altman analysis revealed that, for all domains, pr

89 Bland Altman analysis showed that the novel iCheck metho

90 Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias between the in-vitro

91 Bland-Altman analysis showed a closer agreement between

92 Bland-Altman analysis showed a positive bias of 1.0 g/dL

93 Bland-Altman analysis showed agreement between CT volume

94 For the global EF, Bland-Altman analysis showed significantly higher agreem

95 Bland-Altman analysis showed similar measurement errors

96 In all populations, a Bland-Altman analysis showed systematically higher score

97 Results of Bland-Altman analysis showed that both techniques produc

98 Bland-Altman analysis showed that computerized volumetry

99 Bland-Altman analysis showed that more than 92.593% (25/

100 Bland-Altman analysis showed that the limits of agreemen

101 Bland-Altman analysis showed underestimation over the en

102 Bland-Altman analysis suggested marked discordance betwe

103 Bland-Altman analysis suggested that PulseCO values were

104 with measurements by using a protractor, the Bland-Altman analysis technique yielded upper and lower

105 Using Bland-Altman analysis, the agreement between the IGR met

106 For statistical analysis, we used Bland-Altman analysis, the percentage error, four-quadra

107 Bland-Altman analysis was performed for inter- and intra

108 A Bland-Altman analysis was performed on 8 parameters base

109 Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the mean (

110 Bland-Altman analysis was performed, and intraclass corr

111 reement between measurements of the devices, Bland-Altman analysis was performed.

112 bolite levels were fitted with software, and Bland-Altman analysis was performed.

113 Bland-Altman analysis was used for comparison of quantit

114 A Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the between-vis

115 Normalized Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess the bias and pr

116 Bland-Altman analysis was used to calculate repeatabilit

117 Bland-Altman analysis was used to establish the reliabil

118 Bland-Altman analysis was used to evaluate agreement bet

119 Bland-Altman analysis was used to investigate the agreem

120 Bland-Altman analysis was used to quantify repeatability

121 DG PET/CT and (18)F-FDG PET/MR imaging using Bland-Altman analysis were -2.34 to 3.89 for SUV(mean),

122 The Pearson Correlation and Bland-Altman analysis were performed to compare the resu

123 correlation coefficient (ICC) analysis, and Bland-Altman analysis were performed.

124 traclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to assess interreader, i

125 erroni's post-test, Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis were used to compare measurements.

126 res analysis of variance, paired t test, and Bland-Altman analysis were used; for qualitative analysi

127 ong four neuroradiologists was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis, while spatial agreement was quant

128 Bland-Altman analysis with mixed effects demonstrated a

129 This was confirmed with Bland-Altman analysis, with 95% limits of agreement for