ライフサイエンスコーパス: be graded according to

1 The severity of stroke was graded according to a modified Rankin scale.

2 The macular findings were graded according to a modification of the grading s

3 The CMIs were graded according to a previously validated protocol

4 idual parameters of acute cellular rejection were graded according to a semiquantitative scoring syst

5 mposed in the macular photographs and images were graded according to AREDS criteria.

6 that included the transverse processes of L5 were graded according to Castellvi classification of LST

7 ere abstracted for included studies; quality was graded according to criteria developed by the Task F

8 Toxicity was graded according to criteria of the Radiation Therap

9 Studies were graded according to criteria developed by the USPST

10 , prior findings that the mid-frontal effect is graded according to familiarity strength are not attr

11 of the first through fourth lumbar vertebrae were graded according to increasing severity using a pre

12 FDG uptake was graded according to intensity; calcification, accord

13 Selected articles were graded according to "levels of evidence" based on g

14 Toxicity was graded according to National Cancer Institute criter

15 Pericecal fat was graded according to published criteria.

16 Studies were graded according to quality.

17 Studies were graded according to relative strength of methods an

18 ograms were evaluated for collaterals, which were graded according to Rentrop's classification (0 to

19 as diagnosed using endomyocardial biopsy and were graded according to standardized criteria of the In

20 primarily a mechanical response, and that it is graded according to stimulus intensity.

21 , the amount of plasticity in Purkinje cells is graded according to the duration of electrically cont

22 Vascular rejection was graded according to the Banff criteria.

23 Toxicity was graded according to the common terminology criteria

24 that the number of degranulating mast cells was graded according to the FcepsilonRI stimulation stre

25 Severity of disease was graded according to the Glaucoma Staging System and

26 Evidence was graded according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommenda

27 Tibiofemoral knee OA was graded according to the Kellgren and Lawrence (K/L)

28 nd radiographs were obtained, and each joint was graded according to the Kellgren/Lawrence (K/L) scal

29 Radiographic evidence of joint pathology was graded according to the Kellgren/Lawrence scale.

30 omain optical coherence tomography (OCT) and was graded according to the OCT-based International Clas

31 Hematoma size was graded according to the percentage of the chorionic

32 n Oncology Consensus Statement, and toxicity was graded according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology G

33 ictims of accidents, homicides, and suicides were graded according to the American Heart Association

34 Clinical and photographic data were graded according to the Clinical Age-Related Maculo

35 sessed on the basis of adverse events, which were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria

36 after OAC treatment; systemic adverse events were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria

37 Adverse events were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria

38 months after closure of the diverting stoma were graded according to the Dindo classification.

39 omplication rate was 4.2%, and complications were graded according to the Dindo-Clavien Classificatio

40 Etched enamel surfaces were graded according to the Galil and Wright classifica

41 Images were graded according to the International Classificatio

42 All images were graded according to the International Clinical Diab

43 Biopsies were graded according to the International Society for H

44 Biopsies were graded according to the International Society of He

45 s were assessed on slit-lamp examination and were graded according to the Lens Opacity Classification

46 The stages of AMD were graded according to the Minnesota Grading System.

47 hat occurred 5 or more years after diagnosis were graded according to the National Cancer Institute C

48 Adverse events were graded according to the National Cancer Institute C

49 and subsequent HCV treatment recommendations were graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-

50 The resultant recommendations were graded according to the quality of the evidence and

51 Multiple biopsy specimens were graded according to the severity of esophagitis and

52 Recommendations were graded according to the strength of underlying evid

53 Signs of trachoma were graded according to the WHO simplified trachoma gra

54 Tumors were graded according to the World Health Organization c