1 m a clinical archive were used and data were
deidentified.
2 The model is estimated using
deidentified activity data on 1.1 million browsing and w
3 oard approval was obtained for this study of
deidentified aggregate administrative data.
4 All images were
deidentified and randomized, and TA was scored with the
5 n-based range of CK in newborns using 30,547
deidentified anonymous dried blood spot samples.
6 cause all study patients had been previously
deidentified by the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), a public
7 ening algorithms, test performance data, and
deidentified clinical and laboratory information regardi
8 Deidentified clinical data were analyzed to determine th
9 Access to
deidentified clinical information relating genetic varia
10 Deidentified clinical information was collected.
11 In our study, 116 consecutive,
deidentified,
clinical nasopharyngeal swab samples were
12 Deidentified clinician-reported data from all respondent
13 review board permission was obtained to use
deidentified CT colonography data for this prospective r
14 The Dose Imaging Registry (DIR) collects
deidentified CT data, including examination type and dos
15 modifications, level of difficulty obtaining
deidentified data and waivers, experiences with multisit
16 Retrospective
deidentified data collected between 2005 and 2013 were e
17 We used anonymous/
deidentified data collected between January 1, 1995, and
18 Retrospective study using
deidentified data for the 1994-1999 national cohort of 9
19 trospective cohort study was conducted using
deidentified data from a national commercial insurance d
20 October 1, 2011, and July 25, 2015, based on
deidentified data from phase 3, multicenter, randomized
21 We obtained
deidentified data from the Australia and New Zealand Dia
22 Deidentified data from the remote monitoring Merlin.net
23 d a retrospective, observational study using
deidentified data obtained from all consecutive patients
24 We collected
deidentified data on adult patients (> 18 yr) receiving
25 The study and use of anonymized and
deidentified data received approval from the MedStar-Geo
26 sing multiple cross-sectional analyses and a
deidentified data set, we analyzed data from infants wit
27 DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:
Deidentified data were obtained from a nationally repres
28 Deidentified data were obtained from United Network for
29 Using
deidentified data, we examined how 10.1 million U.S. Fac
30 a 14-year period where 171 ICUs contributed
deidentified data.
31 We retrospectively queried the
deidentified database of patients hospitalized between J
32 aminations from 1997 through 2008 by using a
deidentified database.
33 small area estimation models were applied to
deidentified death records from the National Center for
34 Deidentified death records from the National Center for
35 Deidentified death records from the National Center for
36 Deidentified demographic and clinical data were used to
37 We analyzed
deidentified ES data from 6,517 participants (2,204 Afri
38 m January 2013 to March 2015 using archived,
deidentified,
formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded GCA-nega
39 Deidentified German patient data were used for a retrosp
40 n = 70-698) and controls (n = 808-3818) from
deidentified health records.
41 ling algorithm with retrospectively obtained
deidentified HIPAA-compliant data.
42 Materials and Methods Four
deidentified HIPAA-compliant datasets were used in this
43 Data were captured from a
deidentified,
HIPAA-compliant data warehouse.
44 Publicly available
deidentified hospital claim data for all surgical proced
45 tudy were derived from publicly available or
deidentified human subject data.
46 cohort study, with external validation in a
deidentified ICU database.
47 ver performance study was performed by using
deidentified images acquired between 2008 and 2011 with
48 approval and informed consent for the use of
deidentified images were obtained.
49 approval because the 10 image data sets were
deidentified in the Osteoarthritis Initiative database,
50 s with concomitant catheterization data, and
deidentified individual and group results were shared at
51 Deidentified individual participant data from GlaxoSmith
52 Deidentified individual-level data from participants (15
53 Comfort with the use of
deidentified information from medical records varied by
54 The database contained
deidentified information pertaining to a cohort of 61107
55 s an anonymous, self-reported, confidential,
deidentified,
internet-accessible medication error repor
56 radiologists independently interpreted twice
deidentified mammograms obtained in 153 women (age range
57 led measure of comfort with secondary use of
deidentified medical information and evaluated its corre
58 oratory queries, and billing code queries of
deidentified medical record data.
59 board-approved retrospective data set of 84
deidentified,
multi-institutional breast MR examinations
60 solated from the dried blood spots of 36,124
deidentified newborn males.
61 Sites assembled
deidentified packets, including physician notes and elec
62 l was obtained for retrospective analysis of
deidentified patient images.
63 levels and lipids, we analyzed 4.06 million
deidentified patient laboratory test results from Septem
64 This retrospective analysis pooled
deidentified patient-level data from 10 academic institu
65 ed Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) provided
deidentified patient-level data.
66 ted Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) provided
deidentified patient-level data.
67 Sharing
deidentified patient-level research data presents immens
68 Surgical discard tissue from
deidentified patients and samples of normal skin from he
69 Deidentified peripheral blood (n = 33) and cord blood (n
70 Herein,
deidentified plasma was collected from sepsis patients (
71 Retrospective analysis of a
deidentified private insurance database from 2007 throug
72 tability Act-compliant secondary analysis of
deidentified prospectively acquired PET/CT test-retest d
73 tability Act-compliant secondary analysis of
deidentified prospectively acquired PET/CT test-retest d
74 Deidentified records of all cases of melanoma among Quee
75 Deidentified records were obtained of all Queensland res
76 Two hundred
deidentified remnant diarrheal stool specimens were test
77 Fifty
deidentified serum samples collected from 1986 to 1992 f
78 A total of 2,410 unformed,
deidentified stool specimens were collected.
79 A
deidentified summary of clinical and radiological record
80 MA Combo 2 tests was assessed using unlinked/
deidentified surplus clinical specimens previously analy
81 US population were obtained from 1.4 billion
deidentified tax records between 1999 and 2014.
82 in clinical blood plasma samples taken from
deidentified TBI patients.
83 Data were automatically
deidentified to comply with Health Insurance Portability
84 search assistants independently coded all 30
deidentified transcripts and resolved discrepancies (kap
85 s in evaluating over 130000 images that were
deidentified with respect to age, sex, and race/ethnicit