ライフサイエンスコーパス: evaluation criteria

1 two experienced reviewers with use of eight evaluation criteria.

2 Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria.

3 HOP-14) under standardized treatment and PET evaluation criteria.

4 xistence in wild house mice using a panel of evaluation criteria.

5 Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria.

6 Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.

7 None of these instruments fully met all 5 evaluation criteria, 3 met 4 criteria, and 5 met only 1

8 ecommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and treatment recommendations.

9 effects), best overall response by Response Evaluation Criteria, and antidrug antibody formation.

10 with inhaled nitric oxide after meeting ECMO evaluation criteria, and they continued to receive inhal

11 ta and time-to-event data and differences in evaluation criteria between studies could have introduce

12 ications using four quantitative statistical evaluation criteria: detection capability, biological as

13 Important evaluation criteria for each technology include maturity

14 s such as tumor response defined by Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors (RECIST).

15 ity in the gene co-expression network as the evaluation criteria for variable selection.

16 The response evaluation criteria in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (H

17 ts with RAI-refractory disease with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) measurable d

18 d from imaging data (0.73), and the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (0.71).

19 ate the reproducibility of Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) in hepatoc

20 was assessed according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST).

21 se was evaluated in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1).

22 a in Solid Tumors (PERCIST 1.0) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1).

23 nce or progression as determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST version 1.1)

24 survival (PFS) assessed by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (target haz

25 Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) (unidimensi

26 Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) (unidimensi

27 The primary efficacy end point was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) -assessed p

28 The primary end point was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) -defined ob

29 > 80% local control (LC) defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 criteri

30 ORR by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 was 13.

31 rget lesions were selected by using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 guideli

32 ndividual and a patient basis using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1.

33 revealed 1 partial response by the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) and 2 confi

34 tissue sites will be assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and iodine-

35 r response at 6 months according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modifie

36 ime to progression according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and surviva

37 Objective response rates by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and surviva

38 Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are insensi

39 Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) are insensi

40 , determined by independent central Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) assessments

41 Response was assessed by CT Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) at 12 wk.

42 (40%; 95% CI, 26% to 55%) achieved Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) complete or

43 Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) confirmed r

44 decline, with objective response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria, a

45 response at 12 weeks determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria.

46 erapy and had measurable lesions by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria.

47 29 evaluable patients, only 31% met Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) for measura

48 Response was assessed both by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guidelines

49 erlotinib was assessed by using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) on CT image

50 tion, had measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) or bone les

51 and measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) or elevated

52 rs in three dimensions, whereas the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) require mea

53 nt better than standard dimensional Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) response.

54 patients (27%); CT evaluation using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) showed resp

55 s that are based on the categorical Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) system.

56 nse was assessed every 12 weeks per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 by ind

57 eath receptor 1) monotherapy beyond Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1-define

58 disease as defined in the modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.0

59 ta warehouse assembled to guide the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

60 Tumor response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

61 measurable disease according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

62 us of 0 or 1, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

63 investigator assessment as per the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

64 mor response was assessed according Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1

65 If at least one Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) was observe

66 Stable disease, as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), >/= 4 mont

67 ria by reviewing previous criteria, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and emergi

68 th Organization (WHO) criteria, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and RECIST

69 COG) criteria, one-dimensional (1D) Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and two-di

70 sessment was also obtained by using response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST), as well as

71 Organization (WHO) criteria or the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), but these

72 an World Health Organization (WHO), Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified R

73 Tumor response rates according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified R

74 sed tumor responses with the use of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), physical e

75 tumor molecular status, response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), positron e

76 Organization (WHO) criteria and the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), respective

77 by local radiologists according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.

78 radiologic review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.

79 sed to evaluate tumor response, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), were devel

80 from continued immunotherapy beyond Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined fir

81 ogression was identified by CT with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

82 ia and tumour responses ascribed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

83 e was defined by version 1.0 of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

84 d to our current assessment method, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

85 ical responses were evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

86 as to evaluate the response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

87 nd clinical outcome was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

88 umor activity were redefined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

89 of the study was tumor response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

90 artial response [PR]) in the CNS by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

91 raphy (CT) scan every 6 weeks using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST).

92 le lesion by CT or MRI according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST); Eastern Co

93 sponse rate (ORR) assessed with the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1

94 rally reviewed overall response per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST, version 1.1

95 iteria for progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; >/= 20% inc

96 ed on investigator review using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1

97 y local investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (version 1.1) in all

98 y local investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (version 1.1) in the

99 -assessed objective response as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1).

100 y tumour response, according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.0.

101 independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 in the intention

102 meters were determined according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 on CT (3 monthly

103 olid tumors by means of CT imaging (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors 1.1).

104 On the basis of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1, 38% of these pa

105 for tumor response by using RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1, original Choi c

106 rate, time-to-progression (modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [mRECIST]), radiolog

107 points included response rate (via Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] or modified

108 I; systemic progression of disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] or WHO) whi

109 Adverse events, tumor response (via Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1

110 ty and overall response (defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1

111 confirmed objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST] version 1.1

112 unselected young TILs (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]), and seven

113 ve measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST], version 1.

114 Responses were documented by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors after 1.5 and 6 mont

115 ers and nonresponders were based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and CA-125 criteria.

116 ors then summarize the conventional Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and World Health Org

117 rtial or complete response based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors categories (n = 33)

118 ernational criteria proposed by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Committee.

119 We used Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria (version 1.

120 We used Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria (version 1.

121 dified World Health Organization or Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors criteria and safety

122 al women with measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria who experie

123 ilan criteria, tumor response using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, findings a

124 By Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, one patien

125 of objective response used WHO and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria.

126 Primary end point was Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors defined response.

127 Response was defined using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors for cutaneous diseas

128 ee patients had partial response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group classification

129 s evaluated every 2 cycles by using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group criteria.

130 rinotecan had a partial response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group criteria.

131 or partial response (as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group or 50% decline

132 with a disease control rate of 95% (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group)/100% (Europea

133 s were evaluated for response using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group, and 12 of 19

134 progression at 6 months, defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group, Prostate Canc

135 mor response was evaluated by using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guidelines, and surv

136 sion-free survival according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guidelines.

137 ical benefit response uses standard Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors of complete response

138 pared with that according to RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or original Choi cri

139 The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors response rate was 17

140 The primary end point was confirmed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors response rate.

141 The objective Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors response rates were

142 points were CR rate (as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.0) and overall su

143 a, measurable disease (according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors v1.1), Eastern Coope

144 end points: overall response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1, central review

145 response rate (ORR) as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0.

146 nfirmed objective response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (central

147 sation and progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST

148 us histology, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST

149 at least one measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST

150 or 1, measurable disease defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST

151 tatus 0 or 1, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST

152 ints assessed clinical activity per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and immu

153 te or partial response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 assessed

154 an objective response, assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the r

155 phase and objective response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1) for the

156 nib and recent disease progression (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1).

157 progression-free survival rate (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1); explor

158 gression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, analyse

159 ss, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, and ade

160 measurable lesion according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, and had

161 s, measurable disease as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, and nor

162 ession-free survival, determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, interve

163 s of 0-1, and measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

164 assessed every 12 weeks by central Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

165 te response or partial response per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1.

166 ed every 8 weeks in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1.

167 Best response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was complete respons

168 tomic tumor response as measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was investigated for

169 Response according to RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was not significantl

170 Objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was the primary end

171 1 month after PVE were measured and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors were applied to asse

172 Three RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) -defined partial re

173 Using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) 1.0 criteria, three

174 Response was assessed using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) and an exploratory

175 al response (ie, 32.5% reduction by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) and withdrew from t

176 e best objective response rate (RR; Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) by intention to tre

177 RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) is a widely employe

178 A RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) response rate (RR)

179 itional end points included RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) response, pharmacod

180 30% and > or = 90%; rate of RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) responses and durat

181 s response according to RECIST 1.0 (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) using multiphase co

182 cles, that is, 18 weeks, by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) version 1.1.

183 was 5.6, 6.0, and 6.7 months; ORRs (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) were 2.7%, 7.6% and

184 Response data (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) were extracted and

185 Tumor assessments (using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) were performed ever

186 Radiologic (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors), biochemical, and s

187 mplete/partial response; by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), median survival in

188 best response according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), there was a trend

189 e (PD) of irradiated HCC by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

190 were evaluated according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

191 was objective response status (per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

192 sessed every 2 months using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

193 onse rate (ORR), defined by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors).

194 By Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, 27/76 (35.5%) patie

195 Disease response was measured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and adverse events

196 response was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and FDG-PET respons

197 r older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern

198 On the basis of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, eight of 13 patient

199 According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, of the 28 patients

200 f objective progression occurred by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, patients on the sta

201 y CT images were evaluated by using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, the Choi criteria,

202 sease progression (according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.0) or dea

203 able patients per protocol using Response to Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.0.

204 elated response criteria (irRC) and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST

205 Overall tumor response rate (by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) by ind

206 d point was clinical benefit (using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) prior

207 expression status according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, as ass

208 r stable disease according to local Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, assess

209 point was overall response rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, by inv

210 endpoint was response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, in the

211 an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or as

212 independent review committee using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.

213 bjective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.

214 ed independent central review using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1.

215 nt sunitinib dosing continued until Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined disease prog

216 acy was tumor response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

217 as classified according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

218 nced MRI and CT on the basis of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

219 and tumour response was measured by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors.

220 ponse was determined at 3 months by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors.

221 old of >or= 20% activity defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

222 s had partial response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

223 ogression and response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

224 relevant than clinical response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

225 verall response rate as assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

226 for objective clinical response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

227 urvival (PFS), and best response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

228 s by computed tomography scan using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

229 e size of the tumor on CT using the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors.

230 TACE response was based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.

231 response was evaluated by CT using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors.

232 e disease) was 94% according to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors.

233 determine response rate defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; other end points in

234 Clinical activity (by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors]), survival, and saf

235 bjective tumor response (by RECIST [Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors]).

236 rking group for the use of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1

237 titumour activity (best response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours [RECIST]) in evalua

238 is drug in unselected patients, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours are suboptimum to p

239 r types, responses (as evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.1) were

240 Evaluation criteria included the detection of small chan

241 sed study using a text highlighting task and evaluation criteria of Human-Computer Interaction.

242 the clustering results, the external cluster evaluation criteria of the Rand index of the HCA dendrog

243 establish standard imaging protocols and OCT evaluation criteria showed that areas of higher scatteri

244 Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria to appraise quality of evidence.

245 This enabled a set of evaluation criteria to be used to assess both the biolog

246 establish a common set of benchmark data and evaluation criteria to provide a comparative assessment.

247 ecommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, we characterized the quality of evi

248 gene expression data sets for which external evaluation criteria were available.

249 Secondary evaluation criteria were comparison at baseline and at l

250 studies with uniform sets of basic entry and evaluation criteria with survival as a primary endpoint.