ライフサイエンスコーパス: interpretative

1 nal (47 of 185 [25%] and 27 of 64 [42%]) and interpretative (64 of 185 [34%] and 30 of 64 [47%]) issu

2 more detail, which is important for improved interpretative accuracy and understanding potential clin

3 microdilution MICs show good concordance and interpretative agreement.

4 tests require interpretation, and available interpretative algorithms for genotypes and resistance c

5 is to assess the available evidence and the interpretative ambiguities that remain to be addressed b

6 r have established computation as a valuable interpretative and predictive tool in the discovery of n

7 ively compare relative accuracy of different interpretative approaches to magnetic resonance (MR) and

8 the new M100-S12 ceftriaxone and cefotaxime interpretative breakpoints for nonmeningeal isolates of

9 02 introduced ceftriaxone and cefotaxime MIC interpretative breakpoints of < or =1 microg/ml (suscept

10 reader is a reliable system for determining interpretative categories from zone diameters of standar

11 and superior to SPECT MPI for image quality, interpretative certainty, and overall CAD diagnosis.

12 hy (SPECT) MPI with regard to image quality, interpretative certainty, defect magnitude, and detectio

13 wever, this opportunity brings a significant interpretative challenge to assigning function and pheno

14 mber variants (CNVs) represent a significant interpretative challenge, given that each CNV typically

15 assay include labor intensive screening and interpretative challenges with signal overlap in highly

16 inaccessible, and also bring a wide range of interpretative challenges.

17 resulted in the need for reassessment of the interpretative criteria (breakpoints) established for th

18 ts of the method's resolution and we suggest interpretative criteria allowing valid comparison of str

19 background and supportive rationale for new interpretative criteria for cephalosporins and aztreonam

20 CLSI interpretative criteria for Enterobacteriaceae were used

21 The best Etest interpretative criteria for the 2.0 McF inoculum was > o

22 s (NCCLS) documents do not currently provide interpretative criteria for the testing of the polymyxin

23 ; however, the indications, methodology, and interpretative criteria have evolved over the years.

24 use, stratification by specific bacteria, or interpretative criteria used.

25 inical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) interpretative criteria using 2010 susceptibility breakp

26 ding to original as well as recently updated interpretative criteria.

27 rmed slightly better than MR imaging for all interpretative criteria.

28 12 to 19% of the patients, depending on the interpretative cutoff used.

29 ates from a single model may lead to several interpretative difficulties, inviting confusion of direc

30 Several additional interpretative errors are present.

31 ucing variability arising from technical and interpretative factors may improve the predictive power

32 n applied retrospectively to 511 exomes, the interpretative framework revealed a 'long tail' of somat

33 ssociations and provided a better biological interpretative framework than single SNP analyses.

34 Laboratory Standards Institute criteria and interpretative guidelines.

35 ing but is often complicated by logistic and interpretative hurdles.

36 ted clinical entity that still poses serious interpretative issues to date.

37 The interpretative model we have developed led to the hypoth

38 recorded spectra are combined with a proper interpretative model.

39 cement vs. time-delay plot, with no need for interpretative models.

40 her results is illuminated by several simple interpretative models.

41 results imply that a fundamentally different interpretative paradigm may be needed in the study of ph

42 Conclusion The interpretative performance of screening MR imaging in th

43 Interpretative phenomenologic analysis was used for data

44 Data were analyzed using interpretative phenomenologic analysis.

45 Interpretative phenomenological analysis was utilised to

46 e recorded, transcribed, and analyzed (using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis) for informatio

47 bed verbatim and analyzed thematically using interpretative phenomenological analysis.

48 Data were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.

49 ed recordings and analysed the data using an interpretative phenomenological analysis.

50 mated analysis of data, and generation of an interpretative report.

51 and MS(3) experiments were used to define an interpretative scheme able to rationalise the stereochem

52 GENE HIV-1 Genotyping Kit), and hardware and interpretative software (the OpenGene DNA Sequencing Sys

53 ttee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing interpretative standards were used to assess the results

54 etween a spectrum and sequence: descriptive, interpretative, stochastic and probability-based matchin

55 lues to use for Asians in North America; and interpretative strategies for analyzing longitudinal cha

56 the outcomes of the traditional and trinary interpretative strategies.

57 Afterward, we transitioned to a new trinary interpretative strategy: no PE, PE present, and nondiagn

58 on obtaining spectra and developing credible interpretative tools with which to retrieve vital planet