ライフサイエンスコーパス: interpreter

1 , and discrepancies were resolved by a third interpreter.

2 , RosettaScripts support and an embedded Lua interpreter.

3 , network data improve accuracy of the human interpreter.

4 anish-speakers who said they did not need an interpreter.

5 the imaging data were reassessed by 3 masked interpreters.

6 staff, family members, ancillary staff, and interpreters.

7 was measured between blinded and nonblinded interpreters.

8 images were assessed by masked, experienced interpreters.

9 staff, family members, ancillary staff, and interpreters.

10 conducted with in-person, hospital-employed interpreters.

11 2) would likely affect 34%-49% of practicing interpreters.

12 with a complex patient profile and multiple interpreters.

13 ers and compared it with conferences without interpreters.

14 accommodations, such as hiring sign language interpreters.

15 eviewed in a blinded fashion by two separate interpreters.

16 in laboratories with less experienced visual interpreters.

17 In all patients, interpreter 1 assessed BPU quantitatively using SUVmax I

18 Interpreter 1 reassessed all cases and repeated the BPU

19 r 1 assessed BPU quantitatively using SUVmax Interpreters 1 and 2 assessed amount of FGT and BPE in t

20 The respective lesion detection rates for interpreters 1, 2, and 3 were 51.9%, 49.4%, and 71.6% fo

21 were significantly different with respect to interpreter (7.9% for cases and 5.3% for controls; P=0.0

22 ppear to be related to our left hemisphere's interpreter, a device that allows us to construct theori

23 aluated quality of interpreters based on the interpreters' ability to provide: (a) literal interpreta

24 To minimize interpreter alterations during family meetings, physicia

25 veloped ACMI (Automatic Crystallographic Map Interpreter), an algorithm that uses a probabilistic mod

26 d using 2 independent and experienced PET/CT interpreters analyzing a subset of 13 18F-fluoride PET/C

27 time, compared with 57% of those who used an interpreter and 38% of those who thought an interpreter

28 MethylCoder requires only a python interpreter and a C compiler to run.

29 A deaf lip-reading interpreter and a hearing American sign language interpr

30 nsive care unit family conferences involving interpreters and compared it with conferences without in

31 they have shown less accuracy than physician interpreters and must be relied on only as an adjunct in

32 images was visually (5-point Likert scale, 2 interpreters) and quantitatively (contrast ratio [CR] an

33 eference), discuss who may be an appropriate interpreter, and offer strategies for when a professiona

34 nge of obtaining informed consent through an interpreter, and the stress of surgical practice on you

35 ured the duration of the time that families, interpreters, and clinicians spoke during the conference

36 Interpreters are often not used despite a perceived need

37 It is time we routinely provide lip-reading interpreters as well as recognize the need for prospecti

38 relationships among patients, providers, and interpreters, (b) inability of patients to follow throug

39 ecifically, both groups evaluated quality of interpreters based on the interpreters' ability to provi

40 visual interpretation results from 5 trained interpreters blinded to clinical data.

41 The interpreter can then request justification by clicking o

42 However, variability between individual interpreters can be extensive because of reasons such as

43 ed for 7.9 +/- 4.4 mins and 32% of speech in interpreter conferences.

44 The qsubsec template language and interpreter described here allow researchers to easily c

45 are provided for clinicians in working with interpreters, eliciting culturally based attitudes and b

46 the hand movement sequences of sign language interpreters engaged in fingerspelling.

47 In addition, 2 masked interpreters evaluated the images visually, in both the

48 arded to a blinded central echocardiographic interpreter for analysis.

49 Studies were evaluated by two experienced interpreters for abnormal uptake suspicious for recurren

50 and physical examination, facilitated by an interpreter if necessary.

51 Responses were determined by three interpreters in consensus.

52 Images were analyzed by 2 interpreters in random order and separate sessions with

53 and offer strategies for when a professional interpreter is not available.

54 API (version 2 of High density Array Pattern Interpreter) is a web-based, publicly-available analytic

55 educational status and the role of language interpreters may account for significant differences in

56 Two independent and masked interpreters measured maximum standardized uptake values

57 ip reading, writing notes, and sign language interpreter); medication safety and other risks posed by

58 We recommend that professional interpreters must be used for discussions about goals of

59 The interpreter needs to carefully window the findings down

60 Cdc37/W7A, also implicated this region as an interpreter of Hsp90's conformation.

61 -binding domain (MBD) proteins are important interpreters of DNA methylation that recognize methylate

62 minimally acceptable performance levels for interpreters of screening mammography studies.

63 There was substantial agreement between 2 interpreters (R1, R2), with a kappa of 0.78 (P < 0.001).

64 By consensus, 2 masked interpreters randomly assessed both PET datasets for ima

65 mages issued from FBP CT or ASiR CT for both interpreters (respectively, 3.5 +/- 0.6 vs. 3.5 +/- 0.6

66 ence between FBP and ASiR CT images for both interpreters (respectively, 3.8 +/- 0.5 vs. 3.6 +/- 0.5

67 Two interpreters reviewed the 2 sets of PET/CT images for ov

68 most research has focused on utilization of interpreter services and their effect on health outcomes

69 Interpreter services are a standard solution for address

70 oups shared perceptions about the quality of interpreter services as variable along three dimensions.

71 ment utilization, the provision of effective interpreter services, and the epidemiology and managemen

72 d research on patients' perceptions of these interpreter services.

73 ve partners in efforts to reform and enhance interpreter services.

74 ct that patients are discerning consumers of interpreter services; and could be effective partners in

75 interpreter and 38% of those who thought an interpreter should have been used (P<.001).

76 Interpreter speech accounted for 7.9 +/- 4.4 mins and 32

77 g, with a higher rate of discordance between interpreters than in AD and control subjects.

78 l, and we identify the crucial notion of the interpreter that expresses the gene with the minimal gen

79 s that should inform the decision to call an interpreter (the clinical situation, degree of language

80 and 87% of the patients who did not have an interpreter thought one should have been used.

81 f a knowledge base (KB) obtained from expert interpreters to conclude whether a kidney is obstructed.

82 ort utterances (fewer than 20 words) and ask interpreters to interrupt in order to facilitate accurat

83 and less likely to report frequent lapses in interpreter use (2 of 117 [1.7%] vs. 7 of 91 [7.7%]; P =

84 Language concordance and interpreter use greatly affected patients' perceived und

85 terpretation quality, frequency of lapses in interpreter use, and ability to name the child's diagnos

86 he child's diagnosis and had fewer lapses in interpreter use.

87 Images were interpreted by 2 masked interpreters using a 17-segment, 5-point scale to determ

88 However, practice and interpreter variability should be further explored befor

89 ish and the examiner's Spanish were poor, an interpreter was not called 34% of the time, and 87% of t

90 Patients who said an interpreter was not necessary rated their understanding

91 A total of 22% said an interpreter was not used but should have been used.

92 For 52%, and interpreter was not used but was not thought to be neces

93 An interpreter was used for 26% of Spanish-speaking patient

94 Patients' report of whether an interpreter was used, whether one was needed, self-perce

95 ver agreement between blinded and nonblinded interpreters was high.

96 Employing an extensible collection of interpreters, we developed OREMP (Ontology Reasoning Eng

97 patient's history and limited experience of interpreters were the major contributors to this phenome

98 eted most frequently (49%), and professional interpreters were used for only 12% of patients.

99 escribe ACMI (Automatic Crystallographic Map Interpreter), which uses a probabilistic model known as

100 espite a perceived need by patients, and the interpreters who are used usually lack formal training i

101 ompetent healthcare by using trained medical interpreters with limited English-proficient families, b

102 rpreter and a hearing American sign language interpreter worked together in a circuit formation to pr