ライフサイエンスコーパス: investigator

1 s were deemed to be treatment related by the investigator.

2 ve feedback on task performance from a study investigator.

3 tput, creating additional challenges for the investigator.

4 which is as a faculty member or independent investigator.

5 aths were deemed related to treatment by the investigator.

6 nt of the corticosteroid relationship by the investigator.

7 umor biopsies, and scored independently by 2 investigators.

8 most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators.

9 met inclusion criteria were screened by two investigators.

10 distributing laboratories to the requesting investigators.

11 onwards, with no masking of participants or investigators.

12 negative bacterial strains published by ARLG investigators.

13 All steps were performed independently by 2 investigators.

14 g and professional profiles of the principal investigators.

15 couraged but left to the discretion of study investigators.

16 on was concealed from participants and study investigators.

17 Independent extraction was performed by 2 investigators.

18 18, 2016, and from email correspondence with investigators.

19 dpoints at 12 months were assessed by masked investigators.

20 ch cohort independently and synthesized by 2 investigators.

21 Data were extracted independently by 2 investigators.

22 nopathy Clinical Research Network (DRCR.net) investigators.

23 racted from medical records by participating investigators.

24 or trial data have been increasing, with 195 investigators (53%) initiating requests during the last

25 These high-throughput approaches offer investigators a toolkit for functional interrogation of

26 One investigator abstracted data, a second checked data for

27 Data Extraction: One investigator abstracted data, and a second checked abstr

28 Two investigators abstracted data and pooled data to compare

29 Data Extraction: Two investigators abstracted data on study design, patient c

30 cles, exosomes are of growing interest among investigators across multiple fields, including dermatol

31 In this meta-analysis, we, the trial investigators, aimed to pool the individual patient data

32 These investigators also described the pivotal roles of domest

33 ot masked from the dietary intervention, but investigators analysing the data were masked from the ra

34 Blinded investigators analyzed blood pressure waveforms during C

35 Patients, all site personnel including the investigator and the site monitor, and the study team we

36 ieved secure bidirectional data flow between investigators and 7,593 participants from across the Uni

37 Each case was reviewed by eight network investigators and categorized as DILI having a primary,

38 nary fibrosis; diagnoses varied between site investigators and CILD experts, emphasizing the value of

39 Investigators and participants were masked to treatment

40 Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment

41 Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment

42 g regulatory agencies, payers, sponsors, and investigators and proposes collaboration among all stake

43 nsequences of many genetic alterations lags, investigators and sponsors struggle with choosing betwee

44 ts strengths and adjust for its limitations, investigators and their audiences should familiarize the

45 AREDS), receiving data prepared by the AREDS investigators and, separately, data from investigators r

46 nterventions, masking of participants, study investigators, and care providers to group allocation wa

47 nt group was double dummy, and the patients, investigators, and central study staff were masked to tr

48 ent group was double dummy, and the patient, investigators, and central study staff were masked to tr

49 Patients, investigators, and clinicians were masked to treatment a

50 The NIH, investigators, and journals must collaborate to ensure t

51 sponsor and clinical research organisation, investigators, and patients were masked to treatment ass

52 The patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment a

53 Participants, investigators, and site-study workers were blinded from

54 Patients, investigators, and sponsors were blinded to the treatmen

55 All participants, study investigators, and study site personnel, laboratory staf

56 Patients, study investigators, and study sponsor personnel were masked t

57 Patients, investigators, and study staff were masked to treatment

58 Patients, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to PD-L1 expr

59 Patients, investigators, and the trial funder were masked to treat

60 Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked

61 Patients, investigators, and those completing data analyses were m

62 Patients, investigators, and trial funder were masked to treatment

63 Patients, investigators, and trial personnel were masked to treatm

64 , and decreased costs of, mass spectrometry, investigators are collecting and analyzing multiple biol

65 zed clinical trials with blinded independent investigators are needed to demonstrate the long-term sa

66 These properties have kept the interest of investigators around the world, leading to the investiga

67 days after randomisation, judged by the site investigator as not related to study intervention.

68 and 2 deaths were reported, all assessed by investigators as unrelated to vaccine.

69 any published CER analyses of registry data, investigators assessed confounders based on the first qu

70 The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed 50% decline in PSA concentration f

71 1333 patients) showed that programmatic and investigator-assessed early treatment success both had a

72 The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed intracranial response in cohort A

73 Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival w

74 95% CI 20.8-42.9) of 74 patients achieved an investigator-assessed objective response and 51 (69%, 57

75 The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response as per Response

76 The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response.

77 Investigator-assessed overall response at the end of ind

78 The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response, defined as the p

79 The coprimary endpoints for TH3RESA were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and over

80 The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and we r

81 The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analyse

82 Patients, investigators assessing outcomes, and sponsor study pers

83 Treatment was open-label, but investigators assessing primary efficacy outcomes were m

84 The participants and investigators assessing the participants during follow-u

85 point was progression-free survival by local investigator assessment as per the Response Evaluation C

86 Ejection fraction values should be used with investigator assessment of a patient's risk for heart fa

87 point was progression-free survival by local investigator assessment per Response Evaluation Criteria

88 Intracranial response by investigator assessment was also achieved in nine (56%;

89 lly related to study treatment (according to investigator assessment) were reported in two liver inju

90 For this analysis, CR was defined per investigator assessment, immune-related response criteri

91 gentamicin side, as determined by a blinded-investigator assessment.

92 and none were treatment-related according to investigator assessment.

93 F) Biological Sciences Directorate principal investigators (BIO PIs), nearly 90% indicated they are c

94 ographic reports and images were assessed by investigators blinded to the external laboratory accredi

95 Type 1 Diabetes (BE IN CONTROL) study was an investigator-blinded, 6-month, 2-arm randomized clinical

96 The authors conducted a prospective, investigator-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled

97 We next conducted an investigator-blinded, randomized, bilaterally controlled

98 Investigators can design their test by choosing differen

99 Investigators can interact with EpiCompare by investigat

100 olizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (35 cycles) or investigator-choice platinum-doublet chemotherapy (4-6 c

101 Cohen's kappa: 0.351 site investigator/CILD, 0.519 site investigator/NDCC, and 0.6

102 The principal investigator classified the patients previously as witho

103 Investigators classified all patients into atherosclerot

104 o led to a broader cultural change among the investigator community towards deeper collaborations and

105 In the late 1960s, investigators conceived the innovative idea of assemblin

106 ation of the multinational Interphone Study, investigators concluded that biases and errors prevented

107 aria in Pregnancy Library were searched, and investigators contacted.

108 olerable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision.

109 he cancer control continuum, with respect to investigator demographics and use of theory, technology,

110 IST v1.1-defined progression by the treating investigators derived apparent clinical benefit without

111 tion to clopidogrel or ticagrelor (chosen at investigator discretion before randomisation), for patie

112 ble patients received live zoster vaccine at investigators' discretion.

113 recognized this bias in its 2008 early-stage investigator (ESI) policy to fund young PIs at higher ra

114 This has attracted a diverse range of investigators, especially those interested in aging and

115 ion slopes between eyes may prove useful for investigators evaluating the efficacy of unilateral trea

116 nsuming, labor intensive, and dependent upon investigators' expertise at consistently orienting and s

117 ved as growth promoters in animal livestock, investigators explored the role of antibiotics as magic

118 Data Extraction: Two investigators extracted data, assessed study quality, an

119 Data Extraction: Two investigators extracted data, assessed study quality, an

120 Data Extraction: 2 independent investigators extracted study data and assessed risk of

121 Data Extraction: Two independent investigators extracted study-level data for a random-ef

122 articipant data requested from the principal investigator for each eligible trial, adjusting for age

123 BRINDA investigators found that the acute-phase response is so

124 Methods Multidisciplinary investigators from 13 countries reviewed data from publi

125 Data were extracted by investigators from each cohort independently and synthes

126 Investigators from studies targeting patients with risk

127 location was concealed from participants and investigators from the time of randomisation until an in

128 perts and between 1 expert and 1 naive sleep investigators gave similar results.

129 eristics and assessed study quality, and the investigator group graded the overall strength of eviden

130 ndependently assessed study quality, and the investigator group graded the overall strength of eviden

131 and Scopus) and sought unpublished data from investigator groups on maternal GBS colonization and neo

132 and Scopus) and sought unpublished data from investigator groups on the association of preterm birth

133 and Scopus) and sought unpublished data from investigator groups.

134 A majority of principal investigators had a PhD omnia solus (57%), and 13% posse

135 amma chain (IL2rg(null)) in the early 2000s, investigators have been able to engraft murine recipient

136 For more than 50 years, investigators have considered a malignant stem cell as t

137 We and other investigators have demonstrated that HDMs express phosph

138 Investigators have hitherto relied on candidate protein-

139 Whereas investigators have paid much attention to the cerebral c

140 d unobserved using an automated device, some investigators have questioned the ability to translate S

141 k, in conjunction with results from previous investigators, highlights the importance of POT1 in telo

142 pursuing laboratory research as a principal investigator, I have also been a science administrator-m

143 from prompted case report forms: local site investigators, ILD experts at the National Data Coordina

144 Recently, investigators in an increasing number of air pollution s

145 line tool EpiCompare was developed to assist investigators in exploring the specificity of epigenomic

146 al laboratory reports were reassessed by the investigators in line with modern criteria.

147 ancer (EOC) was considered well established, investigators in recent studies including women diagnose

148 hy clinical practice guidelines pioneered by investigators in the 1980s.

149 Patients and investigators (including local radiologists) were masked

150 Data Extraction: Two investigators independently abstracted study characteris

151 a, a second checked data for accuracy, and 2 investigators independently assessed study quality using

152 second checked abstractions for accuracy; 2 investigators independently assessed study quality.

153 Two investigators independently conducted abstract and full-

154 Data Extraction: Two investigators independently extracted study data and rat

155 Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-

156 Data Extraction: 2 investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-

157 Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts, full-tex

158 Data Extraction: 2 investigators independently screened each article for in

159 Pragmatic, investigator initiated, open label, single site, randomi

160 Finally, two investigator-initiated multicenter trials highlighted do

161 ts treated with single-agent ibrutinib on an investigator-initiated phase 2 trial.

162 This was an international, investigator-initiated, blinded-outcome-assessor, parall

163 Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System) is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, 1:1 ra

164 This investigator-initiated, multicenter, single-blind, place

165 g-Eluting Stent Study in Twente) trial is an investigator-initiated, patient-blinded, randomized, com

166 We performed an investigator-initiated, randomized trial to compare an e

167 itations of the database by both readers and investigators is of critical importance.

168 Purpose The Intergroup Exemestane Study, an investigator-led study of 4,724 postmenopausal patients

169 Patients, investigators, local radiologists, study team, and anyon

170 ation (N = 1,550) by angiographic laboratory investigators masked to patient characteristics and outc

171 STUDY Randomized, controlled, investigator-masked clinical trial.

172 We review 3 reasons investigators may choose to exclude controls with respir

173 To help investigators measure how these could impact their analy

174 pa: 0.351 site investigator/CILD, 0.519 site investigator/NDCC, and 0.618 NDCC/CILD.

175 y, in what Lash calls "innovative" research, investigators need a selection strategy to identify whic

176 Investigators need to replicate observations to estimate

177 ntly between male (33.3%) and female (37.3%) investigators, nor did the frequency of R01 awards (36.7

178 Investigators of navigation and memory relate neuronal a

179 We also suggest future directions to inform investigators of potentially disruptive NM technologies

180 published reports and contacted the original investigators of studies for which the required data wer

181 Data Extraction: Investigators of studies provided data on the number of

182 cies of dressing changes were decided by the investigator on the basis of the clinical condition of t

183 eath was deemed related to study drug by the investigator or sponsor.

184 Randomisation was done by principal investigators or designee at respective centres through

185 All participants and all investigators other than the person who analysed the dat

186 Investigators, other hospital personnel, and patients we

187 d administered in a masked manner; patients, investigators, other site staff and the entire study tea

188 Investigators, participants, and study personnel were bl

189 Investigators, participants, study staff, and those asse

190 ake time and demands patience on the part of investigators, patients, and clinicians alike.

191 Investigators, patients, and the funder were masked to t

192 Investigators, patients, site personnel, and those asses

193 Investigators, patients, study staff giving treatment, c

194 Investigators, patients, study staff, and those assessin

195 int was objective response rate evaluated by investigators per immune-related response criteria.

196 study treatment, responses were evaluated by investigators per the 2014 Lugano classification, and pa

197 Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey.

198 earch-intensive faculty member and principal investigator (PI) as both unattainable and undesirable.

199 nt-eligible basic-science faculty [principal investigators (PIs)] younger than 46.

200 conduct was not randomised and was based on investigator preference.

201 w implementation of NIH guidelines will help investigators proactively address pitfalls of experiment

202 Investigators prospectively defined management strategy

203 im analysis, but participants and nearly all investigators remained masked to group assignment until

204 as statins) on colorectal cancer prognosis, investigators reported a reduced rate of cancer-specific

205 The investigator-reported etiology was categorized as Chagas

206 Investigator-reported toxic effects of ipilimumab consis

207 EDS investigators and, separately, data from investigators reporting findings that support the use of

208 anuary 2000 through May 2016, a total of 370 investigators requested data from 1 or more clinical tri

209 We analyzed administrative records of investigator requests for data access, linked publicatio

210 General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) Maximizing Investigators' Research Award (MIRA) program to reward s

211 Response was assessed based on investigator review using the Response Evaluation Criter

212 on Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, by investigator review.

213 n the case in endocrine disruptors research, investigators routinely estimate sex-specific associatio

214 ion of patients with an overall response per investigator's assessment according to IWCLL criteria.

215 apy, and presence of brain metastases as per investigator's assessment at screening.

216 mly assigned to receive nivolumab (n=240) or investigator's choice (n=121).

217 lumab 3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks or investigator's choice chemotherapy (ICC; dacarbazine 1,0

218 s significantly longer with nivolumab versus investigator's choice for 13 (37%) of 35 domains assesse

219 rotocol was amended to allow patients in the investigator's choice group to cross over to nivolumab.

220 nts (93 in the nivolumab group and 36 in the investigator's choice group) completed any of the PRO qu

221 b group and eight (44%) of 18 domains in the investigator's choice group.

222 mpared with standard single-agent therapy of investigator's choice in Checkmate 141; here we report t

223 rall survival superiority for nivolumab over investigator's choice therapy (primary endpoint; describ

224 , and PET4(+) patients were treated with the investigator's choice.

225 igned to the laser arm received laser at the investigator's discretion.

226 al benefit and tolerating study drug, at the investigator's discretion.

227 Unscheduled treatments were allowed at the investigator's discretion.

228 rimary endpoints were patients (%) achieving Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) 0/1 and 2-point o

229 Two independent investigators selected the studies.

230 either oral ruxolitinib 10 mg twice daily or investigator-selected best available therapy (hydroxyure

231 In trials of PCSK9 inhibitor drugs, investigators should carefully assess these safety outco

232 Thus, investigators should carefully consider the timing of co

233 Investigators should consider sexual heterogeneity of co

234 igning clinical trials of novel TB regimens, investigators should consider that even small changes in

235 In future studies, investigators should evaluate SE associations among anti

236 The investigators show that EBF2 interacts with and recruits

237 of 3 approved agents applied blindly at the investigator site daily for 14 days: pimecrolimus, betam

238 Treatment assignments were known to investigators, site personnel, patients, clinical monito

239 Patients, investigators, site staff, assessors, and the funder wer

240 dicine (EM) offers an approach that can help investigators specify the research questions that need t

241 Prospective, single-arm, investigator-sponsored interventional clinical trial.

242 Patients, investigators, staff, and outcome assessors were masked

243 ropic NMR parameters can be used to evaluate investigators' structure proposals or structures generat

244 Study participants, investigators, study staff, and the sponsor were masked

245 file of these neurons which may be of use to investigators studying the gene expression of these cell

246 f rising concern over antibiotic resistance, investigators studying the role of antibiotics in acute

247 METHODS AND Two independent investigators systematically searched the Medical Litera

248 then reverse a cap on funding to individual investigators, the Grant Support Index.

249 During the treatment period, patients, investigators, their site personnel, and sponsor were ma

250 a certain level of funding to an individual investigator, there are diminishing returns in scientifi

251 (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were

252 9% of phase 3/4 trials have been accessed by investigators thus far, and a negligible minority of ana

253 placebo), seven (2%) were considered by the investigator to be related to study drug in the regorafe

254 in the vancomycin arm was considered by the investigator to be related to study drug.

255 serious adverse event that was judged by the investigator to be related to treatment.

256 ither of these deaths were considered by the investigator to be treatment related.

257 imulation environment ARACHNE: it enables an investigator to build and explore cellular networks of a

258 ecautions and methods we describe may enable investigators to avoid confounding chemistry-based assoc

259 placebo; none were judged by site principal investigators to be related to study medication.

260 l genomic data as a single resource to allow investigators to easily access available brain annotatio

261 d motivated us to develop a tool that allows investigators to easily identify regions with epigenetic

262 uman health and disease has increasingly led investigators to examine the microbiome in both healthy

263 y, is becoming increasingly popular to allow investigators to explore patient experiences (qualitativ

264 This map has allowed investigators to obtain a much deeper and more comprehen

265 t intervention effectiveness to 410 DRCR.net investigators to rate each question's importance from 0

266 dbGaP controlled-access environment required investigators to submit a data access request, wait for

267 fate of graft-reactive T and B cells allows investigators to uncover their biology and develop new t

268 n of multivariate statistical methods allows investigators to utilize data concerning these brain alt

269 when developers graduate, funding ceases, or investigators turn to other projects.

270 A third epoch began when investigators turned their attention to the entorhinal c

271 es to assess neighborhood physical disorder, investigators typically rely on time-consuming and expen

272 available for calibration are limited, most investigators use self-reports (e.g., 24-hour recalls (2

273 Randomisation was done by the investigators using an interactive web or voice response

274 Major advances by investigators, vaccine developers, and affected communit

275 ave made VTEA freely available to interested investigators via electronic download.

276 Data Extraction: Study data extracted by 1 investigator was checked by a second reviewer; 2 reviewe

277 8%), and the success rate of male and female investigators was not statistically different.

278 Uganda, a condition that, according to local investigators, was rare until the last 7 years.

279 Patients and investigators were aware of group allocation.

280 Participants, clinicians, and investigators were blinded to group assignment.

281 Participants and investigators were masked to group assignments, which we

282 Participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment.

283 Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment.

284 Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignments.

285 Both patients and investigators were masked to treatment.

286 Participants and investigators were not masked from the dietary intervent

287 Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment.

288 Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment.

289 Investigators who did the analyses were masked to group

290 ional regulation, is intended for biomedical investigators who work on understanding the regulation o

291 A look up chart has been provided for investigators who would like to estimate uncertainty fro

292 This method will provide investigators with a relatively simple tool to non-invas

293 The analysts and investigators with access to the raw data were masked to

294 IPD were sought from investigators with eligible trials.

295 ologists, radiologists, epidemiologists, and investigators with expertise in asthma and COPD.

296 sks that are often complex and difficult for investigators with the current state of commercial digit

297 ncourage international collaboration between investigators with the intent of achieving important inn

298 imilar whether obtained by self-tonometry or investigator, with excellent reproducibility with an int

299 Randomisation was done by an independent investigator, with the use of opaque, sealed, sequential

300 Investigators working both in syndemics, a field of appl