ライフサイエンスコーパス: laboratory marker

1 els were developed that include clinical and laboratory markers.

2 tment) and the association with clinical and laboratory markers.

3 lantation requires information from suitable laboratory markers.

4 registries have revealed that both selected laboratory markers and clinical phenotyping may aid in d

5 ve information included data on medications, laboratory markers, and disease activity and damage as m

6 ata were collected on clinical presentation, laboratory markers, and outcome of infants with HPeV inf

7 h UC, scintigraphy with (99m)Tc-WBC and most laboratory markers are of limited value in assessing dis

8 s correlated with clinical information and 2 laboratory markers (C-reactive protein and white blood c

9 have been published recently suggesting that laboratory markers can predict distinctions between low-

10 To better understand how laboratory markers currently used to evaluate HIV diseas

11 zootic viruses, several in vitro and in vivo laboratory markers distinguishing the viruses have been

12 ough a majority of patients with normalizing laboratory markers experienced improved LGE, in a small

13 es that post-UV plasmid hypermutability is a laboratory marker for members of melanoma-prone families

14 There are no established laboratory markers for non-celiac gluten sensitivity, al

15 thrombosis and miscarriage, they are useful laboratory markers for the antiphospholipid syndrome.

16 No laboratory marker has been shown to differentiate the tw

17 screening test for excluding acute PE, this laboratory marker has not been widely integrated into cl

18 Based on available data, several laboratory markers have shown promise as biomarkers for

19 Concerning laboratory markers include overt proteinuria, macroalbum

20 inflammation of SCD and may be a measurable laboratory marker of vaso-occlusive crisis.

21 ary outcome was immunogenicity assessed with laboratory markers of cell-mediated immunity in blood an

22 ation is challenging in older children since laboratory markers of congenital rubella virus (RUBV) in

23 Laboratory markers of disease severity were highly corre

24 s associated with patient race/ethnicity and laboratory markers of disease severity.

25 Studies to identify noninvasive laboratory markers of histological activity and stage, e

26 -dose CT enterography (LDCTE), assessment of laboratory markers of inflammation and clinical CD activ

27 asurements were correlated with clinical and laboratory markers of inflammation and histology.

28 ase activity in patients with CD with raised laboratory markers of inflammation and in healthy subjec

29 ues, duration of hospital stay, or any other laboratory markers of inflammation measured.

30 elationship between perfusion parameters and laboratory markers of inflammation.

31 d rapid improvement in clinical symptoms and laboratory markers of inflammation.

32 ate with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and laboratory markers of intestinal active inflammation.

33 severity of PAH (r = 0.58, P < .001) and to laboratory markers of intravascular hemolysis, such as r

34 Baseline laboratory markers of liver disease severity were worse

35 m sIL-2R concentrations were correlated with laboratory markers of liver diseases, cytokine / chemoki

36 iate and multivariate correlations with some laboratory markers of nutrition (serum albumin, prealbum

37 nt for demographic factors, comorbidity, and laboratory markers of nutritional status.

38 ding by comorbidities, frailty measures, and laboratory markers of nutritional status.

39 patient comorbidities, frailty measures, and laboratory markers of nutritional status.

40 s to describe the demographic, clinical, and laboratory markers of oral cGVHD in alloHSCT patients (N

41 relation between change in ADC and change in laboratory markers of response (r = -0.614; P = .001).

42 this study was to identify potentially novel laboratory markers of risk in chronic heart failure pati

43 ncy and leukocytosis, the network identified laboratory markers of the severity of hemolytic anemia a

44 Of the laboratory markers, only the post-HAART CD4+ cell count

45 ing historical features, symptoms, signs, or laboratory markers or were radiologic studies compared w

46 Both baseline values and changes in the two laboratory markers over time correlated well with clinic

47 Two key laboratory markers--plasma RNA and CD4+ lymphocyte count

48 Post-HAART laboratory markers predicted death and new AIDS-defining

49 Any added diagnostic value of these laboratory markers remains unclear.

50 Clinical evaluation with laboratory markers specific for BPH or LUTS is currently

51 To determine whether adding laboratory markers to evaluation of signs and symptoms i

52 Mean Outcomes and Measures: Laboratory markers were added as a single test to a basi