ライフサイエンスコーパス: laboratory value

1 edural pressure gradients, body weights, and laboratory values.

2 ) of 2,027 randomized patients with baseline laboratory values.

3 by the number of adverse events and clinical laboratory values.

4 stologic analysis, clinical course, or other laboratory values.

5 criteria using clinical history and fasting laboratory values.

6 isease using commonly available clinical and laboratory values.

7 ate baseline laboratory testing and abnormal laboratory values.

8 in vital signs, on electrocardiograms, or in laboratory values.

9 hanges in vital signs, electrocardiogram, or laboratory values.

10 differences between groups were reported for laboratory values.

11 and 23 patients (13.2%) because of abnormal laboratory values.

12 ia, operative, and postoperative details and laboratory values.

13 ked effects on vital signs, ECG readings, or laboratory values.

14 , time-activity curves, and the stability of laboratory values.

15 hics, injury severity, admission vitals, and laboratory values.

16 clinical characteristics, hemodynamics, and laboratory values.

17 y, quality of life, or clinically meaningful laboratory values.

18 ications, and preoperative and postoperative laboratory values.

19 y of illness, transfusion complications, and laboratory values.

20 Specific diagnoses and laboratory values (albumin, aspartate aminotransferase,

21 gns, electrocardiogram results, and clinical laboratory values and assessment of movement disorders a

22 ndex were calculated, and anthropometric and laboratory values and blood pressure were measured in 18

23 ty of bowel inflammation, a large dataset of laboratory values and clinical activity indices was corr

24 Laboratory values and lipid pharmacotherapy were assesse

25 evaluated the clinical history and baseline laboratory values and performed magnetic resonance imagi

26 on diagnosis, admission severity of illness, laboratory values and physiologic variables present duri

27 Using an analysis of variance, pretransplant laboratory values and SRL trough concentrations (C0) wer

28 tory, and clinical characteristics including laboratory values and treatments.

29 edical and social history, (3) clinical, (4) laboratory values, and (5) treatment.

30 Of these, 91% had baseline laboratory values, and 34% did not have any serum potass

31 end of treatment, by renal function testing, laboratory values, and a grading score (none, mild, mode

32 odels for demographics, comorbid conditions, laboratory values, and achieved dialysis dosage.

33 Vital signs, laboratory values, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Heal

34 Age, admission laboratory values, and APACHE II and Imrie scores were s

35 Adverse events, clinical laboratory values, and cardiovascular effects were monit

36 fter adjustment for patient characteristics, laboratory values, and comorbid conditions, the risk for

37 ciations of baseline characteristics, select laboratory values, and cumulative prednisone and cyclosp

38 procedural codes, medications, perioperative laboratory values, and date of death.

39 dy (HAMA) response, adverse events, clinical laboratory values, and diagnostic imaging results were e

40 Adverse events, clinical laboratory values, and electrocardiograms were monitored

41 on to make decisions, including vital signs, laboratory values, and entries in the medical record.

42 Symptoms, signs, laboratory values, and hemodynamics (by echocardiogram)

43 Demographics, laboratory values, and medical history at FO therapy ini

44 health records for new diagnoses, changes in laboratory values, and new allergies following vaccinati

45 raphics, symptoms, indications for revision, laboratory values, and outcomes were recorded.

46 r trough levels of immunosuppressive agents, laboratory values, and potential adverse effects.

47 ent parameters such as patient demographics, laboratory values, and prior therapy did not correlate w

48 minal trauma and the physical exam findings, laboratory values, and radiographic imaging associated w

49 d intensively by such means as hemodynamics, laboratory values, and radiologic studies.

50 emographic features, clinical interventions, laboratory values, and risk factors for infection.

51 uated patient history, physical examination, laboratory values, and sonography compared with a refere

52 ent demographics, clinical history, baseline laboratory values, and surgery type.

53 There were no clinically relevant changes in laboratory values, and the most frequently reported adve

54 inary volume after voiding, quality of life, laboratory values, and the rate of reported adverse effe

55 luded demographic and injury data, admission laboratory values, and vital signs and outcomes includin

56 ast once every 3 weeks, with adverse events, laboratory values, and vital signs graded according to t

57 NTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic variables, laboratory values, and vital signs were utilized in a di

58 nsciousness) and automated paging for "panic laboratory values," as well as instituting protocols for

59 Changes in laboratory values at baseline and 0-6 hours and 1-2 week

60 We recorded access type, laboratory values at entry, stratified patients per risk

61 Pertinent serum laboratory values at the time of these tests were as fol

62 ents into those with above-normal and normal laboratory values before implantation and measured blood

63 th Gilbert's syndrome were defined as having laboratory values before the start of conditioning thera

64 Laboratory values, bleeding frequency, and consumption o

65 ke strikes fell within the range of reported laboratory values, but some far exceeded most observatio

66 ate analyses correlated demographic factors, laboratory values, clinical parameters, and CsA pharmaco

67 luding treatments, physiologic variables and laboratory values collected before, during, and after a

68 sed since overdose, and outcome from patient laboratory values commonly available on admission in cas

69 Among 36 laboratory values considered in the CHARM program, highe

70 two patients (70%) had clinical features and laboratory values consistent with AFLP, and 7 (15%) had

71 Further adjustment for comorbidities and laboratory values continued to show this protective asso

72 Numerous laboratory values correlate with each other.

73 d with specific AML phenotypes as defined by laboratory values, cytogenetics, and clinical outcomes.

74 When sequential laboratory values declined below 8 g/dL (n = 102) and 7

75 Of 551 patients with follow-up laboratory values determined, 15% developed hyperkalemia

76 Laboratory values did not change significantly between t

77 At week 5, none of the laboratory values differed significantly compared with b

78 rin were examined to determine whether these laboratory values distinguished patients who responded t

79 ed donor and recipient demographics and peak laboratory values during the first postoperative week.

80 Extrapyramidal Symptom (EPS) rating scales, laboratory values, electrocardiograms, vital signs, and

81 ere uncommon and were predominantly abnormal laboratory values: elevated ALT, thrombocytopenia, and l

82 oxicity to the mice was detected by numerous laboratory values for bone marrow, liver, and kidney fun

83 m HCV-infected patients with contemporaneous laboratory values for imputing APRI and FIB-4.

84 Laboratory values for lipid levels, hepatic function, an

85 The differences in the laboratory values for the acute treatment group versus t

86 s, the model accurately predicted subsequent laboratory values for the majority of individual patient

87 Biochemical and hematologic laboratory values from 48 procedures in 39 patients (18

88 c WBC scan findings were consistent with the laboratory values, gastroenterologist's clinical assessm

89 ume centers were similar with regard to age, laboratory values, gender, and parathyroid weights.

90 low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (fasting laboratory value >/=130 mg/dL or taking low-density lipo

91 idemia subtypes: high triglycerides (fasting laboratory value >/=150 mg/dL), low levels of high-densi

92 failure, a systematic assessment of routine laboratory values has not been reported.

93 h their younger counterparts by preoperative laboratory values, illness severity, nutritional status,

94 than any historical or physical findings or laboratory values in identifying congestive heart failur

95 Also, patients with markedly abnormal laboratory values including a calcium 12.0 mg/dL, or 24-

96 graft survival, study drug discontinuations, laboratory values including renal function and developme

97 of the coronary arteries was performed, and laboratory values (including the homocysteine concentrat

98 dy fat, body mass index (BMI), and pertinent laboratory values, including hemoglobin, albumin, and C-

99 grade 3 and 4 adverse events were changes in laboratory values, including increased blood creatine ph

100 Pertinent laboratory values, including white blood cell count, wer

101 Demographic data, vital signs, laboratory values, injury severity score, abbreviated in

102 fferences in demographics, arrival vitals or laboratory values, injury severity, or mechanism.

103 A dataset of 2,714 laboratory values is available for analysis.

104 e patients compared to those listed based on laboratory values (LABMELD).

105 sex, race/ethnicity), coexisting illnesses, laboratory values, left ventricular systolic function, a

106 emographic data, selected clinical findings, laboratory values, length of hospital stay, presence and

107 igh-density lipoprotein cholesterol (fasting laboratory value <40 mg/dL [men] and <50 mg/dL [women]),

108 Laboratory values may be erroneous when intraosseous blo

109 (PBC) for which it has a positive effect on laboratory values, may delay the development of liver fa

110 e curated centrally, including demographics, laboratory values, medical history, lesion sites, and pr

111 Pertinent details, including laboratory values, medications, smoking history/status,

112 Accuracy was best at laboratory values of 10.5-14.5 g/dL and least at laborat

113 ratory values of 10.5-14.5 g/dL and least at laboratory values of 6.5-8 g/dL.

114 ed faults generally could not be detected if laboratory values of Dc apply to faults in nature.

115 nhalation injury, delay in resuscitation, or laboratory values on initial presentation.

116 f using the existing virologic endpoints and laboratory values or entirely new biomarkers are needed.

117 were gastroenterological (17%) and abnormal laboratory values or vital signs (17%).

118 rious adverse events, or changes in clinical laboratory values or vital signs occurred during this st

119 pregnancy-specific reference range for each laboratory value, or by serum TSH concentrations greater

120 asing outcomes with more marked worsening of laboratory values over 2 years, particularly for patient

121 aired t test were used to analyze changes in laboratory values over time.

122 g to patient characteristics, prescriptions, laboratory values, practice patterns, and outcomes.

123 ), and low serum albumin was the significant laboratory value predictor (odds ratio, 3.8).

124 ificant differences detected in vital signs, laboratory values, procedures, treatment, or outcome bet

125 In a large insurance database with linked laboratory values, records of women with serum creatinin

126 l ranges need to be determined by individual laboratories, values reported in the literature may be u

127 re-treatment increased safety risk based on laboratory values, reported adverse event frequencies, o

128 l cases, volunteers recovered completely and laboratory values returned to baseline after specific an

129 biopsy, time from infection to biopsies, and laboratory values such as serum alanine aminotransferase

130 tion algorithms incorporating billing codes, laboratory values, text queries, and medication records

131 ion can be defined using postoperative day 7 laboratory values that are highly predictive of early gr

132 tal signs, electrocardiographic findings, or laboratory values that qualified as adverse events.

133 , 99mTc WBC scan findings were compared with laboratory values, the gastroenterologist's initial clin

134 ing present on admission codes and numerical laboratory values to administrative databases.

135 Clinical data including laboratory values, tumor-specific treatment and outcome

136 t characteristics, drug characteristics, and laboratory values using a multiple logistic regression.

137 ts in different correlation coefficients for laboratory values versus (99m)Tc-WBC scintigraphy.

138 fety endpoints were adverse events, clinical laboratory values, vital signs, and anti-AMG 334 antibod

139 fety endpoints were adverse events, clinical laboratory values, vital signs, and anti-erenumab antibo

140 The degree of change in the laboratory values was more directly associated with whol

141 th at diagnosis, and at least one of the two laboratory values was persistently elevated in 43 percen

142 Prevalence of increased liver laboratory values was similar to that seen in adults.

143 hanges were observed in vital signs, routine laboratory values, weight, metabolic indices, and Abnorm

144 r physical symptoms, current treatments, and laboratory values were also collected.

145 Tacrolimus trough levels and laboratory values were closely monitored during the TVR

146 Vital signs and laboratory values were collected to define the presence

147 Laboratory values were considered elevated if they excee

148 Significant changes in vital signs and laboratory values were evaluated by using a combination

149 Baseline laboratory values were in an acceptable range to meet el

150 y progressed to grade IV encephalopathy, and laboratory values were indicative of a poor prognosis wi

151 he majority of adverse events and changes in laboratory values were mild or moderate.

152 Beneficiaries initiating diuretics with laboratory values were more likely to have an abnormal s

153 Predonation laboratory values were not remarkable, and liver and kid

154 gns, physical examination, ECGs, or clinical laboratory values were observed.

155 hanges in vital signs, electrocardiogram, or laboratory values were observed.

156 Patient demographics, etiology of ALF, and laboratory values were recorded.

157 Laboratory values were strong predictors of mortality bu

158 treatment characteristics, and pretreatment laboratory values-were abstracted from medical records.

159 ible grade III to IV toxicities according to laboratory values, which returned to pretreatment levels

160 of acute rejection episodes as well as mean laboratory values with those of a historical cohort of 6

161 of resolution of abdominal pain or abnormal laboratory values, would result in a shorter hospital st