コーパス検索結果 (1語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 ity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio.
2 curacy, such as sensitivity, specificity, or likelihood ratios.
3 ty, generating sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios.
4 vity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios.
5 ive predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios.
6 igher sensitivity, specificity, and superior likelihood ratios.
8 .9%, positive predictive value 85%, negative likelihood ratio 0.7, and positive likelihood ratio 3.5.
9 cutoff </= 182 pg/mL had the lowest negative likelihood ratio (0.0) and was the best to rule out HF-r
10 tivity (0.82 versus 0.66) and lower negative likelihood ratio (0.20 versus 0.37) for MRI over CT.
11 aditional algorithm had the highest negative likelihood ratio (0.24), a missed diagnosis rate of 24.2
18 e, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.06; summary positive likelihood ratio, 10.45; 95% CI, 3.37-32.43), bilateral
21 sensitivity, 46%; specificity, 97%; positive likelihood ratio, 13 (95% CI, 4.4-38); negative likeliho
22 of these CT findings were combined (positive likelihood ratios, 14.7 [95% CI: 7.1, 30.4] and 43.8 (95
23 ostic accuracy 99%) had the highest positive likelihood ratio (168.1); that is, it was the best to ru
26 [93-99]) and diagnostically useful (positive likelihood ratio 213 [95% CI 13-infinity] and negative l
28 negative predictive value = 97.8%; positive likelihood ratio = 3.08; negative likelihood ratio = 0.0
29 1.30-23.62), as did seropositivity (positive likelihood ratio, 3.69 [1.67-8.16]; relative risk, 5.97
30 m at around 7.0-8.0 hours sleep (overweight: likelihood ratio = 32.7 p < 0.01; obesity: likelihood ra
34 negative predictive value (83%) and positive likelihood ratio (5.87) for the diagnosis of a nuclear D
35 disease development (relative risk/positive likelihood ratio, 5.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-23
36 tive rate, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.11; positive likelihood ratio, 5.58; 95% CI, 2.56-12.16), and elevate
37 tive rate, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01-0.09; positive likelihood ratio, 6.8; 95% CI, 2.52-18.38), and bilatera
38 tive rate, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.06-0.13; positive likelihood ratio, 7.11; 95% CI, 5.01-10.08), unfavorable
39 ersus CT (0.91 versus 0.92) and the positive likelihood ratios (8.8 versus 8.1) were not different.
40 tive rate, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.04-0.12; positive likelihood ratio, 8.85; 95% CI, 4.87-16.08), myoclonic s
41 ificity, positive predictive value, positive likelihood ratio, accuracy (overall fraction correct), a
42 accumulate switch evidence (in units of log-likelihood ratio) across trials and update their respons
44 flation in the median test statistics of the likelihood ratio and score tests for tests of variants w
46 eloped based on the optimality theory of the likelihood ratio and therefore theoretically could form
48 azard ratio (HR) analysis was performed, and likelihood ratios and positive and negative predictive v
49 t probability of disease from the calculated likelihood ratios and pretest probability of disease.
50 ificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio of the (18)F
51 sitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 92 %, 7
52 he pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of FITs
54 ive predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and absolute rates of recommended car
55 eiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), likelihood ratios, and sensitivities/specificities adjus
56 predictive, and negative predictive values; likelihood ratios; and areas under the receiver operatin
57 uthenticity may be of forensic interest, the likelihood ratio approach, expressing the role of the fo
58 estimate posttest probabilities according to likelihood ratios as well as pretest probabilities using
62 l variables, we calculated the change in the likelihood-ratio chi(2) (LR-Deltachi(2)) from Cox propor
63 d history of secondary generalized seizures (likelihood-ratio chi(2), P < 0.05) however there was no
66 n-subject variability across the 3 products (likelihood ratios, chi22 for log-transformed variables:
69 ificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and AUC (with 9
70 ed 13 negative risk markers using diagnostic likelihood ratios (DLRs), which model the change in risk
71 a clinical diagnostic capacity, the assay's likelihood ratios dramatically change an individual's pr
72 ver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and likelihood ratio for a composite of severe adverse pregn
74 Compared with never-smokers, the smokers' likelihood ratio for implant failure was 4.68, 6.40 for
75 value (NPV) was of 100% [89.4-100], and the Likelihood Ratio for Negative Test (LR-) was of 0 [0.0-0
78 critical parameters, Lab Retriever computes likelihood ratios for hypotheses that can include up to
79 96.4%, 92.9%, and 71.4% and their positivity likelihood ratios for IPD were 14.5, 18.6, and 21.4, res
83 vity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for the OGCT at a threshold of 7.8 mmo
85 to account for this uncertainty is to use a likelihood ratio framework to compare the probability of
88 19 (Rome II) to 3.39 (Manning), and negative likelihood ratios from 0.06 (Rome I) to 0.47 (Manning).
89 ociated with positive likelihood ratios (ie, likelihood ratios greater than 1), whereas RNFL thicknes
91 he order-statistic literature to formulate a likelihood-ratio hypothesis test and P-value for testing
92 er than 86 mum were associated with positive likelihood ratios (ie, likelihood ratios greater than 1)
93 er than 86 mum were associated with negative likelihood ratios (ie, likelihood ratios smaller than 1)
95 nd 97.7%, respectively, whereas the positive likelihood ratio is 9.9 and the positive predictive valu
97 essed genes, quantified by an integrated log-likelihood ratio (LLR) score weighted for each dataset.
99 tive predictive value, area under the curve, likelihood ratio (LR) + and LR-of 81, 83, 90, 70, 78, 4.
100 was to investigate the applicability of the likelihood ratio (LR) approach for verifying the authent
102 ed, the likelihood for POAG increased with a likelihood ratio (LR) of 14 (95% CI, 5.3-39) for CDR of
106 on ultrasonography; specificity and positive likelihood ratio (LR) were calculated to account for lun
108 are reported with sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (LR), and 95% confidence interval, whic
110 ectively, 81% and 77%, indicating a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 3.5 and a negative likelihood
113 er the curve (AUC) and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR) for exhaled VOC profiles were cal
114 teristics by using predictive probabilities, likelihood ratios (LR), and area under the curve receive
115 oled sensitivity, pooled specificity, pooled likelihood ratios (LR), pooled diagnostic odds ratio, an
116 he pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR),
117 y, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and
118 factor 5 years after diagnosis (univariable: likelihood ratio [LR] chi(2) = 94.12, bivariable: LR chi
120 ation findings suggestive of skull fracture (likelihood ratio [LR], 16; 95% CI, 3.1-59; specificity,
121 ea was nocturnal choking or gasping (summary likelihood ratio [LR], 3.3; 95% CI, 2.1-4.6) when the di
122 e absence of any of these signs or symptoms (likelihood ratio [LR]- = 0.12 [0.19] for adult [pediatri
123 ence interval [CI]: 1.03 to 1.08; chi-square likelihood ratio [LRchi(2)]: 15.2; p = 0.0001), diabetes
124 g correct, which are derived from calculated likelihood ratios (LRs) by combining structural, functio
125 males with lower urinary tract symptoms, the likelihood ratios (LRs) of individual symptoms and quest
127 mean specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were determined by using a bivar
128 d to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios (LRs), and meta-analysis was used to c
129 acy was measured using positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), C statistics, and other operati
132 vity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), with 95% confidence intervals (
134 rovide a probabilistic visual map (i.e., log likelihood ratio map) of the significant differences bet
137 ficity, accuracy, likelihood ratio positive, likelihood ratio negative, area under the receiver opera
138 imates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnos
139 ll pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic
140 following sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, positive pr
144 nsitivity of 93% (CI: 69-100%), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.13, with a negative predictive val
149 atio of 6.9 (95% CI, 5.5-8.8) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.21-0.44) using the s
151 atio of 5.2 (95% CI, 3.6-7.5) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.29-0.37) using score
153 s) than female (35.1%), with an age-adjusted likelihood ratio of 1.85 (95% confidence interval [CI],
156 19%, a specificity of 99.9%, and a positive likelihood ratio of 242 and conservatively predicted an
158 curve of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.87), positive likelihood ratio of 3.4 (95% CI, 1.2-9.5), and negative
160 Seventy-one percent of non-smokers (positive likelihood ratio of 4.22) and 88% of smokers (positive l
161 ratio of 4.22) and 88% of smokers (positive likelihood ratio of 5.00) with positive test results at
162 sorder Scale 7 Item (GAD-7), with a positive likelihood ratio of 5.1 (95% CI, 4.3-6.0) and a negative
163 The 17-item PTSD Checklist has a positive likelihood ratio of 5.2 (95% CI, 3.6-7.5) and a negative
164 city of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.93), a positive likelihood ratio of 6.8 (95% CI, 4.7-9.9) and a negative
166 ity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratio of 63%, 72%, and 0.56, respectively, an
167 atient Health Questionnaire, with a positive likelihood ratio of 78 (95% CI, 29-210) and a negative l
168 ity, positive predictive value, and positive likelihood ratio of 78%, 70%, and 3.77, respectively.
170 city of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.86-0.95), a positive likelihood ratio of 8.49 (95% CI, 5.56-12.96) and a nega
171 specificity of 98.81 (93.54-99.97), positive likelihood ratio of 81.60 and an area under the curve of
172 The sensitivity, specificity and positive likelihood ratio of class I ranking HRCT criteria to dia
173 ictive value, negative predictive value, and likelihood ratio of every clinical characteristic were c
174 ity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio of FITs for CRC were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69
177 , the positive predictive value and positive-likelihood ratio of the primary-screening algorithm were
178 , the sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio of this profile was 78.5%, 99.6%, and 1
179 -5.1) and 4.7 (95% CI, 2.5-8.7) and negative likelihood ratios of 0.2 (95% CI, .07-.8) and 0.4 (95% C
180 trategy for HG-AIN+ histology, with positive likelihood ratios of 3.4 (95% CI, 2.3-5.1) and 4.7 (95%
181 , and 4.48 (95% CI, 3.04-6.60), and positive likelihood ratios of 3.5 (95% CI, 2.6-4.8), 4.1 (95% CI,
182 d 4.38 kUA /l, respectively, showed positive likelihood ratios of 4.3 and 10.9 for the identification
183 dex, APRI, and Hepascore had median positive likelihood ratios of 5 to 10 and AUROCs of 0.80 or great
184 broTest, and Forns index had median positive likelihood ratios of 5 to 10 at commonly used cutoffs an
185 100% specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 8.76/.13, whereas cortical GSH diff
188 ally, the percentages on memory test and the likelihood ratios of identifying novel stimuli under unc
190 outcomes included the positive and negative likelihood ratios of the PVS for identifying the targete
191 vity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of the SureSight Autorefractor for the
194 rating characteristic (ROC) curves, positive likelihood ratios (PLR), and negative likelihood ratios
195 e values of 99% and 100%, respectively and a likelihood ratio positive of 86 with a likelihood ratio
196 ve values of 99% and 98%, respectively and a likelihood ratio positive of 87 with a likelihood ratio
197 ting the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, likelihood ratio positive, likelihood ratio negative, ar
198 ificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, positive predictive value and negative
200 atios ranged from 2.52 to 5.53, and negative likelihood ratios ranged from 0.21 to 0.48 (moderate SOE
205 ity, positive predictive value, and positive likelihood ratio (ruling in EPE) were 64%, 64%, and 2.15
206 ity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratio (ruling out EPE) were 77%, 77%, and 0.3
207 PL algorithm first uses a threshold on an rt likelihood ratio score to remove candidate corresponding
211 ificantly influenced by the rs2494732 locus (likelihood ratio statistic for the interaction = 8.54; p
217 utlier trQTLs for cross-population composite likelihood ratio, suggesting that incorporation of conte
218 ial versus double-exponential) using the log-likelihood ratio technique, which shows whether addition
219 find evidence for genotype-age interaction (likelihood ratio test (LRT) = 73.58, degrees of freedom
220 ient likelihood based methods including both likelihood ratio test (LRT) and score test have been pro
221 and variance heterogeneities (SMVT), but the likelihood ratio test (LRT) severely inflated type I err
224 overload (P = 3 x 10(-6) ; P = 0.033 by the likelihood ratio test after correction for multiple comp
225 l and flexible analytic framework based on a likelihood ratio test and a model selection procedure.
226 the models was assessed with the use of the likelihood ratio test and partial R(2) statistics.Test s
230 Based on this model, we derive a combined likelihood ratio test for differential expression that i
233 iscrimination improvement are similar to the likelihood ratio test in nested models and may be overin
236 ted in significant improvement in model fit (likelihood ratio test P < .0001) and C statistic (increa
239 zard ratio for death 0.56, 95% CI 0.45-0.69; likelihood ratio test p=3.4 x 10(-9), after adjustment f
240 esis testing, we proposed a novel sequential likelihood ratio test procedure, which iteratively remov
241 was a powerful prognostic variable, and the likelihood ratio test revealed that the prognostic accur
245 the dispersion parameter in the model and a likelihood ratio test to identify differentially express
247 tus of ERBB2 was added to the model, and the likelihood ratio test was used to determine improvement
248 her daily RN hours per resident (P = .007 by likelihood ratio test); the increase in hospitalization
249 SS-R, using the Cox regression model and the likelihood ratio test, a significantly higher predictive
251 e last step after checking for collinearity, likelihood ratio test, c index, and clinical weight at e
252 s and females into account: the chi(2) test, likelihood ratio test, exact test and permutation test.
255 ee most commonly used association tests: the likelihood ratio test, the Wald test and the score test
263 rmation are optimally selected by Bartlett's likelihood-ratio test so that the populations attain hom
264 nt has relaxed after gene duplication with a likelihood-ratio test that can account for heterogeneity
265 ormula: see text] scenarios and be used as a likelihood-ratio test to test for the equality of [Formu
269 to the gene expression level and constructed likelihood ratio tests (LRT) to test for eGene in the Ge
270 me, we conducted 11 sequential Poisson-based likelihood ratio tests during September 2008-January 201
271 elop likelihood-based statistical models and likelihood ratio tests to test for association between c
277 es, our method can also be used, by means of likelihood-ratio tests, to distinguish between alternati
278 TTE was superior in terms of higher positive likelihood ratio values (LR+ = 106.61, 95% CI = 15.09-75
279 negative predictive value was 99.5% and the likelihood ratio was 0.04 with the extended algorithm ve
280 as 81.8% and specificity 93.9%, the positive likelihood ratio was 13.3, positive predictive value was
282 34), respectively; the positive and negative likelihood ratio was 4.3 and 0.24 respectively; the area
284 ity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratio were calculated to determine ability of
286 ng/mL for PCT and 20 mg/L for CRP, negative likelihood ratios were 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2-0.5) for identif
287 Corresponding pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were 20.0 (95% CI, 6.9-58.4; I = 87.7%
288 ity, negative predictive value, and negative likelihood ratios were 58%-73%, 84%-89%, and 0.3-0.5, re
289 ity, positive predictive value, and positive likelihood ratios were 71%-84%, 49%-63%, and 2.-3.44, re
292 vity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated using bivariate random
297 standard, areas under ROC curves (AUCs) and likelihood-ratios were calculated to estimate the perfor
298 vity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios, with 95% confidence intervals, were c
300 sity (XP-EHH) and cross-population composite likelihood ratio (XP-CLR), and further analyzed the resu
WebLSDに未収録の専門用語(用法)は "新規対訳" から投稿できます。