ライフサイエンスコーパス: low-risk group

1 tance use disorder or other mental disorder (low-risk group).

2 APOL1 high-risk group) or 0 or 1 copy (APOL1 low-risk group).

3 nce of heart disease failed to distinguish a low risk group.

4 ients with acute cholangitis into a high and low risk group.

5 with 14% better allocation to either high or low risk group.

6 22%, respectively) in the high-risk than the low-risk group.

7 and those with a single seizure only as the low-risk group.

8 gh- and intermediate-risk groups than in the low-risk group.

9 bo and 8.11% of eptifibatide patients in the low-risk group.

10 eath; in particular, the OR was 0.52 for the low-risk group.

11 ediate- and high-risk groups relative to the low-risk group.

12 ntify a significant number of cancers in the low-risk group.

13 relative risk of graft loss compared with a low-risk group.

14 gh-risk group and reports the results of the low-risk group.

15 sociated with recurrence and survival in the low-risk group.

16 rognostic significance in the overall or the low-risk group.

17 ratio in cardiovascular risk assessment in a low-risk group.

18 d with the high-risk group compared with the low-risk group.

19 oss all willingness-to-pay thresholds in the low-risk group.

20 high-risk group vs approximately 50% in the low-risk group.

21 n, and no definite RHD was identified in the low-risk group.

22 ensive patients with normal LVM seem to be a low-risk group.

23 onal age have been considered a homogeneous, low-risk group.

24 e transcriptome profile was identical to the low-risk group.

25 patients aged 2 years and older were in this low-risk group.

26 d patients younger than 2 years were in this low-risk group.

27 ate-risk group, and 846 (812, 871) mg in the low-risk group.

28 rtex activation in the high-risk than in the low-risk group.

29 tients undergoing primary PTCA into high and low risk groups.

30 d to stratify patients into high, medium and low risk groups.

31 measure were observed between the high- and low-risk groups.

32 ung adenocarcinomas that predicted high- and low-risk groups.

33 o provide useful discrimination of high- and low-risk groups.

34 tify patients into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups.

35 status were associated with poor outcome for low-risk groups.

36 ze patients into clinically useful high- and low-risk groups.

37 s low-risk groups, and 3.44 for high- versus low-risk groups.

38 ides patients into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups.

39 sis, patients were stratified into high- and low-risk groups.

40 ncreased risk of mortality compared with the low-risk groups.

41 nephropathy, or coronary artery disease) in low-risk groups.

42 finding tumor-positive NSN was 12.3% in the low-risk group (0 factors), 30.9% in the intermediate-ri

43 ce in median survival time between high- and low-risk groups (13.8 vs 10.7 years, respectively; P < .

44 th 6.8% (95% CI 4.4-10.0) of patients in the low-risk group, 17.3% (12.0-24.7) in the intermediate gr

45 ed with the rest of the cohort, women in the low-risk group (3.4 percent of the women) had a relative

46 s of 87% (low-risk group), 64% (intermediate-low-risk group), 39% (intermediate-high-risk group), and

47 0-day MACE than those with unsuccessful PCI (low-risk group: 4.6% vs. 22%, p < 0.0001; high-risk grou

48 in the initial normal biopsies of high- and low-risk groups (42% and 27%, respectively, P = 0.066).

49 In a three-risk group model, the low-risk group (46% of all patients analyzed), the inter

50 de, 49.2% placebo) and 1,045 patients in the low-risk group (50.0% eptifibatide, 50.0% placebo).

51 ifference in 5-year OS between the high- and low-risk groups (63% v 92%, respectively; log-rank P < .

52 rence rates: predicted probabilities of 87% (low-risk group), 64% (intermediate-low-risk group), 39%

53 o risk-stratify the elderly, 26% were in the low risk group, 68% were in the intermediate risk group

54 A three-stage stratification yielded a low-risk group (80.0% with a two-year MAE risk of 2.9%),

55 within the first year alone, whereas in the low-risk group, 96% of patients were accurately predicte

56 spitals to avoid 1 death was greater for the low-risk group (a range of 114 to 446 versus 37 to 184).

57 t-effectiveness of SIT increased, whereas in low-risk groups, a cost-optimized strategy was cost-effe

58 ved comparability of QFT-GIT with TST in the low-risk group (adjusted OR [AOR] 1.2; 95% CI, .4-3.3) b

59 meeting all 4 of these criteria made up the low-risk group; all others, the high-risk group.

60 A CAC score of 0 identified a low-risk group among ACC/AHA statin-eligible participant

61 inguishing clinical feature between high and low risk groups and the first manifestation in 80% of th

62 1.7-97.5, n=244; p<0.001 for the provisional low-risk group and 65.1%, 50.7-76.2, n=56 vs 82.9%, 75.6

63 rhythmic events (p < 0.001) relative to this low-risk group and displayed a risk of severe arrhythmic

64 tify high-risk patients within traditionally low-risk groups and low-risk patients within high-risk g

65 ing multi-locus genotypes to either high- or low-risk groups and measuring the percentage of cases an

66 Groups of patients with 0 to 2 (low-risk group) and 5 to 7 (high-risk group) dosage-alte

67 d 11731 men had a healthy lifestyle pattern (low-risk group), and the remaining 73040 women and 34608

68 population, more patients (55%) were in the low risk group, and the Duke score (as a continuous vari

69 h small nodules (<1 cm) were assigned to the low-risk group, and a large percentage of individuals wi

70 r of these five conditions were considered a low-risk group, and those that met three or fewer condit

71 embolic events were 1.95 for medium- versus low-risk groups, and 3.44 for high- versus low-risk grou

72 was postponed by more than five years in the low-risk group as compared with the high-risk group.

73 group was not offset by a later onset in the low-risk group as they matured.

74 was not offset by later first onsets in the low-risk group as they matured.

75 ve repair were similar in increased-risk and low-risk groups at 3% and 5%, respectively.

76 ), by treatment and high-, intermediate-, or low-risk group based on serum PSA level, biopsy Gleason

77 The sample was further divided into low-risk groups based on clinical, biomarker, genetic, o

78 patients into clinically relevant high- and low-risk groups based on the gene expression profile and

79 non-T2 patients, placing them into high- and low-risk groups based on their gene expression.

80 17115 men with very-low-risk (subset of the low-risk group) (clinical stage, T1c; Gleason score, </=

81 tubular adenomas less than 10 mm represent a low-risk group compared with other patients with colon n

82 d participants into high-, intermediate-, or low-risk groups, compared with traditional risk factor a

83 depression, anxiety, or psychotic disorders (low-risk group) completed a functional magnetic resonanc

84 l $40530 per QALY gained, while those in the low-risk group cost an additional $211570 per QALY gaine

85 a trend that indicates that patients in the low-risk group could be at greater risk of suffering har

86 In the low-risk group, CT screening helps prevent cases of para

87 e survival probability was lower than in the low-risk group, decreasing with an increase in the numbe

88 compared cortical thickness across high- and low-risk groups, detecting large expanses of cortical th

89 A hypothesized clinical low-risk group did not have a low risk of IBTR without R

90 In this clinically low risk group, estimated functional capacity was a stro

91 All 5 low-risk groups experienced significantly and markedly l

92 e HIV seroprevalence is at least 2 to 7% in "low-risk" groups, failure to test these patients may res

93 -year estimate of PSA outcome was 87% in the low-risk group for all patients (P =.70) and 28% versus

94 ts with 1 or 2 tubular adenomas constitute a low-risk group for whom follow-up might be extended beyo

95 chotomization of ICU patients into high- and low-risk groups for IC risk is problematic.

96 ransesophageal echocardiography can identify low-risk groups for thrombolysis irrespective of symptom

97 surgeons increased from 0.43 to 0.74 for the low-risk group; for the moderate-to-high-risk group, ORs

98 .45 to 0.77 and were all significant for the low-risk group; for the moderate-to-high-risk group, ORs

99 ly, the new classification identified a very low-risk group (Group 1), a subgroup of intermediate-ris

100 The low-risk group had a 96% probability of survival at 5 ye

101 king status, and alcohol use were all in the low-risk group had ORs for diabetes of 0.61 (CI, 0.56 to

102 al obesity has increased, while those in the low-risk group have decreased.

103 ) versus 77.21% (95% CI 69.21-86.14) for the low-risk group (hazard ratio [HR] 4.14, 95% CI 2.47-6.93

104 isk group and in 36.6% of those in the APOL1 low-risk group (hazard ratio in the high-risk group, 1.8

105 50-49.99) versus 68.24% (58.84-79.15) in the low-risk group (HR 3.58, 95% CI 2.00-6.42; p<0.0001).

106 82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.85; P < .001) but not the low-risk group (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.05; P = .54).

107 t the study population involved a relatively low risk group in a previously well-screened and treated

108 be very likely to detect NASH, as well as a low-risk group in whom biopsy can be safely delayed or a

109 oagulation use has increased in nontargeted, low-risk groups in whom antiplatelet agents are appropri

110 While low-risk groups may benefit from reassurance or medicati

111 zing patients into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups may more efficiently target early antifu

112 Low-risk group (micropapillomas and sclerotic and benign

113 Compared with the intermediate (n = 19) and low risk groups (n = 31), there were no differences in a

114 group (n = 1,003), and 0.1% of those in the low-risk group (n = 1,012).

115 .4%) were diagnosed with new-onset HF in the low-risk group (n=6915; Framingham Risk Score, 5.9%) and

116 (intermediate-risk group, n=36), and 84.4% (low-risk group, n=202), and it provided greater net clin

117 pt, suicidal ideation, or thoughts of death [low-risk group; n = 206]).

118 dicting cardiac mortality and morbidity in a low risk group of patients with established coronary art

119 ifferentiate between a high risk group and a low risk group of patients.

120 These parameters can identify a low-risk group of patients for metastasis who can be rat

121 ohol recidivism 8/15, 53%) and the remaining low-risk group of purely alcohol dependent patients (n =

122 sfully separated patients into high-risk and low-risk groups of disease progression.

123 to cardiovascular disease were lower for the low-risk groups of men and women than for those not at l

124 mpared with the reference GSTM1 active/APOL1 low-risk group, other groups had these hazard ratios for

125 ear RFS of 17.9% compared with 98.6% for the low risk group (P < 0.0001).

126 ic parents, 25.4% compared with 16.5% in the low-risk group (P < 0.0001).

127 in the high-risk group than for those in the low-risk group (P <.001).

128 e high-risk group, compared with 100% in the low-risk group (P =.036).

129 the high-risk group compared with 87% in the low-risk group (P<.0001).

130 as 55% in the high-risk group and 93% in the low-risk group (P<.0001).

131 cantly stronger in the high-risk than in the low-risk group, particularly along the mesial wall of th

132 Estimated greater life expectancy for low-risk groups ranged from 5.8 years for CHA women aged

133 Median OS values in the high- and low-risk groups, respectively, in the testing set were 1

134 nce of developing CKD in the next 5 y in the low risk group (risk score < 0, 33 events), rising to 1:

135 CI, 0.52-0.78, respectively), but not in the low-risk group (risk ratio, 1.278; 95% CI, 0.888-1.839).

136 confidence interval [CI]: 0.6%, 4.6%) in the low-risk group (score < 5.0), 12.8% (95% CI: 7.5%, 19.9%

137 es), low-risk (including all men in the very-low-risk group) (T1-T2; Gleason score, </=6; and PSA, <1

138 h with conventional clinical variables for a low risk group that does not need RT does not seem fruit

139 In fact, in these low-risk groups the expression of COX-2 defined a group

140 In an anticipated low-risk group, the cumulative incidence of first breast

141 at within the International Prognostic Index low-risk group, the gene signature provides additional p

142 In the low-risk group, the number of diseased vessels was the o

143 For each additional lifestyle factor in the low-risk group, the odds for diabetes were 31% lower (od

144 d to reduce hospitalization by identifying a low-risk group, the small size of this group among ED pa

145 Compared with the patients in the low-risk group, those in the medium- and high-risk group

146 10 years varied markedly from 14.4 % in the low-risk group to 56.2% in the high-risk group.

147 dicator and further stratify the GEP 70-gene low-risk group to identify an intermediate-risk group in

148 Patients may be separated into high- and low-risk groups to help identify appropriate treatment.

149 ntify not only a high-risk group, but also a low-risk group unlikely to benefit from ICD prophylaxis.

150 -risk group and also better at identifying a low-risk group unlikely to benefit from ICD therapy.

151 tantially higher PARs were obtained when the low-risk group was compared with the US population.

152 A low-risk group was defined according to a combination of

153 The rate in the low-risk group was significantly lower than that in the

154 N in classifying patients into high-risk and low-risk groups was compared with that of another valida

155 regression modeling stratified by high- and low-risk groups was used to compare 60-day mortality at

156 -risk and high-risk groups compared with the low-risk group were 4.2 (95% CI: 1.3-13.8) and 9.8 (95%

157 lative incidences at age 50 years among CCSS low-risk groups were < 5%, compared with approximately 2

158 Actual stroke rates in these low-risk groups were 1.1 and 1.5 per 100 person-years, r

159 ogression rates in high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups were 76%, 51%, and 25%, respectively.

160 Low-risk groups were formed by dichotomizing each lifest

161 risk and high-risk groups, compared with the low-risk group, were 7.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]:

162 after AMI can accurately identify a sizeable low-risk group who have a <2% death and reinfarction rat

163 tant prostate cancer into two risk groups: a low-risk group with a median survival of more than 34.9

164 The low-risk group with a single tubular adenoma 1 to 5 mm i

165 e PAR at the national scale by comparing the low-risk group with the US population.

166 f scarring separates patients into high- and low-risk groups with a 2.7-fold difference in death rate

167 s in the ENTHUSE 33 trial into high-risk and low-risk groups with significantly different overall sur

168 nts (90.4% including nGTTs) and 99.6% in the low-risk group, with a median follow-up time of 4.2 year

169 LDLT recipients into high, intermediate, and low-risk groups, with predicted 3-year graft survival ra

170 ully categorizes patients into high-risk and low-risk groups, with significant differences of clinica

171 Sigmoidoscopy to the descending colon in the low-risk groups would have detected 51 of 70 (73% [CI, 6

172 The simplified PIAI had a low-risk group (zero to one factors), with 5-year surviv