ライフサイエンスコーパス: observer

1 the same temperature as measured by a local observer.

2 he control group (p<0.05), regardless of the observer.

3 - and knowledge-based decision-making of the observer.

4 also across the visual field within the same observer.

5 lowed the predictions derived from the ideal observer.

6 essions often evokes facial responses in the observer.

7 ers and 42.9% +/- 6.7% for the inexperienced observers.

8 cks were camouflaged and invisible to ground observers.

9 ta than the Basic and several other Bayesian observers.

10 in vivo can be achieved between independent observers.

11 ons for objects that loom or recede from the observers.

12 th minimal costs, and without need for human observers.

13 2 experienced observers and 2 inexperienced observers.

14 natomic image analysis were performed by two observers.

15 ecordings were independently classified by 2 observers.

16 lowing testing and re-testing by two blinded observers.

17 d with a four-point scale by two independent observers.

18 ons of weak stochastic transitivity in human observers.

19 tively associated with WM performance across observers.

20 s were visually evaluated by two experienced observers.

21 ation in correlation, which we test in human observers.

22 Traction Study Group by 2 independent masked observers.

23 cted and may appear counterintuitive to some observers.

24 agious" physiological stress response in the observer?

25 the ICC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.87) with observer 1 and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86 to 0.94) with observer

26 f worrisome features decreased from 0.84 for observer 1 and 0.91 for observer 2 for tumors smaller th

27 d to a positive predictive value of 0.95 for observer 1 and 0.96 for observer 2 independent of tumor

28 Specificity significantly increased for observer 2 (84.5% [104 of 123] vs 94.3% [116 of 123], P

29 reased from 0.84 for observer 1 and 0.91 for observer 2 for tumors smaller than 2 cm to 0.56 and 0.71

30 ve value of 0.95 for observer 1 and 0.96 for observer 2 independent of tumor size, with no significan

31 erver 1 and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.86 to 0.94) with observer 2.

32 Four observers (3 dermatologists and 1 dermatopathologist) bl

33 Three independent observers (A, B, C) measured PVRs at two different time

34 sed an equivalent noise procedure to compare observers' ability to average social cues with their ave

35 rver-acquisition reproducibilities (for both observer-acquisition sets) were best for volume measurem

36 In the overt-criterion task, observers adjusted the orientation of a line that served

37 5.7%) by the other observer, with good inter-observer agreement (k=0.75, percent agreement of 89.29%)

38 DNN-CAD classified polyps with perfect intra-observer agreement (kappa score of 1).

39 n the level of confidence and assessed inter-observer agreement among gastrointestinal pathologists f

40 We evaluated observer agreement for (68)Ga-DOTATATE PET/CT interpreta

41 Inter-observer agreement for measurements of ADCmin and ADCmax

42 There was an excellent inter-observer agreement for stage I (k=0.93, percent agreemen

43 The inter-observer agreement for the detection of accessory pulmon

44 Inter-observer agreement for the measurement of ADCmean value

45 was a low level of intra-observer and inter-observer agreement in classification among endoscopists.

46 There was an excellent inter-observer agreement in progressive disease (k=0.94, perce

47 The overall inter-observer agreement in response assessment after a comple

48 The overall inter-observer agreement in the CT-based response assessment o

49 The level of inter-observer agreement increased with level of pathologist c

50 To assess inter-observer agreement of revised RECIST criteria (version 1

51 The overall inter-observer agreement of WBCT in staging of lymphoma was ex

52 To assess inter-observer agreement of whole-body computed tomography (WB

53 Inter-observer agreement was also analyzed.

54 a diagnosis with high confidence, the inter-observer agreement was substantial among the US patholog

55 BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is suboptimal inter-observer agreement, even among expert gastrointestinal p

56 There is suboptimal inter-observer agreement, even among expert gastrointestinal p

57 kappa Values were calculated for inter-observer agreement.

58 Here, using fMRI and an ideal-observer analysis, we demonstrate that the brain's learn

59 was analyzed by 2 different observers; first observer analyzed the first acquisition twice.

60 epatic metastases in 7 patients (25%) by one observer and in 10 patients (35.7%) by the other observe

61 e was detected in 19 patients (67.8%) by one observer and in 16 patients (57.1%) by the other observe

62 We then estimated inter-observer and inter-MDTM agreement on the probability of

63 We compared inter-observer and inter-MDTM confidence of patient first-choi

64 There was a low level of intra-observer and inter-observer agreement in classification

65 res were the Rating for Premenstrual Tension observer and self-ratings completed every 2 weeks during

66 In this study, we investigated the impact of observer and sonographer variation on reproducibility of

67 signatures of perceptual distortions in each observer and suggest that even the most basic visual jud

68 By using a combination of a Bayesian ideal observer and the active sensor algorithm, we estimate th

69 resence of fungal filaments by 2 experienced observers and 2 inexperienced observers.

70 laments was 71.4% +/- 0% for the experienced observers and 42.9% +/- 6.7% for the inexperienced obser

71 sual object size, vary substantially between observers and also across the visual field within the sa

72 roscopy; subbasal nerve analysis by 2 masked observers and by use of a fully automated method; wide-f

73 ensory neurons can be highly variable across observers and can reflect modulatory processes that are

74 xtraction was independently done by multiple observers and cross-checked to avoid errors.

75 on, and interobserver-acquisition (different observers and different acquisition) reproducibility wer

76 predicts that people will behave as rational observers and in many cases social perception should fav

77 ut category means fit the data best for most observers and on average.

78 as intraobserver, interacquisition (for both observers), and interobserver-acquisition reproducibilit

79 he meteor, propagated to the vicinity of the observer, and transduced into acoustic waves.

80 HMRs were processed by 2 observers, and reproducibility was assessed by intraclas

81 Specifically, we highlight how institutions, observers, and what is being observed intersect, and dis

82 to the role of receiver or of an uninvolved observer; and evaluated to what extent they believed dic

83 Here, we propose that human observers are capable of generating their own feedback s

84 s involuntary, and cannot be avoided even if observers are certain that the object will move.

85 Here, we report that observers are highly sensitive to the lifelikeness of ra

86 orld social behavior by typically-developing observers are not only far less favorable across a range

87 Areas identified by all three observers as increasing in T1 signal intensity when comp

88 A blinded observer assessed outcomes at 12 months.

89 One observer assessed the clinical data of 500 consecutive c

90 seconds) (Study group, n = 55), or when the Observer Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scale (OAA

91 en a moving object cuts in front of a moving observer at a 90 degrees angle, the observer correctly p

92 eption of various visual attributes in human observers at a given moment is biased toward what was re

93 Image analysis was performed by 2 observers, based on the RECIST criteria (version 1.1).

94 ion (IR) on noise, contrast, resolution, and observer-based detectability of subtle hypoattenuating l

95 We did a phase 1b/2, randomised, observer-blind single-centre study of an investigational

96 as a parallel-group, randomised, controlled, observer-blind trial.

97 ngle-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blind, phase 1 trial performed in Oxford, Unite

98 We performed a randomized Phase I/II, observer-blind, placebo-controlled study of 12 healthy,

99 We did this multicentre, pragmatic, observer-blind, randomised controlled superiority trial

100 This phase 1b/2, observer-blind, single-center study (NCT01193920) enroll

101 extensive laboratory evaluation and multiple observers blinded to the patient's clinical status.

102 This single-center prospective, controlled, observer-blinded clinical study at a tertiary dermatolog

103 These studies included 1 randomized clinical observer-blinded study (6 patients), 4 nonrandomized cli

104 This observer-blinded, randomised controlled trial was done a

105 In this phase 2, non-inferiority, observer-blinded, randomised, controlled, single-centre

106 ns was being held in working memory by human observers (both women and men).

107 n to monovision was studied in unexperienced observers by measuring visual evoked potentials from 64-

108 In the covert-criterion task, observers categorized a displayed ellipse.

109 ce that the "top-down" cognitive state of an observer changes the dynamic interaction between differe

110 rithmic results validate previously reported observer classification of precursor types and show nume

111 first evidence, to our knowledge, that human observers combine sensory and category information in a

112 Does learning in human observers comply with reinforcement learning theories, w

113 ative to averaging and weighted averaging of observers' confidences.

114 a moving observer at a 90 degrees angle, the observer correctly perceives that the object is travelin

115 ions") of learners, so that previously naive observers could first acquire the technique by interacti

116 interaction decreased with age: the youngest observers could not ignore the task-irrelevant modality-

117 space of the agent as opposed to that of the observer, demonstrating that inverse RL is an abstract c

118 ple parameters (e.g., landcover, luminosity, observer effect) influencing lion abundance and probabil

119 This is only the case, however, when observers evaluate larger ratios of 3:1 or 4:1, but not

120 One observer evaluated the type of curve (Lenke classificati

121 e lesions was melanoma, 2 dermoscopy-trained observers evaluated the clinical descriptions and 48 der

122 ed that depending on the video being viewed, observers experienced differential changes in cardiac ac

123 Detectability was influenced by observer expertise, which therefore also had an effect o

124 Each acquisition was analyzed by 2 different observers; first observer analyzed the first acquisition

125 argets were made larger and more salient and observers fixated the target.

126 ta, were extracted independently by multiple observers following PRISMA guidelines.

127 databank of natural images curated by human observers for salient objects and show that objects tend

128 experiments, we compared the performance of observers from ages 4 to 86 years on displays of objects

129 analysis performed based on intra- and inter-observer grading showed that proposed methodology detect

130 Intra and inter-observer grading was performed for determining percentag

131 thod was shown to have high intra- and inter-observer ( >/=70%) reliability for latency, area-under-t

132 ture of one item was given as a cue, and the observer had to report, on a continuous scale, one or tw

133 orceable from the values and concerns of the observer him/herself.

134 However, observers' impressions of sharers are insensitive to per

135 ted for practitioners, patients, and outcome observers in 3%, 37%, and 52%, respectively.

136 ron-specific enolase is an easily available, observer-independent prognostic biomarker.

137 Three blinded observers independently measured EI and CA for each pati

138 Two observers independently measured the CNV area on OCTA en

139 In inverse reinforcement learning an observer infers the reward distribution available for ac

140 How does the momentary affect of an observer influence perception?

141 We show that observers initially form a single prior by generalizing

142 the developed criteria, a third independent observer interpreted all 170 OCT images.

143 ith donors, government officials, and expert observers involved in CHW programs delivering HIV servic

144 lective spatial attention operates where the observer is already looking-that is, within the high-acu

145 of pilfering if they avoid caching food the observer is most motivated to pilfer [4].

146 lide therapy varied more significantly among observers (kappa = 0.64; 95%CI, 0.57-0.70), and a higher

147 s a good agreement between the 2 experienced observers (kappa = 0.77), the inexperienced observers sh

148 olor-segregated condition, but only when the observer knew beforehand the symmetry color, suggesting

149 Specifically, we find that observers learn to exploit the small motion parallax cue

150 Here, we examine how observers learn to set a decision criterion in an orient

151 Our results show that observers make a large proportion of source-confusion er

152 Human observers make large rapid eye movements-saccades-to bri

153 in which both classes of error occur because observers make their reports by sampling from a biologic

154 Human observers (male and female) either pursued a small spot

155 The scans were de-identified and a trained observer masked to all clinical information determined t

156 Two observers masked to patient groupings evaluated reflecti

157 but TCD examinations were read centrally by observers masked to treatment assignment and previous TC

158 Randomized, controlled, observer-masked clinical trial.

159 conversation transcripts using OPTION 5, an observer measure of shared decision making, and used qua

160 Additional observers measured liver T2* and fat fraction.

161 h-resolution magnetoencephalography in human observers (men and women) that sharpened selectivity for

162 (AMA) is a recently developed Bayesian ideal observer method for task-specific dimensionality reducti

163 Alternatively, observers might still be able to shift priorities across

164 predictability were derived from a Bayesian observer model of behavioral responses.

165 s mean and variability with a Basic Bayesian observer model, the estimate distributions were bimodal

166 timate subjective predictions under an ideal-observer model.

167 sus absence, reduced alpha oscillations make observers more likely to report the stimulus regardless

168 iar conspecific demonstrator in distress, an observer mouse becomes fearful, as indicated by a tenden

169 These qualities are especially apparent when observers move through environments containing other mov

170 he expanding radial motion that occurs as an observer moves through the environment ("heading"), and

171 We study how much data a Bayesian observer needs to correctly infer the relative likelihoo

172 foveal acuity and low peripheral acuity) and observers' nonexhaustive search patterns, and can be pre

173 Two independent observers obtained data for reproducibility analysis, an

174 sts a finite [Formula: see text] so that the observer obtains such an inference after [Formula: see t

175 Moreover, observers often inspect different parts of a scene seque

176 In contrast, observers only followed the demonstrator in foraging nex

177 random time points or actively triggered by observers, or when target displacements were masked by a

178 Top-down influences on observers' overt attention and how they interact with th

179 Eighteen young and twenty-five old observers participated in the evaluation of the quick CS

180 However, observers perceived a coherent whole shape instead of a

181 dulatory signals.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT When observers perform a difficult sensory discrimination, re

182 in small children, which has no influence on observer performance.

183 Observers performed a direction-discrimination decision-

184 Two independent observers performed all measurements.

185 Human observers performed an orientation discrimination task,

186 Subsequently, two masked observers performed HEs measurements using previously re

187 A sample of young-adolescent deaf observers performed with higher accuracy than hearing co

188 In the current study, observers pilfered according to their current desire: th

189 -party punishment (TPP), in which unaffected observers punish selfishness, promotes cooperation by de

190 mation, people often choose to withhold, but observers rate those who reveal even questionable behavi

191 ng the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale-Observer-Rated (Y-BOCS-OR) at 3, 6, and 12 months.

192 Both self- and observer-rated scores on the Rating for Premenstrual Ten

193 general visual processing advantage in deaf observers rather than a face-specific effect.

194 nto question the reliability and validity of observer ratings of depression.

195 was symptom severity after 20 weeks (blinded observer ratings) as assessed by the 24-item Hamilton Ra

196 Trained observers recorded the residents' activities using a tab

197 One month later, the same observers reevaluated the patients in a different order

198 a-observer reliability was 0.8996, and inter-observer reliabilities were 0.69 (A vs. C), 0.78 (A vs.

199 The mean intra-observer reliability was 0.8996, and inter-observer reli

200 Intra- and inter-observer reliability was analyzed.

201 Inter-observer repeatability should be evaluated in future stu

202 (e.g. orientated gratings or line positions) observers report a feature somewhere between the target

203 ask is associated with swap errors, in which observers report an item other than the one indicated by

204 The observer reported the feelings that the stimulus evoked.

205 Most observers reported being unaware of displacements during

206 Observers reported the orientation of a target, under se

207 sh the between-subject variability and inter-observer reproducibility of anatomical evaluation of the

208 ct on the sampling design - less experienced observers require more sampling visits to detect the spe

209 0% and 87.5% +/- 17.7% for these 2 groups of observers, respectively.

210 strong harmful intent to the dictator in the observer role as in the receiver role.

211 to guarantee that with high probability the observer's Bayesian posterior mean for [Formula: see tex

212 erver's desire might have been driven by the observer's behaviour at the time of caching.

213 neural activity in the reward system of the observer's brain varied as a function of how well the ta

214 havior, and that these changes depend on the observer's confidence in having correctly understood the

215 tly estimate four parameters that define the observer's CSF.

216 sting its caching behaviour according to the observer's current desire.

217 Thus, the cachers' ability to respond to the observer's desire might have been driven by the observer

218 ate and highly dependent on the level of the observer's experience and training with this imaging mod

219 bial keratitis and to evaluate the effect of observer's imaging experience on these parameters.

220 the target's affective behavior matched the observer's neural representation of the underlying affec

221 are located at different distances from the observer's point of fixation [motion parallax (MP)].

222 In cases where an observer's sensory access cannot be reduced it has been

223 t that social observation can facilitate the observer's spatial representation of an environment with

224 ns of how - under controlled circumstances - observer's states can mold expressive qualities.

225 by adding a "two-back" task to distract the observer's thoughts.

226 In some cases, trained observers saw the trained rival image nearly exclusively

227 only the SCAR scale but also the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and the Vancouver Scar Sc

228 f high and low target detectabilities across observers (SDT-MIX).

229 this question with a matching task in which observers searched for a target face among a concurrent

230 eye remains fixed at a predefined location, observers selected their own preferred fixation position

231 troduce optic flow that is inconsistent with observer self-motion and therefore uninformative about h

232 observers (kappa = 0.77), the inexperienced observers showed only a moderate interobserver agreement

233 Observers showed robust averaging of orientation, but th

234 onstrators moving balls over long distances, observers solved the task more efficiently, using the ba

235 To support this idea, we demonstrate observer-specific biases in a fundamental visual task -

236 factors) differ enormously between displays/observers/stimulation levels, whereas the variance and s

237 Analysis of gaze behavior across observers suggests that the greater collective integrati

238 ing and doffing PPE, and a system of trained observers supervising PPE donning and doffing was implem

239 y, these effects were specific to individual observer-target pairs and could not be explained by a ta

240 er, when averaging visual information, human observers tend to downweight or discount features that a

241 jects that elicited face pareidolia in human observers than at photographs of similar objects that di

242 o the predictions of a statistically optimal observer that ideally combines all available sources of

243 at adapts to people's intuitions to convince observers that a practitioner can influence otherwise un

244 Observers that do not experience visual consequences of

245 By contrast, observers that experience the consequences of their acti

246 ivity in one region should allow an external observer to better predict activity in the other region,

247 ography with two readers and VCTE with three observers to acquire liver stiffness measurements for li

248 assessed dispositional levels of empathy in observers to determine how empathy might be related to t

249 e merger, the radio light curves will enable observers to distinguish between these models, and the a

250 st pattern can be controlled by pre-exposing observers to visual adaptation patterns that are untilte

251 Here we investigated how observers' trait anxiety modulates M- and P-pathway proc

252 Observer translation produces differential image motion

253 lar cue to depth that commonly arises during observer translation.

254 m a unique symbol (e.g. letters or objects), observers typically confuse the source of objects and re

255 ic conditions, we found that, in both tasks, observers used suboptimal learning rules.

256 y typed cones in the central retina of human observers using adaptive optics.

257 70 OCT pullbacks were reanalyzed by the same observers using the developed criteria, and the interobs

258 ), providing qualitative evidence that human observers utilize information about the distributional p

259 ocalisation performance was within the inter-observer variability between two clinical experts.

260 nsive with limited throughput and high inter-observer variability.

261 CNN-based CADx systems may reduce the inter-observer variation among screening radiologists and prov

262 Perceptual processes in human observers vary considerably across a number of domains,

263 When human observers view multistable visual displays, successive e

264 Observers viewed videos of actors reaching to targets wi

265 Combined with the x-ray limits, we favor an observer viewing angle of approximately 30 degrees away

266 t cache-protection strategies that limit the observers' visual or acoustic access to the cache site [

267 The third independent observer was extensively coached and returned the ICC of

268 solute difference (Delta) from the reference observer was low for number of organ and lymph node meta

269 ssment of hepatic metastasis between the two observers was good (k=0.793, percent agreement of 89.29%

270 s of the two modalities, in other words, all observers weighted the signals appropriately.

271 Here, observers were asked to judge the average tilt in a circ

272 Observers were blinded to final patient groupings.

273 All imaging observers were blinded to the biopsy results, and all he

274 The observers were classified as having a low level of exper

275 Observers were instructed to fixate a visual target whil

276 For quantification of ENFD, observers were masked to all patient information except

277 All observers were masked to the clinical and microbiologic

278 two seasons, and found that in both seasons observers were more likely to consume novel foods after

279 heir caches by selectively caching food that observers were not motivated to pilfer.

280 when cachers could not see on which food the observers were sated.

281 All observers were screened for ophthalmological and mental

282 In this task, observers were sequentially presented with two shape sti

283 In line with the predictions, observers were systematically faster reporting global th

284 Observers were unaware of patient grouping.

285 All participants (speakers and observers) were monitored via electrocardiogram.

286 Before the search tasks, a cue instructed observers which item to look for first (current template

287 by almost 50% compared to non-communicating observers, which also results in worse group performance

288 Cardiac activity of the observers while watching the videos was then analyzed an

289 erver agreement was assessed by two separate observers who reviewed 100 studies each.

290 The images were reviewed by 7 observers, who used a standardized interpretation approa

291 An ideal observer will give equivalent weight to sources of infor

292 extremely complex and so it is unlikely that observers will be perfectly accurate, but an evolutionar

293 en chemoreception still presents the general observer with a bewildering array of potential signallin

294 We show that a new foveated ideal observer with a central scotoma correctly predicts that

295 tially avoidable SICU days, as determined by observers with input from the rounding intensivists at a

296 OCT pullbacks were analyzed by 2 independent observers with intravascular imaging expertise in accord

297 T images for NET staging is consistent among observers with low and high levels of experience.

298 de-receptor radionuclide therapy occurred in observers with low experience than in those with high ex

299 rver and in 16 patients (57.1%) by the other observer, with good agreement (k=0.774, percent agreemen

300 rver and in 10 patients (35.7%) by the other observer, with good inter-observer agreement (k=0.75, pe

301 se was detected in 2 patients (7.2%) by both observers, with perfect agreement (k=1, percent agreemen