ライフサイエンスコーパス: pathologist

1 creatic transection line frozen samples by a pathologist.

2 native country that led me to become a plant pathologist.

3 ltidisciplinary team and a dedicated sarcoma pathologist.

4 s were semiquantitatively scored by a single pathologist.

5 es obtained were available to the diagnosing pathologist.

6 istology was determined by a blinded central pathologist.

7 evaluated by an experienced gastrointestinal pathologist.

8 in an invasive focus being undetected by the pathologist.

9 s that shaped my career as a molecular plant pathologist.

10 d histopathology findings from the reference pathologist.

11 d scoring showed a concordance of 83% with a pathologist.

12 allocation in consensus with a second expert pathologist.

13 type-specific markers and subclassified by a pathologist.

14 g histological analysis by an expert cardiac pathologist.

15 the surface that are readily interpreted by pathologists.

16 nd its interpretation remains a challenge to pathologists.

17 robserver agreement was determined between 3 pathologists.

18 sections were independently scored by three pathologists.

19 t appears histologically normal according to pathologists.

20 ing to Metavir classification by two blinded pathologists.

21 patologists and one of two experienced liver pathologists.

22 were reviewed independently by two pulmonary pathologists.

23 lls in tissue microarrays were scored by two pathologists.

24 can decrease interobserver variations among pathologists.

25 immunohistochemistry analysis done by masked pathologists.

26 Readings were independently performed by two pathologists.

27 sults were examined in a masked fashion by 3 pathologists.

28 rom each pulmonary lobe was performed by two pathologists.

29 ing as major sources of diagnostic error for pathologists.

30 is of LGD even among expert gastrointestinal pathologists.

31 H was excellent (kappa = 0.80) between liver pathologists.

32 expression on TMA slides were scored by two pathologists.

33 rogression rates to HGD and EAC among expert pathologists.

34 stology specimens were reviewed by 2 blinded pathologists.

35 er variation in diagnosis, even among expert pathologists.

36 men with atypia were identified by our study pathologists.

37 thologists were higher than those made by US pathologists.

38 robserver agreement was determined between 3 pathologists.

39 s are concordant and reproducible as read by pathologists.

40 were analyzed by local and blinded reference pathologists.

41 amples of BE tissues between US and European pathologists.

42 s), as assessed centrally by two independent pathologists.

43 uld help save time and cost for surgeons and pathologists.

44 interpreted by a reference group of 3 expert pathologists.

45 sues per participant, were reviewed by study pathologists.

46 misclassified as high risk by institutional pathologists.

47 sia) were identified, randomly assigned to 7 pathologists (4 from the United States and 3 from Europe

48 ade fewer indeterminate diagnoses than local pathologists (41.2% vs. 55.0%).

49 ng 528 patients with high-risk GIST by local pathologist, 5-year IFFS was 79% versus 73%; among 336 c

50 ohepatitis but the definition may vary among pathologists, a drawback especially in evaluation of bio

51 an Association of Ophthalmic Oncologists and Pathologists (AAOOP) with support of the American Associ

52 on biopsies were assessed by dedicated renal pathologists according to the Banff criteria.

53 hed tools available in a College of American Pathologists-accredited and Clinical Laboratory Improvem

54 ent Amendments-certified College of American Pathologists-accredited laboratory.

55 Blinded NLM reading by three pathologists achieved 95.4% sensitivity and 93.3% specif

56 of Medical Genetics and American College of Pathologists (ACMG/AMP) variant classification guideline

57 otivated by its specific expression pattern, pathologists adopted the NKX2-1 immunoreactivity to dist

58 for progression increased greatly when all 3 pathologists agreed on LGD (odds ratio, 47.14; 95% confi

59 slides were reviewed by a single pancreatic pathologist and classified on the basis of epithelial ty

60 were analyzed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist and the presence of LNM and the depth of tum

61 ould decrease interobserver variations among pathologists and are likely to be implemented in patholo

62 ety of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists and Canadian testing algorithms of using IH

63 t a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for pathologists and clinicians alike.

64 e been written aimed at offering a guide for pathologists and clinicians in diagnosing and treating P

65 tional therapies, MM remains a challenge for pathologists and clinicians to treat.

66 ould be documented with images, available to pathologists and clinicians, and reflected in the pathol

67 linded to the interpretations of other study pathologists and consensus panel members.

68 linical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists and has been published jointly by invitatio

69 technique to a routine tool used by clinical pathologists and immunologists for diagnosis and monitor

70 disease of abnormally aggregated proteins by pathologists and molecular biologists and a disease of c

71 Renal pathologists and nephrologists met on February 20, 2015

72 Pathologists and oncologists often struggle with various

73 If undertaken jointly by pathologists and radiologists, minimally invasive autops

74 s from various fields, including clinicians, pathologists and radiologists.

75 .8% men) were mostly validated by a panel of pathologists and used in this analysis.

76 Samples were scored by the local breast pathologist, and consecutive HER2-negative IHC results (

77 he collaboration of the clinician, the renal pathologist, and the biochemical and genetic laboratory

78 and practical interest to plant biologists, pathologists, and breeders.

79 ary team of gastroenterologists, allergists, pathologists, and dieticians.

80 Nephrologists, pathologists, and gastroenterology sub-specialists shoul

81 luded representative ophthalmic oncologists, pathologists, and geneticists from retinoblastoma referr

82 Expert panel of ophthalmic oncologists, pathologists, and geneticists.

83 ts, physical therapists, speech and language pathologists, and occupational therapists.

84 e by mass spectrometry can provide surgeons, pathologists, and oncologists with critical and previous

85 ts, physical therapists, speech and language pathologists, and others can positively affect patient c

86 l cases were reviewed by GI gastrointestinal pathologists, and pathologic features were analyzed to i

87 geneticists, radiologists, endocrinologists, pathologists, and surgeons.

88 Clinicians, radiologists, pathologists, and the MDTMs assigned their patient diagn

89 ical benefits and possible harm to patients, pathologists, and treating oncologists that may ensue fr

90 RECENT FINDINGS: Pathologists are reaching consensus in the diagnosis of

91 e part of transplant nephrologists and renal pathologists are required to recognize and treat allogra

92 we define 9 morphologic criteria by which a pathologist arrives at a histomorphologic diagnosis.

93 were involuted was categorized by an expert pathologist as no (0%), partial (1% to 74%), or complete

94 rgeons, stroke physicians, radiologists, and pathologists, as well as searches of registers of hospit

95 Purpose ASCO and the College of American Pathologists (ASCO-CAP) recently recommended further cha

96 Pathologists asserted that the sampling procedure did no

97 to a modification of diagnosis from initial pathologist assessment for eight cases.

98 nt was repeated with two different groups of pathologists at varying levels of training in liver path

99 ely to have favorable opinions of safety and pathologist availability, and more influenced by safety,

100 disciplinary group of pediatric oncologists, pathologists, biologists, and radiologists convened duri

101 according to the METAVIR system by a single pathologist blind to biopsy sequence.

102 ry with indeterminate ALF were reviewed by a pathologist blinded to all clinical data and were diagno

103 A genitourinary pathologist blinded to MP MR findings outlined prostate

104 was diagnosed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist blinded to the colonoscope allocation in con

105 The biopsy specimens were analyzed by a pathologist blinded to the results of VCTE for the stage

106 istopathologic findings were reported by two pathologists blinded to cardiac MR findings.

107 A pediatric pathologist, blinded to study group, reviewed biopsies f

108 A renal pathologist, blinded to tissue source, systematically qu

109 Two pathologists, blinded to clinical data, reviewed biopsie

110 ly Bloom-Richardson (BR) grade determined by pathologists can be variable.

111 hallenges and discuss the contributions that pathologists can make to this emerging field.

112 Pathologists can substantially improve their diagnoses b

113 d DILI, sufficient differences exist so that pathologists can use the pattern of injury to suggest th

114 ratories enrolled in the College of American Pathologists (CAP) 2009 viral load proficiency testing (

115 tration according to the College of American Pathologists (CAP) and Royal College of Pathologists (RC

116 Design The College of American Pathologists (CAP), American Society for Clinical Pathol

117 inical Pathology (ASCP), College of American Pathologists (CAP), Association for Molecular Pathology

118 The College of American Pathologists (CAP), the International Association for th

119 In a first session, pathologists categorized 40 liver biopsies of patients w

120 Pathologists characterize DCIS by four tissue morphologi

121 r signatures are used diagnostically to help pathologists classify tumours, whereas others are used t

122 ochemistry performed by a highly specialized pathologist combined with clinical examination and genot

123 ling tasks (83% and 87%), as compared to the pathologist concordance achieved by the automated method

124 r-observer agreement increased with level of pathologist confidence.

125 Two experienced gastrointestinal pathologists confirmed pathology findings.

126 The number of pathologists confirming LGD and persistence of LGD over

127 The number of pathologists confirming LGD was strongly associated with

128 tween outcomes and factors such as number of pathologists confirming LGD, multifocality of LGD, and p

129 Pathologists consult infectious disease pathologists whe

130 the latter, we highlight methods that plant pathologists could consider to account for the effect of

131 infectious disease specimen volume to have a pathologist dedicated full time to this crosscutting sub

132 d be confirmed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist (defined as a pathologist with a special int

133 One pathologist delineated cancers on whole-mount prostatect

134 niches suitable for evaluation by diagnostic pathologists, describes neoplastic lesions associated wi

135 exposure to the surgeon, theater nurse, and pathologist did not exceed the safe limit.

136 In the past, radiologists and pathologists did not regularly examine these structures-

137 Many local pathologists did not use the Bethesda System, so their r

138 Notably, 4.2% of pathologists disagreed in their analyses of duodenal mor

139 were worn by the surgeon, theater nurse, and pathologist during 3 procedures.

140 of this phase III clinical trial, a central pathologist evaluated biopsies of patients with isolated

141 ment in level of agreement among experienced pathologists, even after accounting for inflammation.

142 ep learning have the potential to supplement pathologist expertise to ensure constant diagnostic accu

143 greement on grade 0: for the average pair of pathologists, fewer than a third of the EMBs assigned gr

144 retrieved from archives and evaluated by one pathologist for hepatic steatosis according to criteria

145 Biopsies were scored by a single pathologist for inflammation, fibrosis, and steatosis an

146 All G1 CHC biopsies were scored by one pathologist for staging and grading, and graded for stea

147 When examining variability between pathologists for any single assay, the concordance betwe

148 c death has challenged clinical and forensic pathologists for decades because verification on post-mo

149 psies were independently scored by six liver pathologists for interobserver agreement.

150 t cancer cells (PGCCs) have been observed by pathologists for over a century.

151 A radiologist and a pathologist from a central panel independently assessed

152 er-observer agreement among gastrointestinal pathologists from 5 tertiary centers in the United State

153 125) for LGD, confirmed by at least 1 expert pathologist, from October 1992 through December 2013 at

154 of at least one clinician, radiologist, and pathologist, from seven countries (Denmark, France, Ital

155 ng, otolaryngologists and oral/maxillofacial pathologists garnered the most funding.

156 cting local infectious diseases specialists, pathologists, gastroenterologists, the Arizona Departmen

157 notype-phenotype correlation is essential if pathologists, geneticists, and clinicians are to interpr

158 For pathologists, guidance is provided for morphologic selec

159 Although pathologists have described these changes for over a cen

160 e range of acute and chronic human diseases, pathologists have played similarly key roles in elucidat

161 cross borders, or even oceans, before plant pathologists have time to identify and characterize the

162 In the first phase of the study, 3 pathologists held a consensus conference at which they d

163 instances of fibrosis, as identified by the pathologist, highlights the advantage of the DFIR imagin

164 ity that are most commonly measured by plant pathologists, how the expression of those traits is infl

165 A radiologist and a pathologist identified 104 regions of interest (ROIs) (6

166 First, the clinician, radiologist, and pathologist (if lung biopsy was completed) independently

167 In neurologic patients, speech-language pathologists' impressions about the patient's state when

168 realities of a practicing infectious disease pathologist in the hospital setting?

169 n is required by the gastroenterologists and pathologists in diagnosing these cases as these tumors c

170 The interest of the pathologists in the molecular and functional parallels b

171 uating adequacy of LN yield for surgeons and pathologists in the treatment of papillary thyroid cance

172 stologic findings, read by experienced renal pathologists, in 975 postreperfusion biopsy specimens co

173 greement, even among expert gastrointestinal pathologists, in the diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia (L

174 greement, even among expert gastrointestinal pathologists, in the diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia (L

175 In this study of pathologists, in which diagnostic interpretation was bas

176 cally complete resection (according to local pathologists), included in the central pathology review,

177 Three expert pathologists independently reviewed baseline and subsequ

178 hodological resources are available to plant pathologists interested in considering either or both as

179 scores obtained greater concordance with the pathologist interpretations for both image-labeling and

180 de, overall agreement between the individual pathologists' interpretations and the expert consensus-d

181 These findings suggest that pathologists involved in skin tumor evaluation should be

182 of presence and extent of breast cancer by a pathologist is critical for patient management for tumor

183 Referral to a specialist cardiac pathologist is recommended.

184 Tissue biomarker scoring by pathologists is central to defining the appropriate ther

185 Achieving consistency between pathologists is difficult due to the subjective nature o

186 Close cooperation between clinicians and pathologists is essential in order to ensure proper inte

187 nd 20.1% discrepant cases when compared with pathologists' judgment of threshold.

188 erver agreement was substantial among the US pathologists (kappa, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.66) and Europe

189 kappa, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.66) and European pathologists (kappa, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.74-0.97).

190 formed by Associated Regional and University Pathologists Laboratory in Salt Lake City, Utah.

191 When all pathologists made a diagnosis with high confidence, the

192 evaluation in concert with an expert breast pathologist may allow for observation in appropriately s

193 s showed that patients who were QIF-positive/pathologist-negative had outcomes similar to those of pa

194 Pathologists now team with hardware and software enginee

195 He was one of the most influential plant pathologists of the twentieth century and will be rememb

196 en early breast neoplastic lesions for which pathologists often disagree in classification.

197 gastroenterologists, surgeons, radiologists, pathologists, oncologists and geneticists.

198 One pathologist performed a blinded review of the results of

199 Three pathologists performed visual scoring on whole-slide ima

200 A speech-language pathologist provided all treatments.

201 ASCO and the College of American Pathologists published immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fl

202 nancy, however, was whether the interpreting pathologist qualified the benign diagnosis at CNB with a

203 re, and the scarcity of medical oncologists, pathologists, radiation oncologists, and other health-ca

204 logists, oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, radiologists, and nuclear medicine physici

205 COPD overlap was discussed among clinicians, pathologists, radiologists, epidemiologists, and investi

206 TS, and ERS with oncologists/pulmonologists, pathologists, radiologists, molecular biologists, and th

207 ican Pathologists (CAP) and Royal College of Pathologists (RCP) on long-term survival of 180 patients

208 We also measured pathologists' read rates to evaluate workflow efficiency

209 In a second reading session, each pathologist reclassified the same slides by using the FL

210 ety of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists recommendations for HER2 testing in breast

211 ety of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists recommendations for human epidermal growth

212 ut prostate core biopsies by two independent pathologists resulted in an area under the receiver oper

213 Pathologist review of CellaVision images identified an a

214 , hospital records or operative reports, and pathologist review of histopathology specimens.

215 The dedicated radiologist or pathologist review of the minimally invasive autopsy sho

216 A bone and soft tissue pathologist reviewed the distal femoral histologic slice

217 Six liver pathologists reviewed all the samples.

218 Four expert pathologists reviewed these lesions using current termin

219 ican Journal of Pathology, the investigative pathologist S.

220 ican Journal of Pathology, the investigative pathologist S. Burt Wolbach unambiguously showed that Ro

221 on of lesions by a single experienced ocular pathologist (S.R.D.).

222 Sensitivity and specificity of the pathologist's comment of concern for phyllodes tumor on

223 from areas that will not interfere with the pathologist's diagnosis and prognostic information.

224 rm a revision, we suggest leaving it to each pathologist's discretion whether to use i0 or i1 as the

225 diologists to perform and the donor hospital pathologist/s to interpret PLB.

226 tration was strongly correlated with ex vivo pathologist-scored IHC and computer-quantified ex vivo i

227 high accuracy of our system based on expert pathologists' scores (cancer = 97.1%, stromal = 89.1%) a

228 was detected only when using the mean of 13 pathologists' scores.

229 In a comparison of pathologist scoring of diaminobenzidine staining of seri

230 es both by standard chromogen detection with pathologist scoring of whole tissue sections (cohort I;

231 or any single assay, the concordance between pathologists' scoring for PD-L1 expression in tumor cell

232 o August 30, 2016, to compare antibodies and pathologists' scoring of tumor and immune cells.

233 Three pathologists separately evaluated histopathologic phenot

234 Two clinicians, two radiologists, and two pathologists sequentially reviewed clinical-radiologic f

235 Both clinician and pathologist should consider this entity as a differentia

236 Pathologists should be informed if biopsies are obtained

237 Practice Advice 3: Expert pathologists should report audits of their diagnosed cas

238 The pathologists showed excellent concordance when scoring t

239 Surgeon and pathologist SLNB technical errors may lead to incorrect

240 I started as a field pathologist specializing in fungal diseases of legumes,

241 ble method when is performed carefully under pathologist supervision.

242 a committee of radiologists, hepatologists, pathologists, surgeons, lexicon experts, and ACR staff,

243 es were also associated with unanimity among pathologists that antibody-mediated rejection was presen

244 significant interobserver variability among pathologists, the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus with

245 The method requires a pathologist to differentiate healthy tissue from tumor t

246 R has taken a central role, as it allows the pathologist to provide tumor-staging information necessa

247 een radiologists, oncologists, surgeons, and pathologists to achieve local control and decrease the r

248 tasets and performance were evaluated by two pathologists to determine the concordance.

249 operative communication between surgeons and pathologists to ensure appropriate and timely treatment

250 olorectal tumor glandular structures used by pathologists to grade tumor differentiation.

251 It might be possible for pathologists to identify lesions and patterns of ALD and

252 suggest that QPI shows promise in assisting pathologists to improve prediction of prostate cancer re

253 nd these technologies will enable transplant pathologists to increase information extraction from tis

254 ium convened a group of human and veterinary pathologists to review the current animal models of pros

255 A Web site was established to train pathologists to use the CRS system.

256 ologists, gastroenterologists, surgeons, and pathologists to use the revised classifications to stand

257 d laryngeal desensitization through a speech pathologist trained in airway disorders.

258 ts of the digestive tract were analysed by a pathologist unaware of the piglets' status.

259 Pathologists used standardized reporting and were blinde

260 llowing is usually made by a speech-language pathologist using a bedside swallowing evaluation.

261 imens were reviewed in a blinded manner by a pathologist using METAVIR criteria.

262 slides were scored by three expert pulmonary pathologists using a standardized nomenclature and scori

263 Pathologists using current conventions almost always int

264 ed in resection specimens by two independent pathologists using the Mandard tumor regression grading

265 Yet, inter-pathologist variability in the interpretation of ambiguo

266 the incidence based on analyses by the local pathologist was 0.18%/year, the incidence when there was

267 agreement between the local and one central pathologist was 0.21%/year, and the incidence when all 3

268 of the histologic diagnosis by a study group pathologist was mandated.

269 diagnostic interpretations of participating pathologists was 75.3% (95% CI, 73.4%-77.0%; 5194 of 690

270 agreement on final diagnosis among the four pathologists was complete in only 46% of cases.

271 nterobserver concordance between independent pathologists was high (Spearman's rank correlation coeff

272 ction of advanced neoplasia (classified by a pathologist) was defined as a true-positive (TP) finding

273 s survey and through a congress of concerned pathologists, we propose strategies that will catapult t

274 The radiologist and pathologist were blinded to clinical and pathology/imagi

275 Pathologists were blinded to group allocation.

276 al histopathologists and those made by local pathologists were calculated.

277 Sixty-five percent of invited, responding pathologists were eligible and consented to participate.

278 pa values for all diagnoses made by European pathologists were higher than those made by US pathologi

279 was 0.21%/year, and the incidence when all 3 pathologists were in agreement was 0.39%/year) or combin

280 The pathologists were masked to the information from CMR ima

281 Pathologists were masked to the PMCTA findings, unless a

282 nvestigators, clinical trial site staff, and pathologists were masked to treatment assignment through

283 Funder and site personnel, participants, and pathologists were masked to treatment.

284 nfectious disease clinicians tend to consult pathologists when there are questions regarding terminol

285 Pathologists consult infectious disease pathologists when there is a need to review diverse infl

286 A radiologist and pathologist who were masked to the autopsy findings indi

287 The slides were scanned and scored by 13 pathologists who estimated the percentage of malignant a

288 Study of pathologists who interpret breast biopsies in clinical p

289 CI, 75%-80%] for lower, P < .001), and among pathologists who interpreted lower weekly case volumes (

290 lanoma (MEL) scale of 0 to 5 by one of three pathologists who were blinded to clinical outcome; a sco

291 Data were collected by 2 pathologists who were masked to sample grouping.

292 Academic research pathologists will be challenged over the coming years an

293 ng cases and their clinical information with pathologists will help to conduct consistent and reliabl

294 intracellular signaling pathways, diagnostic pathologists will play an increasingly important part in

295 t gastrointestinal pathologist (defined as a pathologist with a special interest in Barrett's esophag

296 imens were reviewed in a blinded manner by a pathologist with the use of METAVIR criteria.

297 Pathologists with expertise in breast cancer reviewed th

298 culated by comparing diagnoses made by local pathologists with those made by a central panel of 3 cyt

299 the international collaboration of pediatric pathologists working together to establish a new interna

300 aging for cancer screening, thereby reducing pathologist workload and improving patient care.