ライフサイエンスコーパス: prognosticator

1 of pYGIV and tGIV can serve as an effective prognosticator.

2 tosensory-evoked potential), and biochemical prognosticators.

3 quent mortality after adjusting for relevant prognosticators.

4 was not associated with any of the examined prognosticators.

5 Cox model adjusted for clinical and biologic prognosticators.

6 adjustment for other clinical and molecular prognosticators.

7 ent study suggested that miRNAs can serve as prognosticators.

8 arly after controlling for other significant prognosticators.

9 es were used to identify independent outcome prognosticators.

10 haracterized for other established molecular prognosticators.

11 after adjustment for traditional, well-known prognosticators.

12 ndependently of other molecular and clinical prognosticators.

13 gnature was identified as an independent GBM prognosticator and could be used for GBM risk stratifica

14 Left atrial size is a powerful prognosticator and should be routinely used in the progn

15 for stratifying treatment based on molecular prognosticators and for targeted therapy.

16 RS) were associated with breast cancer tumor prognosticators and risk of distant metastasis.

17 inue to occur and efforts to identify visual prognosticators are being made.

18 pattern of multiple genes may be used as BC prognosticators because single markers often fail to be

19 c alterations not only represent independent prognosticators, but also may constitute targets for spe

20 International Prognostic Index (MIPI-B)-miR prognosticator, combining expression levels of miR-18b w

21 nce of CD49d over other flow cytometry-based prognosticators (eg, CD38, ZAP-70) was ranked by recursi

22 We also constructed a molecular prognosticator for AITL that appears to be largely relat

23 lginate, in Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a poor prognosticator for lung infections in cystic fibrosis.

24 es that may represent not only an additional prognosticator for patient outcome, but also a vehicle f

25 igh expression of miR-3151 is an independent prognosticator for poor outcome in CN-AML and affects di

26 ight (LMW) isoforms, and it can be used as a prognosticator for poor patient outcome.

27 n groups were stage- and therapy-independent prognosticators for all three survival parameters.

28 of adjunctive antifibrotic therapy based on prognosticators for failure, the success rates of trabec

29 The search for prognosticators for good outcomes continues to dominate

30 nostic value of these variables and clinical prognosticators for local treatment failure (LTF), OS, a

31 p53 expression were found to be independent prognosticators for MPNST DSS in a multivariable analysi

32 In the multivariate analysis, tumor-related prognosticators for poorer OS included node-positive can

33 Physiological and anatomical prognosticators have had limited success in predicting c

34 Compared to the MIPI-B, this prognosticator improved identification of high-risk pati

35 CD49d is a negative prognosticator in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), ex

36 sion in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and is a poor prognosticator in cystic fibrosis.

37 errant cellular junction formation is a poor prognosticator in human cancer, the role of polarity det

38 r 41% SUVmax, supporting its use as a strong prognosticator in lymphoma.

39 GLS seems to be a stronger prognosticator in men than in women.

40 these four markers was the only independent prognosticator in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 4

41 (the CUP image specifically) is an accurate prognosticator in patients with early postoperative rena

42 arameters as the strongest and most accurate prognosticator in this CHF population, regardless of fol

43 Cerebral edema is a key poor prognosticator in traumatic brain injury.

44 learly delineates the troponins as important prognosticators in asymptomatic otherwise "stable" patie

45 ultivariable analysis as independent adverse prognosticators in complete resection patients.

46 ies can significantly improve on traditional prognosticators in predicting outcome for ER-positive br

47 These prognosticators included tumor size, calculated as the l

48 ublished RPMs and provide an overview of the prognosticators incorporated and reported clinical valid

49 sTNF-R1 was the strongest and most accurate prognosticator, independent of established markers of CH

50 ed in tumors and high IFP, a negative cancer prognosticator, is known to limit the uptake and efficac

51 dition, while recipient age was an important prognosticator, its direction of association reverses de

52 ivariable analyses adjusting for established prognosticators, LEF1high status remained associated wit

53 We identified RPMs based on clinical prognosticators (N = 6) and biomolecular features (N = 1

54 The simple PREDICT risk score was a powerful prognosticator of 6-year mortality after hospitalization

55 These results not only identify hTREX84 as a prognosticator of breast cancer but also delineate human

56 ence of the role of triglycerides (TGs) as a prognosticator of CAD, and no studies have examined the

57 tellite stability status, a well-established prognosticator of colorectal cancers.

58 1-induced immune hyperactivation, which is a prognosticator of disease progression, was reduced by IF

59 he time of BKVN diagnosis, is an independent prognosticator of graft failure and a prediction model o

60 Letal was found to be an independent prognosticator of improved survival in advanced ovarian

61 at low S1PR2 expression is a strong negative prognosticator of patient survival, alone and especially

62 rum creatinine was the single most important prognosticator of patient survival.

63 Histopathologic phenotype is a better prognosticator of survival in patients with periampullar

64 atient population, and its proposed use as a prognosticator of survival or chemotherapy stratificatio

65 ells were identified as a strong independent prognosticator of tumor recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 4.

66 ve information in the search for immunologic prognosticators of clinical outcome.

67 BF and FDG K(1) changes remained independent prognosticators of DFS and OS.

68 re increasingly recognized as biomarkers and prognosticators of disease.

69 ary exercise testing parameters are powerful prognosticators of early mortality and morbidity in pati

70 strate the strength of AR and CMV disease as prognosticators of impeding kidney graft loss in transpl

71 tions were identified as important molecular prognosticators of OS irrespective of patient age.

72 nventional PTC (cPTC), to identify molecular prognosticators of outcome using complementary genome wi

73 Multivariate analysis showed the prognosticators of overall survival to be bilirubin, no

74 tematic review of the literature to identify prognosticators of PCS following pediatric concussion wa

75 rocorticographic abnormalities are favorable prognosticators of seizure freedom on univariate analysi

76 We identified independent prognosticators of survival and derived a multivariable,

77 sponse rates and complete response rates are prognosticators of survival for patients with amyloidosi

78 Significant overall survival prognosticators on univariate analysis were albumin, bil

79 d in 129 (71.7%) patients was an independent prognosticator (P = 0.002).

80 ny instances the studies that validate these prognosticators represent class III or class IV evidence

81 y more likely to be diagnosed with favorable prognosticators, such as ER-positive and low-grade tumor

82 We found that RP/V site is a poor prognosticator that is independent of patient sex and ag

83 s-related protein and an independent adverse prognosticator that may serve as a useful adjunct to tra

84 The intent was to develop a prognosticator that would be displayed during precordial

85 Our intent was to evolve a prognosticator that would predict the likelihood that an

86 gical severity of rejection was an important prognosticator: the use of antilymphocyte preparations w

87 After adjusting for adherence and other prognosticators, there was no association between 6-MP i

88 Such a prognosticator was further intended to reduce the number

89 Such a prognosticator was to be based on conventional electroca

90 Presence of other molecular prognosticators was assessed centrally.

91 Adjusting for clinical prognosticators, we found that patients with 6MP nonadhe

92 All molecular prognosticators were assessed centrally.

93 ve care unit course; however, multifactorial prognosticators were not useful for the early identifica

94 age, the associations of TCRS with favorable prognosticators were restricted to women younger than ag