ライフサイエンスコーパス: ranking

1 -of-the-art predictive power in ALS survival ranking.

2 ersion, choice overload, and relative social ranking.

3 was formulated after 2 successive rounds of ranking.

4 licy with capital requirements based on this ranking.

5 sgRNA enrichment/depletion analysis and gene ranking.

6 kings were averaged for a summative priority ranking.

7 accounted for 84% of the variance in product rankings.

8 causal variants and quality of significance rankings.

9 y effects that may affect the reliability of rankings.

10 ttle evidence about the reliability of these rankings.

11 ne whether 90-day mortality affects hospital rankings.

12 consistent, fair and unique way to aggregate rankings.

13 rates were not associated with fluid balance rankings.

14 We demonstrate SORTCERY's utility by ranking 1026 BH3 (Bcl-2 homology 3) peptides with respec

15 he United States lag behind other countries, ranking 35th in mathematics and 27th in science achievem

16 provided the most effective weighted average ranking ability of 3 for the MoNA matched spectra in spi

17 at, although the estimates are affected, the rankings across procedures remain the same.

18 s produces almost perfect agreement in model rankings across the metrics.

19 udy proposes a novel Normalized Wide network Ranking algorithm (NWRank) that has the advantage of ran

20 The screening and ranking algorithm (SaRa) was recently proposed as an eff

21 A ranking algorithm named RADIAL that predicts the molecul

22 ith the greatest summed intensity using this ranking algorithm were comparable to other lipid identif

23 Random Forest also has an intrinsic feature ranking algorithm, which can be used to select the impor

24 weights, which are in turn encoded into the ranking algorithm.

25 ow the superiority of our network models and ranking algorithms toward this purpose.

26 Ranking all novel and existing risk classifications show

27 The updated ranking allows stakeholders in the agriculture sector an

28 he alpine, but did not alter final abundance rankings among climate scenarios.

29 riation of transcription, we here proposed a ranking analysis of chi-squares (RAX2) for large-scale a

30 We present Gene-Ranking Analysis of Pathway Expression (GRAPE) as a nove

31 2 out of 51 patients presented with class II ranking and 8 out of 40 were ranked as class I.

32 In addition to ranking and clustering of large sets of models of the sa

33 versatile and easy-to-use tool for ultrafast ranking and clustering of macromolecular structures.

34 dapted methods developed for Internet search ranking and electoral voting into IRaPPA, a pipeline int

35 was no association between grant percentile ranking and grant outcome as assessed by number of top-1

36 To facilitate the ranking and prioritization of chemicals that lack toxici

37 This information enables ranking and prioritization on chemicals or health effect

38 Desirability of outcome ranking and response adjusted for duration of antibiotic

39 pproach that is suitable for high-throughput ranking and risk assessment.

40 The ranking and screening of MOS sensors, specific for volat

41 Protein quality assessment (QA) useful for ranking and selecting protein models has long been viewe

42 ound no association between grant percentile ranking and subsequent productivity and citation impact,

43 Both the coefficient-based ranking and the inference based on the model lead to a p

44 The results show that both the ranking and the P-values of the target pathways are subs

45 ese results suggest that the use of pairwise rankings and a continuous severity score, such as that p

46 can result in different species sensitivity rankings and safe levels.

47 ison using the Elo rating method (comparison ranking), and by correlation with the i-ROP computer-bas

48 bsite, the U.S. News & World Report hospital rankings, and several state-level programs are well know

49 ement can be achieved by combining different ranking approaches in a supervised manner via using LTR.

50 ines or having a 'low' or 'medium' adherence ranking as independent predictors of discrepancy (adjust

51 er is the most aggressive malignant disease, ranking as the fourth leading cause of cancer-related de

52 lammatory disorder of the exocrine pancreas, ranking as the most common gastrointestinal reasons for

53 Ranking atop are 'immune response pathway' and 'compleme

54 There was moderate correlation between ranking based on 30- and 90-day mortality [weighted kapp

55 QL scores) were not correlated with hospital rankings based on complications.

56 isk factors and surgical procedure, hospital rankings based on PROs (either the average change in HAL

57 Rankings based on soil studies show AC first for carbon

58 udy, we developed GuanRank, a non-parametric ranking-based technique to transform patients' survival

59 g the 97 surgeons ranked, the mean change in ranking between OC and MIC was 25 positions.

60 We furthermore observed different potency rankings between our lead molecule MEDI5265, abatacept,

61 on 87 biomarkers and 240 clinical variables, ranking biomarkers associated with New York Heart Associ

62 ovel algorithm named SCP, which combines the ranking by a modified PageRank algorithm based on subcel

63 measures irrespective of the distributional ranking by age and sex.

64 bcellular compartments information, with the ranking by Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) calcula

65 Finally, term ranking by querying the LSI space with a group of miRNAs

66 When comparing hospital rankings by crude proportion to risk-adjusted ranks, 24

67 ity or readmission measures and change their rankings by recoding patients with pneumonia.

68 erage disease classification (classification ranking), by pairwise comparison using the Elo rating me

69 hat bind Abeta42 in its monomeric form; (ii) ranking, by surface plasmon resonance affinity measureme

70 High-resolution ranking can be used to improve our understanding of sequ

71 A high-ranking candidate STK4 was chosen for functional validat

72 High-ranking candidates identified included well-reported tum

73 spectra) and were then used to calculate the ranking capability of 7 individual scoring metrics.

74 kings, nearly 20% of hospitals changed their ranking category when 90-day mortality rankings were use

75 ment with ranking obtained by classification ranking (CC, 0.92).

76 we control for socioeconomic variables, the ranking changes drastically.

77 g based false positive removal/true positive ranking, chemical taxonomic prediction and differential

78 % credible intervals [CrIs]) for the highest-ranking class compared with placebo were as follows: 199

79 Ranking clusters of ICUs could be useful for identifying

80 both the docking accuracy and the candidates ranking compared to a standard protein-protein docking a

81 g functions in terms of pose predictions and ranking compounds in a virtual screening context.

82 Although the top genes from each centrality ranking contained well-known cell cycle regulators, ther

83 tervention, the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and its 95% credible interval (95%

84 Two case studies used to evaluate the FIM rankings demonstrate that the FIM approach is able to id

85 Treatment rankings derived from network meta-analyses have a subst

86 Program rankings differed by the outcome measured.

87 Hospital-level rankings differed considerably if DNR patients were excl

88 Sum of ranking differences (SRD) is a new generic fusion tool t

89 ts with respect to a desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR).

90 technology, termed ensemble decision aliquot ranking (eDAR), recovered spiked-in cancer cells (taken

91 a 5' thymidine is present in most of the top ranking elements.

92 The rankings exhibited high temporal stability with intracla

93 algorithm, which selects up to the N highest ranking features for phenotype prediction is described a

94 dairy cows in the Netherlands are exposed, a ranking filter model was developed, combining informatio

95 r, a user-friendly simple web-based tool for ranking, filtering and annotation of coding and non-codi

96 model QA methods to generate consensus model rankings, followed by model refinement based on model co

97 enograft (GTRr + AX) showed the highest mean ranking for CALg (2.99, 90% credible interval [CrI] = 1

98 data improved prediction or changed hospital rankings for 30-day all-cause mortality and rehospitaliz

99 t improve risk adjustment or change hospital rankings for 30-day mortality or rehospitalization.

100 Moreover, surgeon rankings for OC outcomes differed substantially from out

101 Hospital mortality rankings for older patients with AMI inconsistently refl

102 der patients with AMI inconsistently reflect rankings for younger patients.

103 MEF2-dependent genes represent the top-ranking gene set enriched after Mrf4 RNAi and a MEF2 rep

104 ized PageRank in seed set expansion and node ranking generally.

105 kinetic transport assays on four of the top-ranking genes (EXOC2, EXOC7, PARD6B, and LEPROT) reveale

106 second stage of the process, which involves ranking genes based on statistical as well as biological

107 lity reduction, protein module discovery and ranking genes for cancer subtyping.

108 We present a network-based method for ranking genes or properties related to a given gene set.

109 rate the effectiveness of this algorithm for ranking genes related to Drosophila embryonic developmen

110 was developed and showed that all the higher-ranking genotypes in term of resistance harbour only CBF

111 Overall, the in situ affinity ranking greatly depends on the on-rate instead of the of

112 Internet search rankings have a significant impact on consumer choices,

113 We performed ranking, hierarchical clustering, and correlation analys

114 non-endemic (eg, Cameroon and Ethiopia) both ranking highly.

115 ity and positive likelihood ratio of class I ranking HRCT criteria to diagnose active pulmonary TB we

116 Ranking human genes based on their tolerance to function

117 s by individual mFI components using Harrell ranking, impaired functional status, identified as nonin

118 uracy with the cognate antibody-antigen pair ranking in bound and unbound models but recovers additio

119 Passing the ABSITE (>/=30th percentile) and ranking in the top 30% of scores at our institution.

120 efined as the self-consistence among feature rankings in repeated runs of VIMs without data perturbat

121 rm an in-depth evaluation of the algorithm's rankings in two real world networks at the country level

122 Feature relevance ranking indicated unequal importance of kinetic, texture

123 impanzees than in bonobos, where the highest-ranking individuals are female [1].

124 l stress, such as being in proximity to high-ranking individuals, or non-friends.

125 rship and 2) successful challenges of higher-ranking individuals.

126 scores and evaluate their combined effect on ranking interaction chains linking input data sets.

127 re significant differences (P=0.001) in high-ranking interventions related to location (appointment n

128 nt) and reminder for visit compared with low-ranking interventions related to time (weekend appointme

129 Specificity of small ions, the Hofmeister ranking, is long-known and has many applications includi

130 ants expressed a preference for this system, ranking it more highly on a questionnaire.

131 performed the common alternative strategy in ranking known cancer genes.

132 In this study, we used a scaffold-ranking library to screen 37 different libraries for ant

133 h- and ultrahigh resolution data, while also ranking lipid classes by their propensity to cause ambig

134 Another unique feature of LipidMatch is ranking lipid identifications for a given feature by the

135 h a high reproductive skew in favour of high-ranking males.

136 earch and clinical trials; further, survival ranking may offer additional advantages in clinical tria

137 number of studies, the treatment effects and rankings may not be stable.

138 The CNN-based ranking method first generates candidates using handcraf

139 rmalization show that our proposed CNN-based ranking method outperforms traditional rule-based method

140 esults indicate that, regardless of the seed ranking method used, sequential seeding strategies deliv

141 age approach are compared using various seed ranking methods and diffusion parameters on real complex

142 evelop a principled framework for evaluating ranking methods by studying seed set expansion applied t

143 Individual-gene-ranking methods ignore interactions between genes.

144 detection, which is able to combine various ranking methods in a supervised manner via using the Lea

145 mparing the GSEA results using two different ranking metrics for examining the dynamic responses of r

146 tein-energy malnutrition markedly decreased, ranking Mexico well above comparator countries.

147 iated degradation system were not among high-ranking mitigator or sensitizer candidates.

148 Ambient PM2.5 was the fifth-ranking mortality risk factor in 2015.

149 confirmed earlier findings that sons of high-ranking mothers dispersed later than sons of low-ranking

150 The top ranking motifs were selected and used to create feature

151 Compared with 30-day mortality rankings, nearly 20% of hospitals changed their ranking

152 om network's internal structural similarity, ranking networks on a continuous scale from crystalline,

153 es" of a random walk rooted at the seed set, ranking nodes according to weighted sums of landing prob

154 algorithm (NWRank) that has the advantage of ranking nodes and links of a network simultaneously.

155 The analgesic preference rankings noted by the 95 international physicians who co

156 rity ranking that was in good agreement with ranking obtained by classification ranking (CC, 0.92).

157 In addition, we compared site rankings obtained using each of our 3 performance measur

158 s in deficit schizophrenia networks based on ranking of 4 centrality metrics.

159 mplexity, attributable exclusively to higher ranking of 5 symptoms.

160 not capable of providing a reliable relative ranking of a set of compounds, a prioritization of group

161 a parameter-free classifier relying only on ranking of a small subset of features, rendering it robu

162 ork meta-analysis was performed and relative ranking of agents was assessed using surface under the c

163 er production regimes, based solely on their ranking of alpha diversity impacts.

164 The World Health Organization ranking of antimicrobials according to their relative im

165 In order to improve ranking of catalytic residues and their prediction accur

166 e concept of metagene entropy and allows the ranking of cells based on their differentiation potentia

167 ity and porphyrin accumulation permitted the ranking of colonies based on the efficacy of eliciting a

168 ury later despite substantial changes in the ranking of countries.

169 od correlation between experts on comparison ranking of disease severity (mean CC, 0.84; range, 0.74-

170 s of different systems, we obtain a relative ranking of DNA base for the detection of each molecule.

171 is also influential, while the identity and ranking of dominant species varies by function and by re

172 in tuberculosis was undertaken to determine ranking of efficacy of drugs and combinations, define va

173 vivo dosimetry in the hazard assessment and ranking of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs).

174 partly identified as additive effect; 2) the ranking of factors affecting heterosis was dominance > d

175 ional scientific collaboration, based on the ranking of fractions of international coauthorships for

176 s with gene ontology annotations to derive a ranking of genes and gene ontology terms using a supervi

177 Performance ranking of hospitals was consistent with or without SEER

178 Ranking of importance of each clinical question.

179 Ranking of interventions is one of the most appealing el

180 y heavy chain production, but the functional ranking of its different elements is still inaccurate, e

181 preference concordance, based on rating and ranking of key attributes; and decision quality, defined

182 ber of structures, that allows for the rapid ranking of large ensemble data comprising tens of thousa

183 large variation in caseload projection, the ranking of management options was relatively consistent.

184 The ranking of management types is altered when the species

185 In Patagonia, the ranking of natural variability of drivers is as follows:

186 cerebellar ataxia is calculated, producing a ranking of possible diagnoses.

187 ime prediction model permitted reduction and ranking of potential short peptides, including homologou

188 al phenotypes in ClinVar and provide a clear ranking of prediction confidence.

189 The ranking of responses to drivers with comparable manipula

190 The final priority ranking of the antibiotic-resistant bacteria was establi

191 High spectral accuracy and ranking of the correct molecular formula were in many ca

192 Ranking of the drugs based on their ability to induce HA

193 ific tool, as well as on the quality and the ranking of the input assemblies.

194 applications, a major task is the scoring or ranking of the nodes in the network in terms of their pr

195 The ranking of the standards from the least to most inhibiti

196 ferences within medical students to the tier ranking of their medical schools and their expected spec

197 hic models given the data and the subsequent ranking of these models using information theory.

198 in MEK1, a MAPK kinase, and provide a robust ranking of these mutations.

199 Similarly, the AM facilitated ranking of three types of GAC compared in parallel colum

200 The estimated relative ranking of treatments suggested that priming low-frequen

201 rect and indirect effects and to establish a ranking of treatments.

202 thin the U.S. and the mediocre international ranking of US student performance require more research,

203 each docking pose, allowing high-throughput ranking of whole docking simulations by pairwise compari

204 There was good correlation between rankings of disease severity between the 2 cohorts (Spea

205 with patient-reported satisfaction, clinical rankings of esthetics, and control and historical RC res

206 d highest antioxidant activities in terms of rankings of FRAP, DPPH activities, TPC, TFC and vitamin

207 ive state of a pathway based on the relative rankings of gene expression levels across a set of refer

208 rage similarity to the training set, and the rankings of genes under various similarity criteria are

209 We used poverty level rankings of groups of U.S. counties as a basis for analy

210 ure by using SAFIRE-3 yielded similar reader rankings of image quality and lesion conspicuity when co

211 The hierarchical rankings of primary immunization route with respect to e

212 future climates compared to current species rankings of resource quality.

213 A web interface retrieves ET rankings of sequence positions and maps results to a str

214 twork meta-analysis, and to provide relative rankings of these treatments.

215 Omicseq is trackRank, a novel algorithm for ranking omics datasets that fully uses the numerical con

216 ferent numbers of source nodes, an influence ranking on genes was produced.

217 n ASEs were instrumental to our second place ranking on Template Based Modeling (TBM) and Free Modeli

218 Comparison ranking on the larger dataset by both expert and nonexpe

219 ne reviews practices receive, the higher the rankings on review sites, which will translate into more

220 ing mothers dispersed later than sons of low-ranking ones.

221 NMR data and show that the primary error for ranking or creating good IDP ensembles resides in the po

222 ions of ages for each individual, based on a ranking order of individuals from youngest to oldest and

223 Tapentadol treatment was top-ranking owing to lower incidence of overall adverse even

224 For the top-ranking pairs, we found substantial support in the liter

225 tcome (based on benefits and harms), and (2) ranking patients with respect to a desirability of outco

226 nce features and employ elementary rules for ranking possible sgRNAs.

227 e cancer cell lines, we validate the highest ranking prediction (TNRC6B) as a ceRNA of PTEN.

228 ed first place, the model gave more accurate ranking predictions on the PRO-ACT ALS dataset in compar

229 eighborhoods yield higher precision for high-ranking predictions than RBM when no information regardi

230 onformation can often be found among the top-ranking predictions.

231 competence like others and, hence, that high-ranking primates have protoprestige.

232 omputational methods treat this problem as a ranking problem and achieve the state-of-the-art perform

233 regards biomedical entity normalization as a ranking problem and benefits from semantic information o

234 treat protein remote homology detection as a ranking problem, and predictive performance improvement

235 regards biomedical entity normalization as a ranking problem.

236 Comparison ranking provided a severity ranking that was in good agr

237 Here, we describe a probabilistic method for ranking putative plant miRNAs using a naive Bayes classi

238 ryonic and adult assays, suggesting that our ranking reflects the intrinsic property of the mutant mo

239 Concerning divergent rankings reported in the literature, the great sensitivi

240 The consistency of our ranking results suggests the use of ad hoc models of sna

241 Finally class III ranking results were 45%, 90%, 11.5, respectively.

242 Class II ranking results were 85%, 72%, 3, respectively.

243 This result has significance for rankings scientists in scientific networks like the APS,

244 Here, we use a ranking score and benign prostate transcriptomes to iden

245 y utilities and reporting functions, (ii) a 'Ranking Search' function to query the database by target

246 nations in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, ranking second only to cataract.

247 r: (i) ModFOLD6_rank, which is optimized for ranking/selection, (ii) ModFOLD6_cor, which is optimized

248 At HRCT 40 out of 44 patients with class III ranking showed active pulmonary TB.

249 nents covered 92% of the variance in product rankings, showing the potential for indicator reduction.

250 Esophageal cancer is a deadly disease, ranking sixth among all cancers in mortality.

251 proach is based on the assumption that "high-ranking" SNPs falling short of genome wide significance

252 re sensitive to abundance changes than other ranking statistics.

253 Using various ranking strategies including a range of parameters, we f

254 assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.

255 st placebo with surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.

256 gimens with the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities.

257 tainties are then prioritised via an interim ranking survey and a final workshop to achieve consensus

258 Conclusion A simple ranking system based on interinstitutional variation in

259 ransplant allocation system has evolved to a ranking system of "sickest-first" system based on object

260 ented at the top of the reciprocal retention ranking than those functioning in multiprotein complexes

261 Comparison ranking provided a severity ranking that was in good agreement with ranking obtained

262 After ranking the 35 procedure groups by contribution to EGS m

263 oncentrations and higher resolutions favored ranking the correct formula in the top 10.

264 ained using real-time cell analysis, clearly ranking the cytotoxicity of the HBQs in Chinese hamster

265 ment for docking as well as for refining and ranking the docking candidates.

266 The Evolutionary Trace (ET) achieves this by ranking the functional and structural importance of the

267 Methods for ranking the importance of nodes in a network have a rich

268 By ranking the in vitro-in vivo correlations (IVIVCs), the

269 rks, with many studies focusing attention on ranking the nodes of a network depending on their relati

270 at the PhenIX program is the most effective, ranking the true causal variant at between 1 and 10 in 8

271 between cohorts on relative disease severity ranking, the higher average score and classifications fo

272 vitro and, when applied to libraries of GLs, ranking their affinities.

273 captured antibody allowing their sorting by ranking their reactivity with the labeled antigen.

274 subjecting them to a given pulling force and ranking them according to stalling efficiency.

275 enoids in orange carrots, and especially for ranking them according to the content.

276 Sampling structural models and ranking them are the two major challenges of protein str

277 The performance of ICUs can be compared by ranking them into a league table according to their risk

278 and disease-network candidate analysis gene ranking to identify a novel underlying genetic mechanism

279 about the ability of peer review percentile rankings to predict grant productivity, as measured thro

280 filter has a high probability (e.g. 70%) of ranking true positive features highly (e.g. top 10%), th

281 submitted items were redistributed for final ranking using a 3-point Likert scale.

282 easures for SES leads to changes in hospital ranking using the HRRP threshold approach, but not using

283 ion studies, 35 engineering faculty provided rankings using full curricula vitae instead of narrative

284 ying impediments limiting bnAb induction and ranking vaccine strategies for their ability to promote

285 The influence ranking was compared to other metrics of network central

286 varied markedly across listeners, but their ranking was fairly consistent across values of varphi.

287 gs, an unambiguous comparative effectiveness ranking was not established.

288 MRs for these 3 age groups, and agreement in rankings was plotted.

289 Given the apparent power of search rankings, we asked whether they could be manipulated to

290 To evaluate temporal stability of the rankings, we calculated intraclass correlation of the an

291 nique way to define an optimal aggregate for rankings, we investigate the predictive quality of a num

292 of patients who were affected; then the two rankings were averaged for a summative priority ranking.

293 nomial logit models of revealed preferences, rankings were broadly similar.

294 Crude verses adjusted hospital rankings were compared using Cohen's kappa.

295 icant differences in disease-related symptom rankings were found for only 6 of 39 symptoms.

296 The rankings were significantly correlated among some but no

297 their ranking category when 90-day mortality rankings were used.

298 e to surprising robustness crossovers and re-rankings, which can have significant implications for de

299 Authors and readers should interpret such rankings with great caution.

300 se and compared by state firearm legislation rankings with respect to FFR.