ライフサイエンスコーパス: risk evaluation

1 s, could represent predictive biomarkers for risk evaluation.

2 firm whether hypoalbuminemia plays a role in risk evaluation.

3 whole exomes are widely available for cancer risk evaluation.

4 d Detroit, about experiences with hereditary risk evaluation.

5 e use of visual instead of olfactory cues in risk evaluation.

6 ned by European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation.

7 activity to risk is consistent with impaired risk evaluation.

8 als who met guidelines for hereditary cancer risk evaluation.

9 SCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) (20.4 +/- 16.7%).

10 SCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation [22.3 +/- 9.0% vs. 26.2 +/- 13.0%, p = 0

11 SCORE [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation], 22.4% vs. 6.3%, on a scale of 0 to 100

12 SCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation), 26.9 +/- 17.9%; and mean Society of Th

13 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation 27+/-17%, Society of Thoracic Surgeons s

14 SCORE [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation], 29.8+/-21.5%) underwent TMVR.

15 nary exercise testing (CPET) in preoperative risk evaluation and fitness for surgery.

16 This knowledge may improve suicide risk evaluation and guide future research on suicide ass

17 Currently there is a Risk Evaluation and Management Strategy for Transmucosal

18 cription drug abuse in 2011 and unveiled the Risk Evaluation and Management Strategy initiative.

19 all manufacturers of MPA products to propose risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS).

20 regulatory drug safety actions, such as the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy initiative, whos

21 cies may lead to further improvements in CVD risk evaluation and particularly in identification of ap

22 of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons pre

23 e, national, and global stakeholders conduct risk evaluation and to inform resource utilization and s

24 DECREASE-I (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography), DECRE

25 ter comparison and appropriate protocols for risk evaluation are needed.

26 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation at baseline was 23.0 +/- 18.3; 84.9% pat

27 orting health authorities in a comprehensive risk evaluation based on the relative toxicity of differ

28 In the setting of cardiovascular (CV) risk evaluation before major elective surgery, current r

29 CTION: In the setting of cardiovascular (CV) risk evaluation before major elective surgery, current r

30 and ovarian cancers seen in a breast cancer risk evaluation clinic are accounted for by coding regio

31 Risk evaluation combining mitotic count and Ki-67 LI pre

32 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) (42.4+/-22.8 versus 24.4+/-1

33 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) (a measure of predicted mort

34 ng the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) combined with postoperative

35 had a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) I of 6 or more (on a scale f

36 gistic European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE) was detected in all simulati

37 dditive European System of Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), N-terminal pro-B-type natri

38 on the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), New York Heart Association

39 ]) and European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE; OR, 1.02 [1.00-1.03]).

40 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation [EuroSCORE]: 15.0% vs. 18.4%; p < 0.001)

41 dipose tissue, may be important for accurate risk evaluation for cardiovascular disease in the elderl

42 y biomarkers have a clear role to supplement risk evaluation for men undergoing prostate biopsy and f

43 SCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) >6 (HR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.02-6.28; P=0.04

44 led in the Heart Strategies Concentrating on Risk Evaluation (Heart SCORE) Study in March and April 2

45 nity-based Heart Strategies Concentrating on Risk Evaluation (Heart SCORE) study.

46 nd the European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (HR, 0.88 per 10 mL/min per 1.73 m2; 95%

47 ients (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II [EuroSCORE II] <4%) included in the O

48 nrollment in Adreview Myocardial Imaging for Risk Evaluation in Heart Failure (ADMIRE-HF) and index (

49 ADMIRE-HF (AdreView Myocardial Imaging for Risk Evaluation in Heart Failure) established the progno

50 e ADMIRE-HF (AdreView Myocardial Imaging for Risk Evaluation in Heart Failure) study prospectively ev

51 on profiling may have clinical relevance for risk evaluation in MDS at the time of initial diagnosis.

52 t support platelet function testing for MACE risk evaluation in stable cardiovascular patients.

53 biomarkers as a combined panel that improves risk evaluation in the setting of prostate cancer detect

54 pulse control disorder possibly by impairing risk evaluation in the striatum.

55 ake may offer new opportunities for baseline risk evaluation in untreated primary CNS lymphoma.

56 that the current metal-by-metal approach in risk evaluations may not be conservative enough for meta

57 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation model.

58 had a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation of at least 6.

59 Benefit-Risk Evaluation of Diagnostics: A Framework (BED-FRAME)

60 ar filtration rate (GFR) is essential in the risk evaluation of potential kidney donors.

61 , addressing an important concern during the risk evaluation of potential renal transplant donors.

62 s also provide important information for the risk evaluation of potential transfer of drug resistance

63 A benefit-risk evaluation of the evidence for including dairy food

64 time, we present the necessary data for the risk evaluation of thiacloprid taken up chronically by h

65 tical for pilot field testing and ecological risk evaluation of transgenic mosquitoes.

66 anti-HCV-seronegative participants from the Risk Evaluation of Viral Load Elevation and Associated L

67 om 46.1% at baseline, to 69.4% at the stroke risk evaluation phase, to up to 72.6% at the end of the

68 Future studies on risk evaluation, prevention, and postoperative managemen

69 atment Panel III, SCORE [Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation] project, Reynolds Risk Score, ASSIGN [A

70 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score 20.0% [range: 13.6% to 28.8%]), 34

71 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score 23.7%).

72 d, and European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation score was 20.0%+/-11.4%.

73 rt equations (PCEs), and Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) high-risk equation, and 1 model

74 TE and should be included in thromboembolism risk evaluation similar to any acute and severe infectio

75 eartSCORE (Heart Strategies Concentrating on Risk Evaluation) study participants.

76 trols from the DARE (Drug-Induced Arrhythmia Risk Evaluation) study.

77 ractitioner are identified for submission to risk evaluation to examine the sensitivity of results.

78 ed sixty-four families seeking breast cancer risk evaluation were screened for coding region mutation