ライフサイエンスコーパス: risk stratification

1 ificant portal hypertension (for presurgical risk stratification).

2 phase 1 and phase 2 (formal introduction of risk stratification).

3 rm as well for early postdischarge mortality risk stratification.

4 7 genes, including EZH2 and MEF2B, improves risk stratification.

5 c analysis might be useful for diagnosis and risk stratification.

6 clinical decision making and further refine risk stratification.

7 vel prognostic markers are needed to improve risk stratification.

8 e pulmonary arterial hypertension to improve risk stratification.

9 e- and post-TAVR may help to improve patient risk stratification.

10 troversial and is mainly based on individual risk stratification.

11 uent years, regardless of the initial IGCCCG risk stratification.

12 nced subclinical coronary atherosclerosis in risk stratification.

13 or death compared with traditional clinical risk stratification.

14 y attractive adjunct for prognostication and risk stratification.

15 ntify MVP patients who would need arrhythmic risk stratification.

16 ght the important role that ANNs can play in risk stratification.

17 provide incremental prognostic value in the risk stratification.

18 the revised International Staging System for risk stratification.

19 onstrated to improve diagnostic accuracy and risk stratification.

20 and SOX11 immunohistochemistry might improve risk stratification.

21 ombine standardized processes and individual risk stratification.

22 pretransplant cardiovascular evaluation and risk stratification.

23 1) performed prior to formal introduction of risk stratification.

24 could potentially aid in surgical timing and risk stratification.

25 tance of NSVT in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy risk stratification.

26 s with decompensated HFpEF may be useful for risk stratification.

27 accurate presurgical diagnosis, staging, and risk stratification.

28 V EF <45%) may be implemented in noninvasive risk stratification.

29 y and cost-effectiveness of this approach to risk stratification.

30 standard in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) for risk stratification.

31 We examined the risk-stratification ability of the prediction model and

32 this response may be developed as a tool for risk stratification after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorr

33 ouraged, and the emergency department used a risk stratification algorithm derived from a local datab

34 ney allocation programs and in immunological risk stratification algorithms.

35 ssues, including a need for improved patient risk stratification, alternative diagnostic and surveill

36 may use this finding as a guide for uveitis risk stratification among patients with different inflam

37 The importance of appropriate patients' risk stratification and a more comprehensive approach to

38 tifying novel risk factors may allow greater risk stratification and a steady, but gradual progressio

39 Limitations: Data on risk stratification and achievable PrEP efficacy levels

40 become increasingly precise through improved risk stratification and advances in magnetic resonance a

41 surgical patients comparing CCDSSs with VTE risk stratification and assistance in ordering prophylax

42 Identification of this phenotype expands risk stratification and can lead to effective treatment

43 Risk stratification and careful follow-up of such patien

44 using standardized nomenclature for seizure risk stratification and clinical decision making.

45 This finding may improve risk stratification and could be used to guide therapy i

46 replication and may allow for future patient risk stratification and customization of immune suppress

47 e as novel blood surrogate markers for early risk stratification and CVD prevention.

48 ity cardiac troponin testing may improve the risk stratification and diagnosis of myocardial infarcti

49 s in MBC and may have clinical usefulness in risk stratification and disease monitoring.

50 urs of arrival, and directions for combining risk stratification and electrocardiographic and troponi

51 with nonvariceal lesions have been used for risk stratification and endoscopic hemostasis.

52 For questions of risk stratification and evaluation, we updated systemati

53 s will be performed to confirm their role in risk stratification and guidance of clinical management.

54 ate biomarkers have the potential to improve risk stratification and guide treatment decisions for HB

55 ents with advanced GCT could improve current risk stratification and identify novel therapeutic appro

56 onalized medicine by enabling individualized risk stratification and immunosuppression through the id

57 stead of the CHADS2 score for thromboembolic risk stratification and initiation of oral anticoagulati

58 and matrix remodeling, could improve patient risk stratification and lead to a reduction in abdominal

59 600E and wild-type BRAF when applying age to risk stratification and management of PTC.

60 and CFR, IMR has superior clinical value for risk stratification and may be considered a reference te

61 s that may lead to important developments in risk stratification and may inform future drug design an

62 opic probe monitoring of blood flow improves risk stratification and outcomes in patients with severe

63 ex has the potential to improve sudden death risk stratification and patient selection for prophylact

64 l for use with patient material for clinical risk stratification and personalized medicine.

65 NM groupings proposed here for more accurate risk stratification and potential treatment selection.

66 ve short-term approaches aimed at preemptive risk stratification and prevention are needed.

67 This has the potential to improve risk stratification and selection of patients who may be

68 dual disease are expected to further improve risk stratification and selection of postremission thera

69 lication and holds translational value in DR risk stratification and the development of new therapeut

70 ization of multimodality imaging to optimize risk stratification and therapeutic decision-making proc

71 cal and molecular factors have helped refine risk stratification and therapies that have led to impro

72 Finally, we offer recommendations on risk stratification and therapy for patients with concom

73 sults suggest that the use of response-based risk stratification and therapy intensification abrogate

74 nts to be used in the outpatient setting for risk stratification and to guide preoperative pulmonary

75 Depending on the initial risk stratification and tolerance to re-exposure, patien

76 threshold of clinical utility in regards to risk stratification and treatment of patients at risk of

77 STEMI patients and could be used to optimize risk stratification and treatment of these patients.

78 V-6 could guide donor selection and post-HCT risk stratification and treatment.

79 an important metric for systematic clinical risk stratification and treatment.

80 cally significant subgroups improves disease risk-stratification and could inform treatment decisions

81 can aid in monitoring response to treatment, risk stratification, and assessing prognosis.

82 being used to inform disease classification, risk stratification, and clinical care of patients.

83 Future research should focus on prevention, risk stratification, and identification of the mechanism

84 regarding their classification, prevalence, risk stratification, and management.

85 cific disease conditions, autonomic testing, risk stratification, and neuromodulatory strategies to m

86 In contrast, age, weight group, risk stratification, and nonabsorbable antibiotics had s

87 th emphasis on their role in HF phenotyping, risk stratification, and optimizing clinical outcomes.

88 global" issues such as diagnosis of disease, risk stratification, and paradigms of disease, and ultim

89 in early cancer detection, immediate patient risk stratification, and prompt personalized treatment.

90 ression adjusted for sex, age, weight group, risk stratification, and prophylactic antibiotics was us

91 e, provide a framework for tumor staging and risk stratification, and select candidates for adjuvant

92 as a potential tool to assist in diagnosis, risk stratification, and therapeutic decision-making.

93 Thus, staging, risk stratification, and treatment approaches for germ-c

94 tential to improve tumor detection, grading, risk stratification, and treatment monitoring of gliomas

95 ection fraction remain central to diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment, but other aspects of

96 Conclusion The risk stratification approach in SPLC can be potentially

97 The optimal cardiovascular risk stratification approach in this evolving patient po

98 tatement recommends the following actions: a risk stratification approach should be used for future l

99 In a risk stratification approach with classification and reg

100 development of best practices in screening, risk stratification approaches and postmortem evaluation

101 Treating PE requires appropriate risk stratification as a first step.

102 reinforce the usefulness of 30-day mortality risk stratification as a surrogate for long-term outcome

103 haracters as markers of surveillance and for risk stratification at diagnosis.

104 sought to assess the safety and efficacy of risk stratification based on the severity of the initial

105 Risk stratification based on the severity of the initial

106 view recent data regarding opportunities for risk stratification before GE, with a particular focus o

107 new approach to patient care that focuses on risk stratification (both high and low risk); and furthe

108 any tools have been previously described for risk stratification, but few target elective surgical ca

109 Risk stratification by F8 mutation does not identify pat

110 We investigated whether risk stratification by F8 mutation identifies patients w

111 Risk stratification can be performed with good accuracy

112 Importance: An improved model for risk stratification can be useful for guiding public hea

113 However, survival remains poor and accurate risk stratification challenging.

114 cularly directed to CMV-IE1, offers superior risk stratification compared with CMV serostatus alone.

115 nal prognostic factors demonstrated improved risk stratification compared with those generated with c

116 ents a unique opportunity for individualized risk stratification coupled with the investigation of no

117 on the basis of current guidelines, patient risk stratification criteria, and previous experience, l

118 nvasive and readily accessible biomarker for risk stratification, diagnosis and prognosis of cardiac

119 disease severity, with their future role in risk stratification/disease prediction speculative at be

120 Risk stratification, early diagnosis, and appropriate in

121 ance of nonobstructive LM plaque may augment risk stratification efforts.

122 Risk stratification for acute pulmonary embolism using i

123 genetic basis may lead to the refinement of risk stratification for affected patients and relatives.

124 ating anti-JCV antibody index allows further risk stratification for anti-JCV antibody-positive patie

125 nant ventricular arrhythmias, the gene-based risk stratification for cardiac complications remains un

126 T cells, however, needs to be implemented in risk stratification for CMV replication.

127 For more than a decade, risk stratification for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy has

128 erse pathophysiologic mechanisms may improve risk stratification for incident or progressive diabetic

129 ver the last 30 years allow for more precise risk stratification for infants at high risk of serious

130 and characterization may improve individual risk stratification for kidney allograft loss.

131 importance of preoperative and postoperative risk stratification for kidney disease and the implement

132 e frailty phenotype may be needed to improve risk stratification for KT recipients.

133 Risk stratification for long-term management is based pr

134 The management of pancreatic cysts requires risk stratification for malignant potential based on the

135 er, both LA volume and strain further refine risk stratification for new-onset AF.

136 er-defibrillator highlight the importance of risk stratification for patient management.

137 To assess the effect of preoperative risk stratification for phacoemulsification surgery on i

138 Preoperative prognostic factors and risk stratification for postoperative LD.

139 the first and third months, suggesting that risk stratification for SCD should occur early in the po

140 al fibrillation (AF) patients to be based on risk stratification for stroke.

141 IPSS70-plus provide complementary systems of risk stratification for transplantation-age patients wit

142 may be a noninvasive, inexpensive marker for risk stratification, for identifying participants at the

143 These results suggest that risk stratification from baseline ulcer characteristics

144 These findings should facilitate risk stratification, guide appropriate patient referral

145 maging/MR cholangiopancreatography, and ASGE risk stratification guidelines for diagnostic evaluation

146 ociety for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) risk stratification guidelines versus magnetic resonance

147 Assays for risk stratification have focused mainly on response pred

148 Precision medicine using individualized VTE risk stratification helps ensure that chemoprophylaxis i

149 ardiac biomarker staging system that enables risk stratification in an era of emerging treatment stra

150 Risk stratification in asymptomatic patients remains by

151 we review the applicability and validity of risk stratification in autoimmune cholestatic liver dise

152 triuretic peptide to clinical parameters for risk stratification in cardiogenic shock.

153 Risk stratification in childhood T-cell acute lymphoblas

154 We have created a unified global approach to risk stratification in children with hepatoblastoma on t

155 We have created a unified global approach to risk stratification in children with hepatoblastoma on t

156 risk score was created to enable prospective risk stratification in clinical care.

157 e strategies have been routinely adopted for risk stratification in clinical practice.

158 ide prognostication in clinical practice and risk stratification in clinical studies.

159 HDGF may add additional value in PAH risk stratification in clinical trials and may represent

160 erning patient prognosis and enable baseline risk stratification in clinical trials.

161 s a valid instrument for risk adjustment and risk stratification in contemporary patients with acute

162 pid species as biomarkers for cardiovascular risk stratification in diabetes mellitus.

163 ues' accompanying research study on refining risk stratification in early prostate cancer.

164 e used for patient eligibility assessment or risk stratification in future clinical trials and to ide

165 c factor for ML-DS patients, can be used for risk stratification in future clinical trials.

166 in unilateral FHWTs and may be used to guide risk stratification in future studies.

167 Combining iPET with TMTV improves risk stratification in individual patients.

168 s echocardiography may be helpful to enhance risk stratification in low LV ejection fraction, low-gra

169 ide a review of the literature that concerns risk stratification in patients with ARVC and to place t

170 rt studies examining noninvasive or invasive risk stratification in patients with asymptomatic pre-ex

171 Risk stratification in patients with stable ischemic hea

172 R tissue characterization provides effective risk stratification in patients with suspected myocardit

173 Strategies to improve risk stratification in patients with type 2 diabetes, wi

174 med to define long-term outcomes and explore risk stratification in patients with type 2 myocardial i

175 ty for patient counseling, study design, and risk stratification in PTCL.

176 ulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for risk stratification in renal transplant patients still r

177 ing interpretation of ABM clinical trials by risk stratification in resource-poor settings.

178 Risk stratification in the context of sudden cardiac dea

179 phic cardiomyopathy and may help to optimize risk stratification in these patients.

180 of creating a common approach to staging and risk stratification in this rare cancer.

181 r non-invasive accurate cancer detection and risk-stratification in precision healthcare.

182 Risk stratification including genetic testing and counse

183 etic peptide and LV-GLS provided synergistic risk stratification, independent of established factors.

184 f cardiac vagal modulation, provides cardiac risk stratification information.

185 Although risk stratification is an important goal of cardiac noni

186 Early risk stratification is crucial to make adequate treatmen

187 ute coronary syndrome is high, and objective risk stratification is needed for rational use of advanc

188 Better risk stratification is needed to improve care and should

189 Further risk stratification is required to improve outcomes and

190 Risk stratification is the cornerstone for clinical deci

191 HD) risk; however, their contribution to CHD risk stratification is uncertain.

192 usal for disease and might serve as a useful risk stratification marker.

193 tested the hypothesis that atherothrombotic risk stratification may be useful to identify post-ACS p

194 MMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Individualized VTE risk stratification may identify high risk surgical pati

195 to ascertain whether this additional step in risk stratification may improve prevention efforts and r

196 nt with common clinical measures of fibrosis risk stratification merits further investigation.

197 A risk stratification model (RSM) for DM was created using

198 A prognostic risk stratification model based on preselected variables

199 VERE-based mortality probability to derive a risk stratification model for 28-day mortality using cla

200 nostic significance of these factors and the risk stratification model in this population.

201 to develop and externally validate a pretest risk stratification model.

202 sex, and ethnicity should be considered in a risk stratification model.

203 with CLD, long-term outcomes are unknown and risk stratification models do not reflect severity of CL

204 Risk stratification models were designed based on known

205 undreds of SNPs), yielding clinically useful risk stratification models, as well as identifying impor

206 e results confirm that clinically useful MDD risk-stratification models can be generated from baselin

207 Risk-stratification models, such as the Readmission Afte

208 eral major trends, including improvements in risk stratification, more widespread use of an invasive

209 losing genetic predisposition to high BP for risk stratification needs careful evaluation.

210 The diagnosis and risk stratification of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) prim

211 ults, the optimal anthropometric approach to risk stratification of AF remains uncertain.

212 usefulness of electrophysiological study for risk stratification of asymptomatic patients with Brugad

213 rs and gene mutations significantly improves risk stratification of CMML patients, providing a robust

214 ing for gene mutations would further improve risk stratification of CMML patients.

215 ing role of (18)F-FDG PET for assessment and risk stratification of cognitive impairment in PD.

216 l modeling may complement plaque imaging for risk stratification of coronary nonculprit lesions.

217 may be utilized as rapid beside modality for risk stratification of critically ill patients.

218 ces in diagnosis can improve recognition and risk stratification of delirium.

219 Neither DS nor risk stratification of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma pat

220 potential measure of tumor burden to aid in risk stratification of early unfavorable HL patients.

221 and overall survival that may be useful for risk stratification of high-risk prostate cancer patient

222 TION: Our findings support the usefulness of risk stratification of paediatric patients with Crohn's

223 used as a major mortality risk factor in the risk stratification of papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), b

224 isk atherosclerotic plaques is important for risk stratification of patients and stabilization therap

225 sment of RV function may be important in the risk stratification of patients undergoing transcatheter

226 their pathogenic function could help in the risk stratification of patients with APS and provide new

227 clinically relevant as they may help in the risk stratification of patients with RTS and also in the

228 rain (LV-GLS) and exercise stress testing in risk stratification of patients with significant mitral

229 are being increasingly used in diagnosis and risk stratification of patients with suspected ACS.

230 of lactate levels may have utility in early risk stratification of pediatric sepsis.

231 ates and that these biomarkers could improve risk stratification of poor outcomes.

232 e important implications in donor screening, risk stratification of recipients, monitoring, and proph

233 Ultrasound (SRU) consensus guidelines in the risk stratification of symptomatic and asymptomatic adne

234 UNX1, ASXL1, and TP53-have been added in the risk stratification of the 2017 European LeukemiaNet rec

235 -Gd3N@C80 may provide accurate detection and risk-stratification of high-risk tumours for precision h

236 Proper management of UGIB requires risk-stratification of patients which can guide the type

237 Thus, the identification and risk-stratification of patients with HIV and NAFLD are b

238 uninfected population would suggest that the risk stratification offered by partial HPV genotyping te

239 for allograft loss lacks accurate individual risk stratification on the basis of donor-specific anti-

240 Patients may benefit from risk stratification on the basis of the burden of lung m

241 This study highlights the need for improved risk stratification on the basis of urgency because oper

242 for identification of candidates for further risk stratification or other management strategies to im

243 inties and no reliable methods of individual risk stratification, patients must be continually monito

244 accurate tool for predicting recurrence and risk-stratification pre- and postoperatively.

245 copic ultrasound as part of the preoperative risk stratification process.

246 but existing data support a more aggressive risk stratification protocol for patients of advanced ag

247 of the Ki-67 index and MIPI showed a refined risk stratification, reflecting their strong complementa

248 equires monitoring of adherence, appropriate risk stratification, risk-based immunosuppression intens

249 Risk stratification scales for PAH are now available at

250 determined whether its addition to clinical risk stratification schemes improved event-risk predicti

251 risk-factors, outperformed existing disease risk-stratification schemes.

252 To identify a risk stratification score based on baseline and operativ

253 igh CMB burden may be included in individual risk stratification scores predicting sICH risk followin

254 part of the care team and conducting ongoing risk stratification screening and intervention to optimi

255 macrophage activation syndrome for mortality risk stratification should be undertaken to confirm the

256 Clinical, pathologic, and molecular risk stratification should be used to refine treatment r

257 nt in paper or electronic format, structured risk stratification, specified time points for electroca

258 In particular, expanded contemporary risk stratification strategies have led to a more reliab

259 In the training set, the new risk stratification system identified distinct subgroups

260 ystem outperforms the standard three-stratum risk stratification system in predicting the risk of PCS

261 A novel and simple five-stratum risk stratification system outperforms the standard thre

262 Using this approach, a new five-stratum risk stratification system was produced, and its prognos

263 A simple preoperative risk stratification system, based on standard patient in

264 In comparison to the current risk stratification system, the new system demonstrated

265 ion of a risk score (M-score of 0-8) using a risk stratification system.

266 0.63-0.69) (p < 0.0001) for the current NICE risk stratification system.

267 ication that has yet to be included within a risk stratification system.

268 after TEVAR is possible using a preoperative risk-stratification system.

269 herefore, preoperative assessment using such risk stratification systems could assist individual info

270 n the allocation and development of improved risk stratification systems is required to reduce wait-l

271 case using the Muhtaseb and Buckinghamshire risk stratification systems.

272 ure trials will be characterised by improved risk-stratification systems, biomarkers for response and

273 itivity of troponin concentrations below the risk stratification threshold (5 ng/L) at presentation w

274 Biomarker risk stratification thus challenges the traditional diff

275 rical therapy in high-risk FN, refinement of risk stratification to define patients with high-risk in

276 TBI, providing a rationale for immunological risk stratification to improve targeting of LTBI treatme

277 To implement CMR imaging in noninvasive risk stratification to predict major adverse clinical ou

278 From initial phenotyping and risk stratification to providing vital data for guiding

279 n I threshold of 5 ng/L at presentation as a risk stratification tool in patients with suspected acut

280 The HEART score risk stratification tool that merges troponin testing in

281 icular ejection fraction remains the primary risk stratification tool used in the selection of patien

282 ention (TRS 2 degrees P) is a simple 9-point risk stratification tool, previously developed in a larg

283 e aimed to develop and internally validate a risk-stratification tool incorporating the Decipher scor

284 CR), which were then used to develop a novel risk-stratification tool.

285 tology and adjuvant therapy recommendations, risk stratification tools and proposed Oncotype DX RS th

286 of effective, low-cost, and noninvasive SCD risk stratification tools is necessary.

287 Online may be used as risk stratification tools; and age, menopausal status, a

288 ddition of pi-GST to the SOFA score improved risk stratification (total net reclassification index =

289 I, II, III, and IV as our stems, we created risk stratification trees based on 5 year event-free sur

290 Future risk stratification using a polymodal approach could com

291 Preoperative risk stratification using molecular markers also may be

292 te the feasibility and accuracy of real-time risk stratification using the electronic Cardiac Arrest

293 Atherothrombotic risk stratification using the TRS 2 degrees P identifies

294 Objective: To evaluate combined risk stratification utility of common low penetrant sing

295 Baseline IGCCCG risk stratification was not associated with long-term CO

296 e whether molecular biomarkers could improve risk stratification, we assessed 1q status and other pot

297 The existing evidence suggests risk stratification with an electrophysiological study o

298 ein and mRNA biomarkers to provide mortality risk stratification with possible clinical utility.

299 ognizance of this heterogeneity might inform risk stratification with regard to the balance between i

300 f cytology and growth pattern and to improve risk stratification with the Ki-67 index and MIPI.