ライフサイエンスコーパス: sensitivity test

1 performed slightly inferior to baySeq in the sensitivity test.

2 ucose homeostasis evaluated using an insulin sensitivity test.

3 after excluding potential confounders during sensitivity tests.

4 the molecular marker 'Kelch 13' and in vitro sensitivity tests.

5 hown by anxiety-like, nociception, and touch-sensitivity tests.

6 t can fit all the data and satisfy extensive sensitivity tests.

7 ion including VA, color vision, and contrast sensitivity testing.

8 y be useful clinical surrogates for contrast sensitivity testing.

9 d shortening time to result in antimicrobial sensitivity testing.

10 nology perimetry and equivalent noise motion sensitivity testing.

11 icipants were selected randomly for contrast sensitivity testing.

12 itivity test and the Spaeth-Richman Contrast Sensitivity test; (2) a performance based measure: the C

13 The two-step sensitivity test allows for the interpretation, understa

14 coherence tomography, Pelli-Robson Contrast Sensitivity test and the Spaeth-Richman Contrast Sensiti

15 ncluded 327 subjects that underwent contrast sensitivity testing and another 114 subjects for defocus

16 However, power was limited for some of the sensitivity tests and further studies with relevant data

17 important for the interpretation of in vitro sensitivity tests and molecular markers for artemisinin

18 show sensitivity comparable with other high-sensitivity tests and superior specificity, increasing i

19 Contrast sensitivity tests and VF mean deviation were associated

20 ly significant correlations between contrast sensitivity tests and VF mean deviation with VRQoL measu

21 ed, however, in an accompanying prespecified sensitivity test, and further supplementary analyses.

22 tion, retinal imaging, perimetry, full-field sensitivity testing, and pupillometry.

23 color vision test; automated static contrast sensitivity test; and global electroretinography.

24 The contrast sensitivity test appeared to have some advantage in diff

25 These sensitivity tests are used to derive crop model emulator

26 However, sensitivity tests based on pattern correlation analyses

27 icular drusen (RDR) have focused on photopic sensitivity testing but have not specifically assessed s

28 elation between oxacillin disc and automated sensitivity testing, changing epidemiology and methodolo

29 These sensitivity tests confirm that Southern Ocean CREs are s

30 Applying high-sensitivity testing (detection limit approximately 1 in

31 Detailed testing with a vibration sensitivity testing device in a subgroup of 47 women sho

32 ng rifampin resistance using phenotypic drug sensitivity testing (DST) as the reference standard in 3

33 lized chemotherapy selected by in vitro drug sensitivity testing (DST) compared with empiric regimens

34 y relevant time scale some weeks before drug sensitivity testing (DST) data are available, and they a

35 te model spin-up, permit thorough parametric sensitivity tests, enable pool-based data assimilation,

36 High sensitivity testing for C-reactive protein (hsCRP) has r

37 However, sensitivity tests for case-control studies showed a lack

38 d visual acuity, microperimetry, and retinal sensitivity tests for comparison of baseline values with

39 ied clinically and with chromatic full-field sensitivity testing (FST), optical coherence tomography

40 tions, including regenerative medicine, drug sensitivity testing, gene expression profiling and xenog

41 Concerns over the reliability of routine sensitivity testing in coagulase-negative staphylococci

42 hloride, and streptomycin (and rifabutin, if sensitivity testing included it), and, if RFLP testing w

43 Sensitivity tests indicate that the EVT results are rela

44 The two-step sensitivity test is illustrated on a regionalized, nonli

45 Contrast sensitivity testing is assuming a prominent place in our

46 of-seeing curves, was lowest at the abnormal sensitivity test location in the subjects with glaucoma

47 ged by approximately 90 msec in the abnormal sensitivity test location of patients with glaucoma comp

48 ty in tests of moderately damaged and normal sensitivity test locations in subjects with glaucoma.

49 Drug sensitivity testing of CTC lines with multiple mutations

50 Antibiotic sensitivity testing of Salmonella isolates was performed

51 ion of LmCYP51B and LbCYP51B, with fungicide sensitivity testing of the transformants, suggests that

52 Fungicide sensitivity testing on isolates shows that they sometime

53 of high tuberculosis burden should have drug-sensitivity testing on isolates to ensure appropriate tr

54 ften not detected in the standard antibiotic sensitivity tests performed in clinical laboratories.

55 cal treatment prior to receipt of individual sensitivity testing results.

56 A devaluation sensitivity test revealed that both groups could inhibit

57 The sensitivity test revealed that the proposed sensor has a

58 Subsequent drug sensitivity testing revealed over 100-fold increase of c

59 Sensitivity tests show that uncertainty of Cnu dep was l

60 The sensitivity test showed that upon the addition of target

61 ate conditions, reproducing mean yields from sensitivity test simulations with deviations of ca. 2% f

62 Sensitivity tests suggest that LGM ELAs could have persi

63 The sensitivity tests suggest that the results are robust to

64 A range of sensitivity tests suggests that these results are robust

65 From Dam methylation and HindIII sensitivity tests, the methylation loci were predicted t

66 ddition, all patients underwent cough reflex sensitivity testing to citric acid, and 66 patients unde

67 egies and test characteristics, such as test sensitivity, test turnaround time, and testing interval,

68 Sensitivity testing using serially diluted DNA conjugate

69 Antimicrobial sensitivity testing was carried out by the standard prot

70 Initial specificity and sensitivity testing was performed using stored known T.

71 In vitro acyclovir sensitivity testing was performed using the dye uptake a

72 per minute (KITT) during intravenous insulin sensitivity tests was identical in the CDP571 and placeb

73 rasite clearance half-life and in vitro drug sensitivity testing were performed using standard method

74 Sensitivity tests were conducted to examine the robustne

75 ntraperitoneal glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity tests were performed to assess glycemic func

76 Sensitivity tests yielded consistent findings after we e