ライフサイエンスコーパス: specimen collection

1 s the 6 seasons, 6837 died within 30 days of specimen collection.

2 503 individuals were enrolled and underwent specimen collection.

3 the 6 seasons, 6,837 died within 30 days of specimen collection.

4 vaccinated at age 18-26 or >=2 years before specimen collection.

5 ible to completely do away with whole animal specimen collection.

6 versations about the ethical implications of specimen collection.

7 2 or more COVID-19 symptoms within 7 days of specimen collection.

8 tionnaire-based measurement and serial nasal specimen collection.

9 e on or after the day before case diagnostic specimen collection.

10 ormed 7 days before or 2 days after invasive specimen collection.

11 or 2 doses >=7 days before illness onset or specimen collection.

12 techniques used for clinical measurements or specimen collection.

13 rom controls who received antibiotics before specimen collection.

14 ptable results obtained up to 72 hours after specimen collection.

15 oup had dHSV PCR results reported <4 h after specimen collection.

16 by a record of antibiotic treatment prior to specimen collection.

17 isolation from AFP cases with known month of specimen collection.

18 (69%) received OPV 3-106 months before stool specimen collection.

19 ive PCR results if there are delays in stool specimen collection.

20 221V infection received oseltamivir prior to specimen collection.

21 ly 1 patient had received oseltamivir before specimen collection.

22 m its intrinsic nature and not from improper specimen collection.

23 ipation consistently, including for biologic specimen collection.

24 SARS-CoV-2 positive test results by date of specimen collection, 0-2 d ahead of the percentage of po

25 the percentage of positive tests by date of specimen collection, 1-4 d ahead of local hospital admis

26 and infant pairs (median age at the time of specimen collection, 40 days; range, 1-331 days), 52 (43

27 tely HCV-infected subjects (mean duration of specimen collection, 72 months after seroconversion).

28 of 471 encounters were managed with a single specimen collection (94.9% urine), with 12.7% positive f

29 acronym for real-time connectivity, ease of specimen collection, affordable, sensitive, specific, us

30 ll require a paradigm shift in trial design, specimen collection and analysis.

31 at the same time, providing efficiencies of specimen collection and characterization.

32 ssaging promoted rapid ARI/ILI reporting and specimen collection and could represent a promising appr

33 traditional criteria for diagnostic corneal specimen collection and culture were randomized to the o

34 Sensitivity varied by timing of specimen collection and DENV serotype.

35 Recommendations for specimen collection and handling have been developed for

36 To determine the effects of specimen collection and handling procedures on quantitat

37 meant to promote identifiable standards for specimen collection and handling within and across breas

38 fined catchment population and adjusting for specimen collection and healthcare-seeking practices.

39 Ease of oral specimen collection and increased PCR availability sugge

40 ecimens should be processed within 30 min of specimen collection and maintained at 37 degrees C, sinc

41 the development of innovative solutions for specimen collection and molecular detection for large-sc

42 Greater emphasis on fecal specimen collection and overcoming barriers to pursuing

43 copy number values obtained with suboptimal specimen collection and processing procedures.

44 Our goal was to devise methods for specimen collection and processing that preserve HIF-1al

45 An HIV-1 DNA PCR assay with simple specimen collection and processing was developed and eva

46 not included in the study due to issues with specimen collection and processing.

47 due to limitations in case ascertainment and specimen collection and processing.

48 We determined time between specimen collection and recording of VL in patient chart

49 xamination; blood, urine, and cervicovaginal specimen collection and repository; laboratory assays; a

50 test increased with increasing time between specimen collection and testing.

51 In communities facing a delay between specimen collection and the reporting of test results, i

52 are molecular assays employed at the site of specimen collection and the Simplexa assays demonstrated

53 d vaccination history were documented during specimen collection and through query of the state SARS-

54 new nylon-flocked swab designed to optimize specimen collection and to minimize entrapment of the sp

55 Neisseria gonorrhoeae because of the ease of specimen collection and transport.

56 bridge the laboratory test with patient-side specimen collection and transportation for molecular mic

57 s the importance of standardized methods for specimen collection and viral load quantitation.

58 ementation of a Common Protocol for data and specimen collection, and are poised to address this crit

59 frequency of antibiotic use, microbiological specimen collection, and bacterial isolation by diagnosi

60 ng for patient age, race, ethnicity, week of specimen collection, and county of residence.

61 With its large sample size, extensive specimen collection, and deep phenotyping of AD and ED g

62 on that prevented trachoma grading or ocular specimen collection, and have a guardian who could provi

63 ls of clinician involvement, facility types, specimen collection, and laboratory techniques.

64 e of assays between studies, difficulties in specimen collection, and problems in interpreting the pr

65 ive fungal biomarkers, the need for invasive specimen collection, and the limitations of culture and

66 od, subgingival plaque, and crevicular fluid specimen collection; and medical and dental histories.

67 = 87%) and those vaccinated >=2 years before specimen collection (aPR = 0.52; 95% CI, .42-.64; VE = 4

68 = 32%) and those vaccinated >=2 years before specimen collection (aPR = 0.66; 95% CI, .57-.77; VE = 3

69 in the subgroup vaccinated >=2 years before specimen collection (aPR = 0.71; 95% CI, .56-.89; VE = 2

70 rs (131 875 [81%]) opted for home laboratory specimen collection as part of their care.

71 However, maternal daily DOT and specimen collection at drug concentration steady state p

72 mmunity-dwelling adults >= 70 years old with specimen collection between 4 April (epidemiological wee

73 g removes the need for medical personnel for specimen collection but facilitates specimen referral to

74 y receipt of a single-dose >= 21 days before specimen collection, but a range of intervals was assess

75 microbial resistance, but typically requires specimen collection by clinicians.

76 Immediately following specimen collection by patients, a trained clinician obt

77 test results, indicating risk-prone invasive specimen collection can be safely curtailed in immunocom

78 ty performs well regardless of the method of specimen collection (Cervex-Brush or Cytobrush/spatula)

79 If participants met prespecified specimen collection criteria, we collected nasopharyngea

80 PD detection), day 0 through day 7 after IPD specimen collection (current IPD), day 8 to 28 after IPD

81 the reporting of the symptom onset date and specimen collection date for confirmed positive cases.

82 dent) identified more than 30 days after the specimen collection date for the SARS-CoV-2 test with a

83 continuously enrolled from 2006 through the specimen collection date were analyzed.

84 ve controls on age, sex, race/ethnicity, and specimen collection date.

85 = 0.26] or interaction between treatment and specimen collection day [B: -0.003 (-0.09, 0.09); P = 0.

86 agnostics) was evaluated as a nasopharyngeal specimen collection device to be used for methicillin-re

87 ted with blood, serum, and plasma spotted on specimen collection devices (cards) which were extracted

88 tigation of A-226 and M-TFN filter papers as specimen collection devices for HIVDR monitoring surveys

89 these assays can be used with FDA-registered specimen collection devices to obtain quantitative measu

90 Early specimen collection did not improve viral detection rate

91 s or symptoms in the 14 days before positive specimen collection (ENTM: 62, 91.2%; PNTM: 201, 87.0%).

92 ansmission studies with rapid enrollment and specimen collection for 14 days, 61% (43/70) of primary

93 Specimen collection for COVID-19 testing was conducted i

94 eaction (LCR) have the potential to simplify specimen collection for gonorrhea diagnosis.

95 minations included cervical and vulvovaginal specimen collection for Pap and HPV DNA testing.

96 l, calendar time, time from illness onset to specimen collection, frailty score, and Charlson comorbi

97 ealthcare providers is critical for adequate specimen collection from modified varicella cases.

98 t a technology that enables individual stool specimen collection from toilet wastewater for fecal pro

99 tobacco/alcohol consumption, sex practices, specimen collection, HPV detection, and population type

100 In our UTI and rectal specimen collections, hra was positively associated with

101 tro inoculation of pig corneas and following specimen collection in patients with presumed bacterial

102 Differences in the timing of specimen collection in pregnancy, selective culture meth

103 kidney allograft recipients for serial fecal specimen collections in the first 3 months of transplant

104 tions are a feasible alternative to cervical specimen collections in this population, and the use of

105 ible to completely do away with whole animal specimen collection, inviting open conversations about t

106 iates the necessity of multiple and wasteful specimen collection is high on the wish-list of practici

107 h completing each survey and returning a HIV specimen collection kit.

108 From August to December 2020, we mailed specimen collection kits (nasal swabs and blood spots) t

109 Specimen collection kits were distributed to clinics in

110 ctious agents potentially implicated in CSA, specimen collection, laboratory test modalities, and lab

111 linearity, and analytical sensitivity across specimen collection matrices (serum, EDTA, ACD-A), and h

112 with breakthrough infections occurring after specimen collection (median, 5.9; 95% CI, 3.7-11.1) comp

113 ulture were randomized to the order of first specimen collection method: ESwab or a sample directly p

114 monstrate the utility of both the STM and PC specimen collection methods and show good agreement betw

115 We assessed the performance of alternative specimen collection methods for tuberculosis diagnosis i

116 ver, these assays may often require invasive specimen collection methods, such as female cervical and

117 Due to the ease of specimen collection, NP swabs may be preferable for the

118 guanide can inhibit PCR, and we suggest that specimen collection occur prior to topical treatment to

119 to evaluate the impact of increased biologic specimen collection on participation.

120 Specimen collection order did not appear to affect the d

121 h public health, enables safe evaluation and specimen collection outside the healthcare setting, avoi

122 ial toilet were used to demonstrate reliable specimen collection over a wide range of stool consisten

123 sed with longer durations of symptoms before specimen collection (P=.01).

124 lection (current IPD), day 8 to 28 after IPD specimen collection (post-IPD), and a control period (al

125 we examine epidemiological characteristics, specimen collection practices, and cycle threshold (Ct)

126 sessment included the 7 to 1 days before IPD specimen collection (pre-IPD detection), day 0 through d

127 ns unknown about the impact of variations in specimen collection, processing protocols, and populatio

128 Timing of specimen collection relative to onset of illness or infe

129 We used a prospective specimen collection, retrospective, blinded evaluation d

130 We conducted a prospective-specimen collection, retrospective-blinded-evaluation ph

131 especified analysis, blinded per prospective-specimen-collection, retrospective-blinded-evaluation (P

132 illness onset date, race, days from onset to specimen collection, self-reported health, and self-repo

133 Considering the timing of specimen collection, serology results, patient vaccinati

134 Taking into consideration, the simplicity of specimen collection, shortage of PPE and the transmissib

135 A tiered system based on specimen collection sites and diagnoses was used to attr

136 nt proportion of women at different anatomic specimen collection sites.

137 classic annual climate niche, averaged over specimen collection sites; 2) growing season niche, from

138 l laboratory validation studies, including a specimen collection sourced from four continents and a d

139 ed due to logistical obstacles around plasma specimen collection, storage, and transport to centraliz

140 The specimen collection studied here is extremely valuable a

141 To determine the optimal timing of stool specimen collection, studies of wild and vaccine poliovi

142 y to the fraction of the cohort selected for specimen collection subject to constraining the risk mod

143 The simplicity of specimen collection suggests that saliva offers a practi

144 culture reports with respect to the order of specimen collection technique used.

145 dized case definitions, clinical procedures, specimen collection techniques, and laboratory methods h

146 MPS) network to guarantee standardization of specimen collection techniques, procedures, and laborato

147 ibacillary nature, and the need for invasive specimen collection techniques.

148 Two alternative specimen collection technologies appear promising and ca

149 Testers received intensive training on specimen collection, testing, and results reporting.

150 encountered challenges in test delivery and specimen collection that have inhibited rapid increases

151 when whole blood was processed within 2 h of specimen collection the levels of HIV-1 RNA detected in

152 After proper specimen collection, the specimen was immediately inocul

153 irst consider alternative anatomic sites for specimen collection, then discuss self-collection, alter

154 Organism type, specimen collection time, and hospital teaching status i

155 nted the predominant lineages circulating at specimen collection time, and people with those infectio

156 The mean time from specimen collection to acyclovir discontinuation was 17.

157 In 9 locations, the median time from specimen collection to contact notification was 6 days o

158 The median time from index case specimen collection to contact notification was calculat

159 history, physical examination, and clinical specimen collection to determine if they had polio.

160 specimen submitted for PSQ, median time from specimen collection to MDR-TB treatment initiation was 1

161 MTBDRplus diagnostic shortened the time from specimen collection to patient MDR tuberculosis therapy

162 We calculated time from specimen collection to phenotypic second-line DST result

163 Times from specimen collection to reporting of organism ID/AST were

164 esting (DST) may take 4 weeks or longer from specimen collection to the availability of results.

165 ean time interval of 5.69 +/- 0.37 days from specimen collection to the availability of RT-PCR result

166 ly species, sampled from 90 countries and 28 specimen collections, to reconstruct a new phylogenomic

167 costs and logistical constraints involved in specimen collection, transport, storage, and laboratory

168 Important factors, such as specimen collection, urinalysis interpretation, culture

169 73 (Moderna covid-19 vaccine) 14 days before specimen collection versus no covid-19 vaccination.

170 time from Ebola treatment unit discharge to specimen collection was 142 days (IQR 127-159).

171 Median time from symptom onset to first specimen collection was 15 days (range, 6-45) for ICU pa

172 ian number of days between illness onset and specimen collection was 9.

173 Enhanced specimen collection was conducted to salvage clinical re

174 After specimen collection, we describe our 60-min rapid bead-b

175 from participants who became infected after specimen collection were compared with those without inf

176 al blinded study visit and consented to anal specimen collection were included in the analysis (4210

177 laboratory surveillance could be improved if specimen collection were simplified.

178 A and the added diagnostic value of invasive specimen collection when non-invasive mold cfDNA PCR is

179 cause definitive diagnosis requires invasive specimen collection, while noninvasive testing with gala

180 onvalescence (7 weeks +/- 1 week post-ARTI), specimen collection will be repeated.

181 while allowing for a more accessible form of specimen collection with the potential for self-collecti