ライフサイエンスコーパス: technologist

1 ever, labor-intensive and requires a skilled technologist.

2 anual analysis by a trained image-processing technologist.

3 anual analysis by a trained image-processing technologist.

4 applied by a highly trained image-processing technologist.

5 initially performed by a US or a mammography technologist.

6 those of a 1987 survey of general radiologic technologists.

7 ey was mailed randomly to 5,000 mammographic technologists.

8 h the results obtained by trained laboratory technologists.

9 55 of 64 participants (86%) referred by two technologists.

10 M jasmonic acid) can be recommended for food technologists.

11 level of difficulty in maintaining qualified technologists.

12 es of radiologists and certified mammography technologists.

13 The survey was mailed to 452 full-time chief technologists.

14 , like 10, contain traps for unwary decision technologists.

15 ancers (n = 251) were diagnosed among 75,494 technologists (1.3 million person-years; mean follow-up

16 tive cultures falsely called negative by the technologist, 1,616 were identified as containing border

17 Within a large cohort of U.S. radiologic technologists, 150 provided a blood sample for whole chr

18 onwide cohort of 56,042 female US radiologic technologists (1983-1998) who responded to two questionn

19 ires were returned by 236 (52%) of 452 chief technologists; 219 (93%) respondents, 176 (80%) in priva

20 Laboratory technologists (22%) developed infections with Shigella s

21 radiation dosimeter readings from 4 nuclear technologists, 4 nurses, and 2 administrative employees

22 %]), faculty members (319 cases [52.7%]), or technologists (54 cases [8.9%]), reported technical (33.

23 yroid cancer risk among 90,713 US radiologic technologists (69,506 women and 21,207 men) followed fro

24 (HRs) for the risk of cataract in radiologic technologists according to NM work history practices acc

25 cohort of 35,705 cataract-free US radiologic technologists aged 24-44 years was followed for nearly 2

26 d the two-point method substantially reduced technologist and camera times.

27 rt during mammography, and satisfaction with technologist and machine combinations was included as a

28 dar year 2000, measured imaging room use and technologist and radiologist times were multiplied by co

29 The technologist and volunteer were blinded to the agent.

30 oyment from working with fellow mammographic technologists and enjoyment from working with radiologis

31 duced by nonlaboratory personnel vs. medical technologists and evaluated day-to-day and within-day pr

32 discomfort between different combinations of technologists and machines.

33 this time (-16.9 and -16.2 mrem for nuclear technologists and nurses, respectively; P < 0.0001).

34 rdizing education for nuclear and radiologic technologists and physicians specifically for this combi

35 h solvent exposure among clinical laboratory technologists and technicians (HR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.07-3.

36 ng growing shortages of trained microbiology technologists and technicians.

37 nsed clinical laboratory scientists (medical technologists), and non-POLs.

38 comprehensive resources for the physician or technologist, and other articles compare echocardiograph

39 can Society for Nutrition, Institute of Food Technologists, and International Food Information Counci

40 ns, affiliated researchers, nuclear medicine technologists, and radiation oncologists and aims to ide

41 192 dermal, and 20 ocular) were extracted by technologists, and the DNA was assayed by LightCycler PC

42 Technologists appropriately classified all negative spec

43 gh and similar to that of general radiologic technologists, as reported in 1987.

44 Medical technologists at all 3 study sites preferred the new med

45 quality assurance program 1, nonmicrobiology technologists at satellite laboratories were required to

46 es in accuracy between laboratories, between technologists, between kit lots, or between days.

47 tool, unaffected by phenotypic variation or technologist bias, and has the potential to reduce labor

48 Technologists blinded to treatment group counted spike-w

49 neck, and lumbar spine were performed by 11 technologists by using standard techniques and software.

50 While a technologist challenge has educational merit, having a m

51 nsitivity remained greater in the laboratory technologist cohort (P < 0.0001).

52 shortages by making the salaries of medical technologists comparable to those of similarly educated

53 -up study, only 64% of 126,628 US radiologic technologists completed a questionnaire during 1994-1997

54 tices coincided with increases in radiologic technologist continuing education in mammography.

55 Both the radiologist and technologists detected all colorectal cancers (n = 5).

56 s should undertake limited cross-training of technologists, ensure that adequate packaging supplies a

57 The time taken by the technologist for patient preparation, positioning, expos

58 Agreement between technologists for both methods was >or=98% for each agen

59 s 2003-2005 and 2012-2013, 42 545 radiologic technologists from a U.S. prospective study completed qu

60 d detection (CAD) and by two of four trained technologists (>/=200 examinations, with colonoscopic ve

61 substances likely to come into contact with technologists' hands were tested.

62 is on presentation, U.S. hospital laboratory technologists have very limited experience in detecting

63 aniocaudal examination performed by a second technologist in this prospective institutional review bo

64 nd specific (100%) when performed by trained technologists in a carefully controlled manner using est

65 of PICC nurses and interventional radiology technologists in an angiography suite with the supervisi

66 ght cohorts of over 270,000 radiologists and technologists in various countries.

67 Given the challenges facing biosensor technologists, it is natural that this approach to creat

68 Mammographic technologist job satisfaction is high and similar to tha

69 t important variable related to mammographic technologist job satisfaction is the technologist-radiol

70 Direct measurement was made of technologist labor and supply costs of a cohort of 409 c

71 For RAST, a technologist on the evening shift verified the data that

72 a cohort of nuclear medicine (NM) radiologic technologists on the basis of their work histories and r

73 : there is 1 physician per gamma camera, 1.6 technologists per gamma camera, 0.1 medical physicist pe

74 developing its scholarly basis; in contrast, technologists perform activities derived from the work o

75 This article reviews the current status of technologist-performed handheld screening breast US imag

76 Technologist-performed handheld screening breast US offe

77 approaches to training and documentation of technologist-performed handheld screening US imaging are

78 Both physician- and technologist-performed screening US imaging increases de

79 chromogenic agar and compared the results to technologist plate reading.

80 s life support systems confronts scientists, technologists, policy makers, and communities from local

81 aluated, manual correction by an experienced technologist proved to be the most accurate, although re

82 ted statistically significant improvement in technologist QC practices between 1988 and 1992.

83 st QC practices between 1990 and 1992 and in technologist QC practices between 1990 and 1995.

84 Improvements in radiologic technologist QC practices coincided with increases in ra

85 graphic technologist job satisfaction is the technologist-radiologist relationship; a negative relati

86 Reading times of four different technologists ranged from 22 to 44 s with the caliper an

87 standard deviation was 3.4 +/- 0.9; 83.1% of technologists rated overall satisfaction as 3 or higher

88 ages will most likely be acquired by trained technologists rather than physicians.

89 A total of 1,503 technologists responded to the survey.

90 of multiple time-intensive tasks for the CT technologist, resulting in a marked reduction in examina

91 nonlaboratory personnel results; xi, medical technologist results), the average value of r2 was 0.96

92 on with care (P <.04), and perception of the technologist's "roughness" (P <.001).

93 PEN), and the Chair of the Institute of Food Technologist's (IFT) Nutrition Division presented their

94 sly read slides is a better indicator of the technologist's Gram stain interpretation proficiency.

95 Two technologists serving as a primary reader of CT colonogr

96 The US Radiologic Technologists Study (1983-2006) is a nationwide, prospec

97 Cancer Screening Trial; and U.S. Radiologic Technologists Study).

98 Using data from the US Radiologic Technologists Study, a large, nationwide, prospective co

99 We evaluated 123 United States Radiologic Technologists subjects who wore personal UVR dosimeters

100 er when the test was performed by laboratory technologists than when it was performed by nonlaborator

101 clude a national shortage of trained medical technologists, the inability of clinical laboratories to

102 valid and simple procedure which can reduce technologist time (and, thus, labor cost) and turnaround

103 When total costs are calculated to include technologist time and maintenance costs, traditional ide

104 The FISH procedure required more technologist time and more interpretation time per case

105 were no significant differences in costs or technologist time between the Mayo system and Southern b

106 osts and a total cost analysis that included technologist time in addition to reagent expenses and ma

107 mber not performed (n), reagent savings, and technologist time saved, respectively, were as follows:

108 Overall technologist time was significantly shorter when perform

109 f the reagents, equipment, phlebotomist, and technologist time were determined.

110 were $28,000 in reagent costs and 1,082 h of technologist time.

111 s reagent costs and, more importantly, saves technologist time.

112 All 0.3- and 0.35-T MR imaging room and technologist times exceeded those for 1.5-T MR imaging.

113 The time required for a technologist to complete a CT examination was reduced by

114 y 25 min, and the assay was much simpler for technologists to learn and perform.

115 g 12 antibiotic disks the Sirscan took 11 s; technologists took 28 s by caliper and 39 s by ruler.

116 include proper patient preparation, adequate technologist training, careful imaging protocol design,

117 An experienced technologist unaware of the angiography and other result

118 The FTA-ABS IgG procedure was performed by technologists unblinded to results of rapid plasmid reag

119 red with measurements obtained by laboratory technologists using an IL-1312 blood gas analyzer (Instr

120 angiography because they can be performed by technologists using widely available, multifunctional ap

121 t of 1,500 participants of the US Radiologic Technologists (USRT) Study that included whites (n = 842

122 he personnel performing the test (laboratory technologist versus nonlaboratory personnel).

123 The relative TP fraction (for technologists vs radiologist) for advanced neoplasia was

124 Consensus between technologists was achieved in case of discordant recomme

125 mance of nonlaboratory personnel and medical technologists was equivalent for point-of-care testing i

126 Radiologists and radiologic technologists were among the earliest occupational group

127 s were resolved by repeated FTA-ABS testing (technologists were blinded to previous RPR results) and

128 The technologists were blinded to prior identification resul

129 Mammography Quality Standards Act-qualified technologists were reported by 20% of facilities, with 4

130 Radiologic technologists were surveyed to determine whether their p

131 ataract surgery represents an amalgam of new technologists which may include phacoemulsification, fol

132 cataract was observed among U.S. radiologic technologists who had performed an NM procedure at least

133 Basically, there are four types of technologists who must be brought together to create a s

134 Reactions were recorded by technologists who noted types of reactions, method of in

135 onnaire completed by the radiologists and CT technologists who performed the procedures.

136 as 3 or higher compared with 86% of general technologists who reported being satisfied with their jo

137 Among 90,284 US radiologic technologists who responded to a mailed questionnaire du

138 ermine the risk of cataract among radiologic technologists with respect to occupational and nonoccupa