戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (left1)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1                      Specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy were calculated for prediction of outcome at 24 mo after (64)
2 UV(max), SUV(mean), and other whole-body imaging biomarkers were calculated for each patient.
3                           Wilson confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for sensitivity and specificity.
4      Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for transplant-free, all-cause mortality in H
5                           Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for correlation analysis.
6 al estimates, based on each method separately and combined, were calculated for iPET-positive (iPET+) and iPET-negative (
7        Areas under receiver-operating-characteristic curves were calculated for discriminating diseased from nondiseased
8 tion DeltaH( ), and Gibbs energies of activation DeltaG( )) were calculated for all pathways investigated.
9 earning (DL) risk score, dense area, and percentage density were calculated for the earliest available digital mammograph
10         The temporal dynamics of spike spatial distribution were calculated for each patient and the effects of sleep and
11 Overall % mean scores across AGREE II and AGREE-REX domains were calculated for each guideline.
12           Hospital-level observed-to-expected ratios (O/Es) were calculated for each measure after adjusting for demograp
13                                 Pooled prevalence estimates were calculated for depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stres
14 ic body and a one-compartment model with diffusive exchange were calculated for the neutral test compounds and agreed rea
15                                             The PVC factors were calculated for every lesion using the anatomic CT and th
16 rowth rates (standardized by population size and age group) were calculated for each type of payer and health condition.
17 essment, such as hazard index (HI) and hazard quotient (HQ) were calculated for potentially toxic elements and indicated
18 of variation and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for the measures in each task.
19                                Indices of network integrity were calculated for each subject, network, and imaging modali
20                 Vessel area density (VAD) and vessel length were calculated for retinal vascular images.
21 solute and percentage differences in SUV(max) and SUV(mean) were calculated for all test-retest regions.
22                     Measures of white matter microstructure were calculated for the uncinate fasciculus and the inferior
23 he probability of a voxel belonging to the substantia nigra were calculated for patients with various degrees of disease
24 predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for each examiner and enhancement.
25 predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for MRI using CT scan as a reference standard
26                     FD density, mean FD size, and FD number were calculated for comparison.
27                     Population attributable fractions (PAF) were calculated for the association of each complication (ie,
28 eimer disease (AD) signature regions in the same population were calculated for group comparisons and testing for associa
29 performed for mortality risk, and pooled odds ratios (PORs) were calculated for discrete variables relating to incident d
30 ate (CDR), recall rate, and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for each reader, for both real-life screening
31                               Supply and demand projections were calculated for adult and pediatric hepatology profession
32                                                   Quartiles were calculated for noncalcified plaque, CAC, and average car
33                      Median, interquartile range, and range were calculated for each variable adjusted to body surface ar
34                                       Hospitalization rates were calculated for each treatment group, and relative rates
35 age-specific and age-adjusted salmonellosis incidence rates were calculated for each census tract poverty level, overall
36                                             Infection rates were calculated for each woman-year in care with testing.
37                                   Preoperative OSFI results were calculated for each enrolled patient and diagnostic test
38                                            Composite scores were calculated for global SVD burden, and SVD subtypes of hy
39                              Rasch-calibrated domain scores were calculated for each questionnaire domain and compared be
40               Familial standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated for offspring whose parents or siblings were
41                                 Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for low and high ETT position thresholds.
42 rcent agreement, kappa values, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for nonexpert readers after OCT interpretatio
43      Percent agreement, kappa, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated for the TECS readers' interpretations versus
44 ication accuracy and class wise sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the validation set.
45                                                C statistics were calculated for AI-ECG AF model output, CHARGE-AF score,
46                                                  Mean SUVRs were calculated for progressive supranuclear palsy, corticoba
47                                         P values for trends were calculated for rates over time, and multivariable logist
48                     Positive and negative predictive values were calculated for progression-free survival.
49 errors (mE), major errors (ME), and very major errors (VME) were calculated for DD methods.
50                                                     Volumes were calculated for segmented features such as neurosensory r