ライフサイエンスコーパス: CXR

1 CXR abnormalities had a peripheral (26/64, 41%) and lowe

2 CXR consolidation was associated with a higher case fata

3 CXR examinations of 1,682 (including 750 asymptomatic/he

4 CXR features, clinical and laboratory variables and CXR

5 CXR findings included infiltrates (46.07%), pleural effu

6 CXR grade at diagnosis predicts patients with short TTD.

7 CXR lung height estimates actual TLC and reflects pulmon

8 CXR scores can be effectively used in low-resource setti

9 CXR sensitivity in COVID-19 detection increases with tim

10 CXR severity, sensitivity, and specificity were determin

11 CXR showed prevalent manifestations of consolidations (5

12 CXR was compatible with TB in 30/41 (73.2%) asymptomatic

13 CXR was completed in 54 (80.6%) study participants, US i

14 CXR was performed in 107 patients.

15 CXR was useful during the first 3 years of follow-up eva

16 CXR-consolidation cases represent a group with an increa

17 CXR-LC lung cancer screening eligibility (previously def

18 CXR-LC, an open-source deep learning tool that estimates

19 CXR/MRI correctly detected 3 (1%) patients with distant

20 CXRs were categorized as abnormal (consolidation and/or

21 CXRs were interpretable in 3587 (85%) cases, of which 19

22 t sets from different hospitals (154 and 113 CXRs respectively).

23 9 CXRs using a multicentre cohort of 293,143 CXRs.

24 normal, non-COVID-19 pneumonia, and COVID-19 CXRs using a multicentre cohort of 293,143 CXRs.

25 COVID-19+ CXR severity and sensitivity increased with time (from s

26 All 204 CXRs were randomly assorted and read independently by th

27 Baseline and serial CXRs (total 255 CXRs) were reviewed along with RT-PCRs.

28 37 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with 290 CXRs were identified, 22 (59.5%) were admitted to the in

29 With rereading, 8 of 351 (2.3%) CXR and 15 of 136 (11.0%) CT had necrotizing changes.

30 Data consisted of 396 CXRs from SARS-CoV-2 positive patient cases.

31 A total of 4172 CXRs were obtained from 4232 cases.

32 source to promote further innovation, 71 589 CXRs with adjoining echocardiographic labels have been m

33 Overall, 72 746 CXR examinations were recorded: 14% CAAP and 86% NA-LRI.

34 Overall 72,746 CXR examinations were recorded: 14% CAAP, and 86% NA-LRI

35 to other infiltrate (4.7%) or normal (4.9%) CXRs.

36 study were;Topcon digital fundus camera 900 CXR and digital portable fundus cameras (Nidek-10 portab

37 viduals received a Xpert MTB/RIF assay and a CXR read by two groups of radiologists and the DL system

38 k factors by trained health personnel, and a CXR was taken that was interpreted using the standardize

39 ized in 40% of patients, despite obtaining a CXR.

40 were mechanically ventilated, and required a CXR were enrolled in this triple-blind, randomized prosp

41 ive W4SS, 16% had either a positive Xpert, a CXR suggestive of TB, or a positive urine LAM test.

42 symptomatic patients presented with abnormal CXR.

43 Cases with abnormal CXRs were more likely than those with normal CXRs to hav

44 ally diagnosed pneumonia cases with abnormal CXRs were more likely to have signs typically associated

45 Adding CXR Lung-Risk to a multivariable model improved estimate

46 In patients not intubated on the admission CXR, the PXS score predicted subsequent intubation or de

47 views, our framework is pre-trained on adult CXR datasets (N = 114,173), then fine-tuned or trained f

48 All CXRs were analyzed according to the World Health Organiz

49 All CXRs were annotated with pixel-level labels of ETT and w

50 All CXRs were digitalized and analyzed according to the WHO

51 All CXRs were processed with a commercial AI algorithm to ob

52 Although CXR had excellent specificity, CXR screening alone would

53 On decision curve analysis, CXR-LC had higher net benefit than CMS eligibility and s

54 Annual incidences of CAAP, NA-LRI and CXR examinations\ were calculated from 2004 to 2017.

55 CAAP, NA-LRI, and CXR examination visit rates declined by 49%, 34%, and 37

56 We calculated CAAP, NA-LRI, and CXR examinations annual incidences from 2004 to 2017 and

57 with TB symptoms with sputum microscopy and CXR would be cost-effective at a threshold ICER of $7,80

58 tures, clinical and laboratory variables and CXR abnormality indices extracted by a convolutional neu

59 VID-19 patients with RT-PCR confirmation and CXRs admitted across 4 hospitals evaluated between Janua

60 Antemortem CXR were classified by three B readers using the 1971 In

61 CO(m2012) risk criteria in intervention arm (CXR) smokers (n = 37,327) of the Prostate, Lung, Colorec

62 valuations were performed on the same day as CXR, immediately (0 to 2 days) after the COVID-19 diagno

63 s, aged 60 to 74 years, underwent a baseline CXR and sputum cytology examination and received five sc

64 sitive initial RT-PCR with abnormal baseline CXR (59 [CI:46-71%]) respectively.

65 T-PCR (91%, [CI: 81-96%]), abnormal baseline CXR (69%, [CI: 56-80%]) and positive initial RT-PCR with

66 % [95% CI: 83-97%]) was higher than baseline CXR (69% [95% CI: 56-80%]) (p = 0.009).

67 Synchronization of the bedside CXR with the end of inspiration ensures that they are al

68 By CXR, 69% of the miners had small, rounded opacity profus

69 By CXR, large opacities showed good correlation with pathol

70 Variances detectable by CXR went unrecognized in 40% of patients, despite obtain

71 d PE (78 of 10,000 examinations) followed by CXR (26 of 10,000 examinations).

72 ases identified as having large opacities by CXR were not substantiated as PMF by pathology.

73 s PMF on pathology had no large opacities by CXR.

74 o 12-year lung cancer incidence predicted by CXR-LC.

75 ther abnormalities (cancer, tuberculosis) by CXR as large opacities.

76 For CAD CXR analysis to be implemented as a high-sensitivity tub

77 loped and evaluated an AI system to classify CXRs as normal or abnormal.

78 ing the same threshold score for classifying CXR in every study, sensitivity and specificity varied f

79 PARTICIPANTS: This prognostic study compared CXR-LC estimates with CMS screening guidelines using pat

80 exposure, compatible symptoms, or compatible CXR) were defined by application of a consensus case def

81 (1356 of 3041) screened positive on either d-CXR or symptoms.

82 eening approach was: 1.9% (59 of 3041) for d-CXR alone, 2.0% (62 of 3041) for symptoms alone and 2.3%

83 Due to its objective nature, d-CXR screening may improve case detection in clinics.

84 ntensive care unit (ICU) patients with daily CXRs should be aware of the variables influencing interp

85 on of asymptomatic COVID-19 patients develop CXR abnormalities.

86 a portable, anteroposterior, supine digital CXR.

87 ogists' accuracy in interpreting the digital CXR?

88 Digital CXRs were independently interpreted on two separate occa

89 volume status with portable, supine, digital CXRs may be improved by using objective cutoffs of vascu

90 arbitration panel (32% and 30% of discordant CXRs, respectively).

91 An interpretation process categorized each CXR into 1 of 5 consolidation, other infiltrate, both co

92 tion in CXR interpretation, interpreted each CXR.

93 Two radiologists scored each CXR in consensus for: consolidation, ground glass opacit

94 on of Abnormalities in Chest X-rays) and EGD-CXR (Eye Gaze Data for Chest X-rays) to develop a collab

95 01) with true clinical workload ranks on EGD-CXR.

96 erformed state-of-the-art methods on the EGD-CXR and REFLACX datasets, achieving IoU scores of 0.41 [

97 The addition of PET/CT to either CXR/MRI or CCT/MRI was associated with a significantly p

98 ion of tumor stage when compared with either CXR/MRI or CCT/MRI (chi(2), P < 0.001 for both).

99 An existing CXR-based system, the Brixia score, was modified to incr

100 The final CXR-LC model was validated in additional PLCO smokers (n

101 rial CXR demonstrated increase in AUC (first CXR AUC=0.79, second CXR=0.87, p=0.02), and second CXR a

102 COVID-19 sensitivity of first CXR, second CXR, and CT was 73%, 83%, and 88%, whereas s

103 served in human-written reports and Flamingo-CXR reports, with 24.8% of in/outpatient cases containin

104 rors in both report types, 22.8% in Flamingo-CXR reports only and 14.0% in human reports only.

105 nd PE were $11,000 compared with $68,000 for CXR and $142,000 for KUB.

106 asis and synchronous cancer was assessed for CXR/MRI, CHCT/MRI, and PET/CT.

107 COVID-19 patients in everyday work, both for CXR and CT imaging.

108 e the continued development of AI models for CXR, we release our collected labels for the publicly av

109 ignificantly higher than 2% (6 patients) for CXR/MRI and 6% (17 patients) for CHCT/MRI.

110 greater for PET/CT (C-index, 0.72) than for CXR/MRI (C-index, 0.55) (P = 0.001) and CCT/MRI (C-index

111 greater for PET/CT (C-index, 0.712) than for CXR/MRI (C-index, 0.675; P = 0.04) or CCT/MRI (C-index,

112 -up was 6.6 years for LDCT and 6.5 years for CXR.

113 zed for classifying TB and normal cases from CXR images.

114 heXpert and transfer learning on 314 frontal CXRs from COVID-19 patients.

115 patients, 43.1% had a single CXR, 42.0% had CXR and chest CT, 6.7% had CXR and abdominal CT (without

116 le CXR, 42.0% had CXR and chest CT, 6.7% had CXR and abdominal CT (without chest CT), 5.5% had multip

117 Among patients having CXRs on both IMV and PSV breaths, 15 of 67 (22%) had the

118 sis were independent risk factors for a high CXR index score, intubation, and ICU admission.

119 However, CXR-normal cases were common, and clinical signs conside

120 AI-based algorithms can identify CXRs with COVID-19 associated pneumonia, as well as dist

121 eus and P. jirovecii had higher densities in CXR-positive cases vs controls.

122 An improvement in CXR was observed in 285 children, but there was no diffe

123 A 1-point increase in CXR grade correlated with a 3.2-day decrease in TTD (P <

124 d undertaken training and standardization in CXR interpretation, interpreted each CXR.

125 Variations in CXR appearances between epidemiological settings and the

126 Leveraging both frontal and lateral CXR views, our framework is pre-trained on adult CXR dat

127 fferentiated populations, and adding lateral CXRs improves diagnosis in younger children.

128 ic datasets: CheXpert, Chest X-Ray 14, MIMIC CXR, and VinBigData.

129 tive LLMs, fine-tuned on synthetic and MIMIC-CXR radiology reports, greatly enhanced error detection

130 ods Chest radiography reports from the MIMIC-CXR and National Institutes of Health (NIH) data sets we

131 e, 51.71 years; 54.51% women) from the MIMIC-CXR chest radiograph dataset were included.

132 ; 34 813 [55%] female) included in the MIMIC-CXR database and fine-tuning it on the subset with progr

133 t datasets of unseen patients from the MIMIC-CXR database.

134 Here, we developed a deep learning model, CXR Lung-Risk, to predict the risk of lung disease morta

135 Most CXR findings were subtle in nature.

136 es based on chest x-ray + head and neck MRI (CXR/MRI) and chest CT + head and neck MRI (CHCT/MRI) wit

137 based on chest x-ray plus head and neck MRI (CXR/MRI) or chest CT plus head and neck MRI (CCT/MRI).

138 nal CT (without chest CT), 5.5% had multiple CXRs without CT, and 2.6% had chest CT alone in the emer

139 to assess factors related to false negative CXR.

140 ere the largest factor behind false-negative CXRs (40% normal and 87% combined normal/mild).

141 he preferred test in the setting of a normal CXR; and performance of computed-tomographic pulmonary a

142 Compared to patients with normal CXR, children presenting with pulmonary lesions were sig

143 CXRs were more likely than those with normal CXRs to have hypoxemia (45% vs 26%), crackles (69% vs 62

144 Cancer stages based on PET/CT, but not CXR/MRI or CCT/MRI, were associated with significant dif

145 facilitate earlier and widespread objective CXR screening for LVDD which is ubiquitous in HF.

146 per quarter), whereas the rate of obtaining CXRs declined (0.12% per quarter).

147 assifier using a relatively small dataset of CXR images.

148 However, the similarity between features of CXR images of COVID-19 and pneumonia caused by other inf

149 The severity of CXR findings peaked at 10-12 days from the date of sympt

150 e in 24.2% of screens, compared with 6.9% of CXRs; more than 95% of all positive LDCT screens were no

151 Deep learning analysis of CXRs can accurately detect the presence of certain struc

152 h can improve the accuracy in the reading of CXRs by a radiologist.

153 l provided additional independent reviews of CXRs with discordant interpretations at the primary read

154 the feasibility of computer-aided scoring of CXRs of SARS-CoV-2 lung disease severity using a deep le

155 city extent scoring) using random subsets of CXRs from the study, and we evaluated the networks using

156 the potential to facilitate rapid triage of CXRs for further patient testing and/or isolation.

157 However, use of CXRs rebounded during the COVID-19 pandemic (increase of

158 atient, who was initially diagnosed based on CXR.

159 en compared with imaging strategies based on CXR/MRI or CCT/MRI (P < 0.001 for both).

160 on US, hazy opacities and consolidations on CXR, multiple GGO and consolidations on CT scan.

161 from scratch, and subsequently evaluated on CXR datasets (N = 918) from three pediatric TB cohorts.

162 or oncologic treatment, positive findings on CXR and US may allow CT to be deferred.

163 y the weight gain or clearance of lesions on CXR in children with intrathoracic tuberculosis.

164 lymphopenia, and bihilar lymphadenopathy on CXR.

165 t a measure of pulmonary disease severity on CXRs (pulmonary x-ray severity (PXS) score), using weakl

166 erified COVID-19+ patients with at least one CXR or chest CT were compared with 254 age- and gender-m

167 omical/physiological confounders of DEcho or CXR examinations (<= 24 h apart), and (2) AI model-train

168 ed trials comparing CTLS versus either NS or CXR in a highly tobacco-exposed population were collecte

169 a, necrosis was reported in no (0%) original CXR readings and in 6 of 136 (4.4%) CTs.

170 LUS also outperformed CXR in determining the cause of illness.

171 By running a set of systematic tests over CXR representations using public image datasets, we demo

172 hodology for the interpretation of pediatric CXRs has not been evaluated beyond its intended applicat

173 respiratory support at the time of performed CXR.

174 neutral aromatic solutes on two polystyrene CXRs, MN500 and Amberlite 200, was examined.

175 mpared in equal-sized screening populations, CXR-LC was more sensitive than CMS eligibility in the PL

176 ables influencing interpretation of portable CXRs of ICU patients.

177 However, the wide range of possible CXR abnormalities makes it impractical to detect every p

178 Postintubation CXRs were obtained in 65% of patients managed outside of

179 ty of board certified radiologists preferred CXRs taken with the interface in 21 of 25 patients (p <

180 erall rates of visits with chest radiograph (CXR) examination in the pediatrics emergency room in sou

181 s, and overall visits with chest radiograph (CXR) examination rates in the pediatric emergency room i

182 Chest radiograph (CXR) findings were classified as showing acute disease (

183 Concordant chest radiograph (CXR) scores were reported, and inter-rater reliability w

184 btained included whether a chest radiograph (CXR) was obtained and if postextubation problems occurre

185 ART) initiation with W4SS, chest radiograph (CXR), urine lipoarabinomannan (LAM) test, and sputum Xpe

186 ically confirmed cases and chest radiograph (CXR)-positive cases compared to controls.

187 t (98.0% and 100%) and for chest radiograph (CXR; 57.6% and 100%).

188 The relationships between chest radiographs (CXR) and corresponding pathology were investigated in 43

189 Chest radiographs (CXRs) are a valuable diagnostic tool in epidemiologic st

190 Chest radiographs (CXRs) are frequently used to assess pneumonia cases.

191 he appearance of portable chest radiographs (CXRs) may be affected by changes in ventilation, particu

192 Chest radiographs (CXRs) were graded from 0 to 6 (0, no radiographic eviden

193 scenarios: performance of chest radiography (CXR) as the first radiation-associated procedure; use of

194 mokers to receive LDCT or chest radiography (CXR) for three annual screens.

195 Chest radiography (CXR) is the most widely-used thoracic clinical imaging m

196 een employed to interpret chest radiography (CXR) to screen and triage people for pulmonary tuberculo

197 ler echocardiography, and chest radiography (CXR).

198 y (LDCT; n = 26,722) with chest radiography (CXR; n = 26,732) for lung cancer detection, to examine i

199 Chest-X ray (CXR) radiography can be used as a first-line triage proc

200 ndard TB assessments, including chest X-ray (CXR) and sputum Xpert Ultra testing, followed by Nationa

201 T and a detailed description of chest x-ray (CXR) appearances in relation to the disease time course

202 stently lower than rates in the chest X-ray (CXR) arm.

203 based on minimal parameters and chest X-ray (CXR) image data that predicts the survival of adult SARS

204 Chest X-ray (CXR) images are one of the most readily available and co

205 ties for testing lagged behind, chest X-ray (CXR) imaging became more relevant in the early diagnosis

206 ysical examination (PE) in 14%, chest x-ray (CXR) in 23%, and abdominal x-ray (KUB) in 7%.

207 Chest X-ray (CXR) is generally considered not to be sensitive for the

208 ht gain and an improvement in a chest X-ray (CXR) lesion assessed at 6 mo of treatment.

209 l ventilation (MV) and portable chest X-ray (CXR) measurements of lung length (LL) and severity of ai

210 Chest x-ray (CXR) measurements to estimate actual total lung capacity

211 ous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) than chest x-ray (CXR) plus head and neck MRI or chest CT (CCT) plus head

212 software (CAD) could facilitate chest X-ray (CXR) use in tuberculosis diagnosis.

213 transthoracic ultrasound (US), chest X-ray (CXR), and computed tomography (CT) were performed respec

214 Chest X-ray (CXR), computed tomography (CT), and positron emission to

215 Chest radiography (chest x-ray [CXR] and chest computed tomography [CT]) is the most com

216 es for insights from a standard Chest X-Ray [CXR].

217 Original readings of chest X-rays (CXR) and computerized tomography (CT) were noted.

218 Chest x-rays (CXRs) are often used to assess SARS-CoV-2 severity, with

219 Chest X-rays (CXRs) are primarily used to detect lung lesions.

220 Chest X-rays (CXRs) are routinely conducted on a broad population of p

221 Chest X-rays (CXRs) are the first-line investigation in patients prese

222 Chest X-rays (CXRs) are widely used for diagnosing respiratory disease

223 table, anteroposterior, supine chest X-rays (CXRs) in distinguishing hydrostatic pulmonary edema (HPE

224 Chest X-rays (CXRs) were conducted as standard care for all patients a

225 Using DL systems to read CXRs could reduce the number of Xpert MTB/RIF tests need

226 , of which European ones primarily recommend CXR/MRI, whereas U.S. guidelines preferably point to CHC

227 anic contaminants on cation exchange resins (CXRs) will enable application of these resins for the re

228 ee chest radiologists independently reviewed CXRs without clinical information and recorded the cardi

229 cement determination by chest roentgenogram (CXR) and by the optical fiber scope.

230 th at TLC, using plain chest roentgenograms (CXRs), in 25 patients (11 males and 14 females) before L

231 sson regression using all 290 MBrixia scored CXRs, a higher MBrixia score was associated with a highe

232 increase in AUC (first CXR AUC=0.79, second CXR=0.87, p=0.02), and second CXR approached the accurac

233 C=0.79, second CXR=0.87, p=0.02), and second CXR approached the accuracy of CT (AUC=0.92, p=0.11).

234 COVID-19 sensitivity of first CXR, second CXR, and CT was 73%, 83%, and 88%, whereas specificity w

235 Serial CXR demonstrated increase in AUC (first CXR AUC=0.79, se

236 Baseline and serial CXRs (total 255 CXRs) were reviewed along with RT-PCRs.

237 19 detection increases with time, and serial CXRs of COVID-19+ patients has accuracy approaching that

238 Performance of serial CXRs against CTs was determined by comparing area under

239 e with 11 inputs, in both the PLCO data set (CXR-LC AUC of 0.755 vs. PLCO(M2012) AUC of 0.751) and th

240 However, in the emergency setting CXR can be a useful diagnostic tool for monitoring the r

241 Normal and mild severity CXR findings were the largest factor behind false-negati

242 Six patients (9%) showed CXR abnormalities before eventually testing positive on

243 f 9905 enrolled patients, 43.1% had a single CXR, 42.0% had CXR and chest CT, 6.7% had CXR and abdomi

244 Although CXR had excellent specificity, CXR screening alone would still miss many cases of sarco

245 9-6.0), significantly higher than subjective CXR interpretations with and without clinical data (p <.

246 as <80% predicted in 45%, and 47% had subtle CXR abnormalities.

247 We prospectively obtained and evaluated such CXRs in 33 supine, mechanically ventilated intensive-car

248 y measures and high predictivity, suggesting CXRs' potential for enhanced T2D screening.

249 han or equal to 20 years; 2) portable supine CXR; 3) examination in emergency departments or ICUs; an

250 Each patient received two portable, supine CXRs on different MV breaths within 5 min of one another

251 ry edema is difficult using portable, supine CXRs, but readily assessed radiologic signs may contribu

252 ted were improved (p < 0.05) on synchronized CXRs.

253 s cancers, which was significantly more than CXR/MRI (3 patients, 1%) and CHCT/MRI (6 patients, 2%).

254 However, the study also showed that CXR were insensitive for detecting minimal CWP lesions,

255 The CXR-LC model had better discrimination (area under the r

256 The CXR-LC model identified smokers at high risk for inciden

257 The CXR-LC model was developed in the PLCO (Prostate, Lung,

258 The CXR-LC model's performance was similar to that of PLCO(M

259 m mortality rates are consistently below the CXR arm's rates.

260 In contrast, the CXR model had the lowest accuracy.

261 e reported, 35 in the LDCT arm and 25 in the CXR arm (P = 0.2).

262 y, compared with 2.3%, 1.5%, and 1.3% in the CXR arm.

263 describe the time course and severity of the CXR findings of COVID-19 and correlate these with real t

264 The likelihood ratio of the CXR in determining volume status using the objective vas

265 Synchronization of the CXR with the ventilatory cycle should limit the influenc

266 measured hemodynamic data within 1 hr of the CXR.

267 spiratory variation on the appearance of the CXR.

268 d compared with the distance measured on the CXR.

269 dy evaluates the effect of synchronizing the CXR film exposure with ventilation on the appearance of

270 ble insight about the subtle patterns in the CXRs, which can improve the accuracy in the reading of C

271 Despite this detailed evaluation of the CXRs, the mean accuracy of the radiologists' clinical di

272 as a safer and more accurate alternative to CXR.

273 h of admission by an investigator blinded to CXR results, and the final diagnoses were established by

274 fic mortality was reduced by 20% relative to CXR; all-cause mortality was reduced by 6.7%.

275 pplying the AI tool, Thoracic Care Suite, to CXR of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia allows us to ant

276 ulmonary disease severity scores assigned to CXRs in the internal and external test sets (r=0.86 (95%

277 Increases in LL between the two CXRs were associated with increasing peak (p = 0.0038) o

278 Included patients underwent CXR/MRI and CHCT/MRI as well as PET/CT on the same day a

279 All patients underwent CXR/MRI, CCT/MRI, and PET/CT on the same day and before

280 All patients underwent CXR/MRI, CCT/MRI, and PET/CT on the same day.

281 5/47 (31.9%) symptomatic cases who underwent CXR (p<0.001).

282 A total of 71 589 unique CXRs from 24 689 different patients completed within 1 y

283 s (57.4%) where CMS eligibility was unknown, CXR-LC eligible patients had a 5-fold higher rate of lun

284 irection of change in PXS score in follow-up CXRs agreed with radiologist assessment (rho=0.74 (95%CI

285 92 internal test set patients with follow-up CXRs, PXS score change was compared to radiologist asses

286 its effectiveness and generalizability using CXR TB compatibility, expert reading, microbiological co

287 SLVH) and dilated left ventricle (DLV) using CXRs.

288 creening was limited in an institution where CXR is conducted routinely and which serves a population

289 disease (log-rank test, P < 0.001), whereas CXR/MRI and CCT/MRI were unable to distinguish between t

290 ds of both severity and sensitivity) whereas CXR specificity decreased over time (from 83% to 70%, p=

291 By using global features of the whole CXR images, we successfully implemented our classifier u

292 lassification improvement when compared with CXR/MRI (0.184, P = 0.03) but not CCT/MRI (0.094%, P = 0

293 Combining Xpert-HR with CXR, Xpert Ultra, or TB treatment decision algorithms di

294 ing in an overall 37% decline in visits with CXR examination (IRR=0.635; 0.612-0.659).

295 rked decline in CAAP and overall visits with CXR examination rates in young children.

296 rked decline in CAAP and overall visits with CXR examination rates, in young children.

297 l, approximately 14 750 hospital visits with CXR were prevented annually per 100 000 population aged

298 Overall, ~14,750 hospital visits with CXR were prevented annually per 100,000 population <5 ye

299 had diaphragm length measurements made with CXRs, using films made within a year before their presur

300 phragm lengths were similar in subjects with CXRs made before LVRS and within 1 yr before evaluation.