ライフサイエンスコーパス: LFT

1 LFT abnormality was defined as an increase in aspartate

2 LFT and SCr elevations were not attributed to RDV in eit

3 LFT elevations occurred in 10% vs. 4% (p=0.28), and SCr

4 LFT is likely to detect at least three fifths and at mos

5 LFT were abnormal in 6 of them, and a newly detected hep

6 LFT, one of the most lethal opioids, and MP, a kratom pl

7 LFTs revealed gas transfer abnormalities in 80.0% and ab

8 LFTs should be monitored during flutamide therapy.

9 LFTs use a premix format for a rapid one-step delivery o

10 02 patients (OTX-101 n = 1846; CsA n = 2248; LFT n = 3008) were eligible.

11 Of 5869 test results, 22 (0.4%) LFT results and 343 (5.8%) RT-qPCR results were void (th

12 value associated with at least one abnormal LFT before first diagnosis of metastasis at any site was

13 Abnormal LFTs were detected in 70 patients (20.9%).

14 Although abnormal LFTs are already frequently present upon admission befor

15 The causal relationship between abnormal LFTs and IBD is unclear.

16 ver are the most relevant causes of abnormal LFTs in patients with IBD.

17 ions suggest that the prevalence of abnormal LFTs is high in COVID-19 patients, but that the clinical

18 e most frequent cause for transient abnormal LFTs was drug-induced cholestasis (34.1%), whereas fatty

19 The mechanisms underlying abnormal LFTs in COVID-19 are likely multifactorial and related t

20 Patients with abnormal LFTs were less frequently on treatment with aminosalicyl

21 RCP is often used for patients with abnormal LFTs, potentially making ultrasound unnecessary for this

22 may not answer truthfully to questions about LFT falsification behaviours (FBs) when asked directly.

23 Metastases were detected after LFT abnormality (at least 1 abnormal test result) in 40

24 atment than patients on OTX-101; OTX-101 and LFT groups had similar discontinuation rates.

25 group, including 106 colon (FFT: n = 52 and LFT: n = 54) and 157 rectal cancer (FFT: n = 78 and LFT:

26 = 54) and 157 rectal cancer (FFT: n = 78 and LFT: n = 79).

27 muOR-Gi1 complex with MP (2.5 angstrom) and LFT (3.2 angstrom) revealed that the two ligands engage

28 enrolled in the 3 datasets) vs bosentan and LFT monitoring (ie, proportion of initiators with at lea

29 s and time-adjacent complete blood count and LFT results for adult patients tested for AP in a 12.5-y

30 nditions and residual chest radiographic and LFT abnormalities (P < .01 to all).

31 to have more residual chest radiographic and LFT abnormalities.

32 ambrisentan boxed hepatotoxicity warning and LFT monitoring requirement was associated with an immedi

33 sentan, the boxed hepatotoxicity warning and LFT requirements were removed.

34 me series analysis of prescription fills and LFTs for patients taking ambrisentan and bosentan.

35 mass adjusted for height and fat mass), and LFTs with lung cancer risk and their multiplicative and

36 ease or respiratory disease; statin use; and LFTs (albumin, transaminase, alkaline phosphatase, bilir

37 Tacrolimus was weaned as long as LFTs remained stable.

38 ed in the viral antigen shedding detected by LFT versus the viral loads approximated by RT-qPCR.

39 LFT and viral culture positive and missed by LFT and sources of secondary cases, in each of the three

40 The predicted proportions who were missed by LFT and viral culture positive and missed by LFT and sou

41 Ct (indicating higher viral load) missed by LFT, although small, should be considered when using sin

42 infectious people with SARS-CoV-2 missed by LFTs is substantial enough to be of clinical importance.

43 a cost evaluation, semi-annual screening by LFTs was calculated to cost $35.5/year per patient, incl

44 domized for laparoscopy and fast track care (LFT), 23 for laparoscopy and standard care (LS), 17 for

45 Isolated or combined LFTs for AST, ALT, gammaGT, LDH, and PA are not helpful

46 spected acute gallstone disease and deranged LFTs.

47 d on the analytical sensitivity of different LFTs and automated immunoassays.

48 or quantitative antigen results using either LFTs or automated immunoassays for five EQA samples per

49 24 weeks, although the frequency of elevated LFTs suggests that monitoring should be frequent in youn

50 articularly those with a history of elevated LFTs.

51 ting liver disease in patients with elevated LFTs on admission has not been comprehensively assessed

52 kers, including liver function test enzymes (LFTs) and clinical measures.

53 TX-101 vs. 241 days for CsA and 269 days for LFT.

54 be negative, a sensitivity was observed for LFT of 37.8% (26.8% to 49.9%; 28/74), specificity of 99.

55 711 data sets were reported for LFT detection in three surveys in 2021.

56 etail study limitations to facilitate future LFT development.

57 tients with no apparent liver disease having LFTs in primary care.

58 However, falsification of home LFT results was a concern.

59 3 were analyzed: 130 in FFT group and 133 in LFT group, including 106 colon (FFT: n = 52 and LFT: n =

60 Primary reasons included elevation in LFT levels (n=14); gastro-intestinal toxicity (n=9); dec

61 unlikely to account for all abnormalities in LFTs.

62 olimus resumed because of mild elevations in LFTs.

63 rall, there was a significant improvement in LFTs after stent removal compared to before stent insert

64 articipants were tested using both an Innova LFT and a quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase

65 The Innova LFT can be useful for identifying infections among adult

66 e mechanistic basis of action of lofentanil (LFT) and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (MP), two muOR agonis

67 exhibited reduced transcript levels of MMP8, LFT, and DDIT4, genes already implicated in the patholog

68 The 3-month LFT strategy was optimal when the incidence was >1.25 ca

69 ffectiveness ratio of screening with 3-month LFTs, compared with 6-month LFTs plus a 12-month HCV Ab

70 ibitor-based therapy, screening with 6-month LFTs and a 12-month HCV Ab test was the optimal strategy

71 ffectiveness ratio of screening with 6-month LFTs and a 12-month HCV Ab test, compared with symptom-b

72 ing with 3-month LFTs, compared with 6-month LFTs plus a 12-month HCV Ab test, was $129 700/QALY (for

73 last dosage at which the patients had normal LFTs.

74 nt, all recipients are well, with normalized LFTs at median follow-up of 7 (range 6-19) months.

75 and psychological variables as predictors of LFT FBs.

76 The prevalence of LFT abnormalities is relatively high in IBD patients, bu

77 Here we report the prevalence of LFT FBs in a representative sample in England (n = 1577)

78 Moreover, most alterations of LFTs are mild and spontaneously return to normal values.

79 s to evaluate the prevalence and etiology of LFTs abnormalities and their association with clinical v

80 A nonsignificant improvement of LFTs occurred.

81 bstantially overestimated the sensitivity of LFTs compared with empirical data.

82 The overall sensitivity of LFTs ranged from 12.5% to 58.0%, and the PPV ranged from

83 Use of LFTs results followed by diagnostic tests has high speci

84 gs (1.5 to 2 times upper limit of normal) on LFT prompted a diagnostic or imaging test to confirm or

85 on CsA (P = 0.036) and 44.0% of patients on LFT (P = 0.854).

86 al side effects and had abnormal findings on LFTs.

87 with OTX-101 claims and patients with CsA or LFT claims randomly selected 2:1 to OTX-101.

88 patients with DED receiving OTX-101, CsA, or LFT.

89 urgery were randomized into 2 groups: FFT or LFT care (with only early oral intake and mobilization s

90 interpreted as "lineage functional types" or LFT) with improved classification accuracy.

91 ic approach with limited fast-track program (LFT).

92 tegrast ophthalmic solution 5% (Xiidra((R)); LFT) are anti-inflammatory agents indicated for DED.

93 There were reductions in recorded LFTs before drug initiation (13.1% absolute decrease; 95

94 ling changes and removal of the REMS-related LFT requirement were associated with shifts in prescribi

95 oxed warning for hepatotoxicity and the REMS LFT monitoring requirements on ambrisentan in March 2011

96 The multiplex RPA-LFT detected at least 4 ng of PVY per g of plant leaves,

97 Importantly, digital SERS-LFT methods maintain their robustness and their LODs in

98 The SERS-LFT dipsticks, incorporating gold-silver core-shell nano

99 The developed digital SERS-LFTs demonstrate limits of detection (LODs) of 180 fg fo

100 lity of ALFI remains to be established since LFTs did not improve an already high NPV for short term

101 mall, should be considered when using single LFT in high consequence settings.

102 spectroscopy (SERS)-based lateral flow test (LFT) dipstick that integrates digital analysis for highl

103 e amplification (RPA) and lateral flow test (LFT) is a desirable tool for many areas.

104 Liver function test (LFT) elevations occurred in 10% vs 4% (P = .28), and ser

105 tment records including liver function test (LFT) results at baseline and during treatment were revie

106 Five (15%) patients had liver function test (LFT) results that were more than eight times higher than

107 patients, regardless of liver function test (LFT) values, provided that they had no contraindications

108 including hepatic US, liver function tests (LFT), and a confirmatory CT/MRI.

109 story (the trends of liver functional tests (LFT), Auto-Antibodies, response to treatment and cirrhot

110 hrough the use of lateral flow device tests (LFTs) have been suggested as a way of controlling SARS-C

111 hool pupils using lateral flow device tests (LFTs).

112 g the COVID-19 pandemic, lateral flow tests (LFTs) were used to regulate access to work, education, s

113 gnostic tests, including lateral flow tests (LFTs), in identifying patients and their contacts to slo

114 Conventional lateral flow tests (LFTs), the current standard bioassay format used in low-

115 Abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) are reported frequently in hospitalized coronaviru

116 Although liver function tests (LFTs) are routinely measured in primary care, raised lev

117 y and required monthly liver function tests (LFTs) as part of a risk evaluation and mitigation strate

118 at mass, lean mass, or liver function tests (LFTs) show similar attenuations.

119 acute deterioration in liver function tests (LFTs) was identified ("start time" [ST]) that subsequent

120 l, laboratory, imaging, lung function tests (LFTs), and quality of life and cognitive assessments.

121 liver enzyme levels on liver function tests (LFTs), and there were higher concentrations of MTXGlu3-5

122 including skin score, liver function tests (LFTs), blood counts, and lung function tests.

123 eening, screening with liver function tests (LFTs), HCV antibody (Ab) screening, or HCV RNA screening

124 vement in symptoms and liver function tests (LFTs), stricture recurrence and complication rates.

125 was declined for high liver function tests (LFTs).

126 ssociated with altered liver function tests (LFTs).

127 onotherapy with normal liver function tests (LFTs).

128 a, and mildly elevated liver function tests (LFTs).

129 However, the high NPVs suggest that LFT screening can allow clinicians to reassure the patie

130 The LFT and SCr elevations were not attributed to RDV in eit

131 Mean HLA-DR was 74.8 in the LFT group, 67.1 in the LS group, 52.8 in the OFT group,

132 Growth hormone was lowest in the LFT group.

133 Excluding the void results, the LFT versus RT-qPCR showed a sensitivity of 40.0% (95% co

134 clinicians to reassure the patient when the LFT results are negative.

135 ss to create lineage-based functional types (LFTs), situated between species-level trait data and PFT

136 nnually for metastasis and new cancers using LFTs (alkaline phosphatase, AST, ALT, or bilirubin).

137 assess the likely impact of strategies using LFTs in secondary schools over the course of a seven-wee

138 od, and that twice weekly mass testing using LFTs has helped to control pupil-to-pupil transmission.

139 so not different between groups (FFT: 12% vs LFT: 8%, P = 0.266).

140 ll population, nor in the colon (FFT: 23% vs LFT: 19%, P = 0.636) or rectal (FFT: 44% vs LFT: 35%, P

141 y difference between the groups (FFT: 35% vs LFT: 29%, P = 0.290), neither regarding the overall popu

142 LFT: 19%, P = 0.636) or rectal (FFT: 44% vs LFT: 35%, P = 0.330) cancer subgroups.

143 sessed for OTX-101 vs. CsA, then OTX-101 vs. LFT.

144 While LFTs added to the model's discrimination and sensitivity

145 ith primary uveal melanoma, if combined with LFT and, in case of any newly detected lesion, a confirm

146 ata from patients in Tayside, Scotland, with LFTs performed in primary care were record-linked to sec

147 pending on incidence, regular screening with LFTs, with or without an HCV Ab test, is the optimal str

148 d while undergoing semiannual follow-up with LFTs, including aspartate-aminotransferase (AST), alanin

149 For the model without LFTs the respective values were 43.8%, 92.8%, 15.6%, 98.