ライフサイエンスコーパス: laboratory value

1 om type and duration, oxygen saturation, and laboratory values.

2 ked effects on vital signs, ECG readings, or laboratory values.

3 , time-activity curves, and the stability of laboratory values.

4 hics, injury severity, admission vitals, and laboratory values.

5 clinical characteristics, hemodynamics, and laboratory values.

6 y, quality of life, or clinically meaningful laboratory values.

7 ications, and preoperative and postoperative laboratory values.

8 y of illness, transfusion complications, and laboratory values.

9 , including comorbidities, comedication, and laboratory values.

10 edural pressure gradients, body weights, and laboratory values.

11 ) of 2,027 randomized patients with baseline laboratory values.

12 by the number of adverse events and clinical laboratory values.

13 stologic analysis, clinical course, or other laboratory values.

14 isease using commonly available clinical and laboratory values.

15 ependency between spectral data and clinical laboratory values.

16 atient clinical characteristics, and patient laboratory values.

17 djusted for demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory values.

18 trol) based on abdominal exam and normalized laboratory values.

19 nically significant changes were observed in laboratory values.

20 2-weighted signal abnormalities, with normal laboratory values.

21 AEs, grade 3-4 hematologic AEs, and abnormal laboratory values.

22 is tabs, and for associated disease specific laboratory values.

23 y, presentation characteristics, and initial laboratory values.

24 oms, vital signs, radiographic findings, and laboratory values.

25 criteria using clinical history and fasting laboratory values.

26 ate baseline laboratory testing and abnormal laboratory values.

27 in vital signs, on electrocardiograms, or in laboratory values.

28 hanges in vital signs, electrocardiogram, or laboratory values.

29 differences between groups were reported for laboratory values.

30 and 23 patients (13.2%) because of abnormal laboratory values.

31 ia, operative, and postoperative details and laboratory values.

32 There were no clinically meaningful AEs in laboratory values across groups.

33 Specific diagnoses and laboratory values (albumin, aspartate aminotransferase,

34 iven biologic MELD (bMELD), calculated using laboratory values alone, might be higher at certain cent

35 prise question, clinical characteristics, or laboratory values alone.

36 udy of 578 patients with suspicion of PC, 28 laboratory values alongside data on family history, diet

37 danazol were haematological abnormalities by laboratory values: anaemia (79 [61%] of 130 vs 49 [75%]

38 gns, electrocardiogram results, and clinical laboratory values and assessment of movement disorders a

39 ndex were calculated, and anthropometric and laboratory values and blood pressure were measured in 18

40 All component MELDNa laboratory values and calculated MELDNa scores yielded s

41 ty of bowel inflammation, a large dataset of laboratory values and clinical activity indices was corr

42 Laboratory values and imaging help increase suspicion fo

43 Laboratory values and lipid pharmacotherapy were assesse

44 evaluated the clinical history and baseline laboratory values and performed magnetic resonance imagi

45 the nivolumab treatment cycle, his pertinent laboratory values and physical examination findings were

46 on diagnosis, admission severity of illness, laboratory values and physiologic variables present duri

47 Relevant laboratory values and rates of laboratory iron overload

48 Using an analysis of variance, pretransplant laboratory values and SRL trough concentrations (C0) wer

49 Secondary outcomes included differences in laboratory values and treatment requirements (photodynam

50 tory, and clinical characteristics including laboratory values and treatments.

51 Frequency of laboratory values and vital signs was highest in HiRID,

52 Changes in general laboratory values and vital signs were compared using un

53 ward, which uses structured EHR data such as laboratory values and vital signs.

54 nsferase), 0.72 for CLivD non-lab (excluding laboratory values), and 0.75 for FIB-4.

55 edical and social history, (3) clinical, (4) laboratory values, and (5) treatment.

56 Of these, 91% had baseline laboratory values, and 34% did not have any serum potass

57 end of treatment, by renal function testing, laboratory values, and a grading score (none, mild, mode

58 odels for demographics, comorbid conditions, laboratory values, and achieved dialysis dosage.

59 Vital signs, laboratory values, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Heal

60 Age, admission laboratory values, and APACHE II and Imrie scores were s

61 Adverse events, clinical laboratory values, and cardiovascular effects were monit

62 rs encompassing demographics, comorbidities, laboratory values, and clinical interventions.

63 fter adjustment for patient characteristics, laboratory values, and comorbid conditions, the risk for

64 ciations of baseline characteristics, select laboratory values, and cumulative prednisone and cyclosp

65 procedural codes, medications, perioperative laboratory values, and date of death.

66 ltural competency and humility, establishing laboratory values, and developing equitable laboratory s

67 dy (HAMA) response, adverse events, clinical laboratory values, and diagnostic imaging results were e

68 Adverse events, clinical laboratory values, and electrocardiograms were monitored

69 on to make decisions, including vital signs, laboratory values, and entries in the medical record.

70 ng demographics, comorbidities, medications, laboratory values, and health care utilization.

71 Symptoms, signs, laboratory values, and hemodynamics (by echocardiogram)

72 ancer characteristics, treatments, symptoms, laboratory values, and history of acute care admissions.

73 Demographics, laboratory values, and medical history at FO therapy ini

74 ed their demographics, symptoms, conditions, laboratory values, and medications for analyses.

75 diabetes incidence defined using diagnoses, laboratory values, and medications.

76 arge that closely monitored clinical status, laboratory values, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic

77 health records for new diagnoses, changes in laboratory values, and new allergies following vaccinati

78 ne demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory values, and outcome data were retrieved after

79 Patient demographics, laboratory values, and outcomes were compared.

80 raphics, symptoms, indications for revision, laboratory values, and outcomes were recorded.

81 r trough levels of immunosuppressive agents, laboratory values, and potential adverse effects.

82 ent parameters such as patient demographics, laboratory values, and prior therapy did not correlate w

83 minal trauma and the physical exam findings, laboratory values, and radiographic imaging associated w

84 d intensively by such means as hemodynamics, laboratory values, and radiologic studies.

85 emographic features, clinical interventions, laboratory values, and risk factors for infection.

86 ographic and oncologic history, pretreatment laboratory values, and SAR frequency were obtained for 1

87 uated patient history, physical examination, laboratory values, and sonography compared with a refere

88 ent demographics, clinical history, baseline laboratory values, and surgery type.

89 There were no clinically relevant changes in laboratory values, and the most frequently reported adve

90 inary volume after voiding, quality of life, laboratory values, and the rate of reported adverse effe

91 tient demographics, ward-based observations, laboratory values, and their trends.

92 oder and multi-head attention layer to learn laboratory values, and utilized a deep neural network (D

93 luded demographic and injury data, admission laboratory values, and vital signs and outcomes includin

94 ast once every 3 weeks, with adverse events, laboratory values, and vital signs graded according to t

95 NTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic variables, laboratory values, and vital signs were utilized in a di

96 Reference intervals (RIs) for clinical laboratory values are extremely important for diagnostic

97 ronic health records suggested that thiamine laboratory values are reduced in individuals receiving p

98 nsciousness) and automated paging for "panic laboratory values," as well as instituting protocols for

99 Changes in laboratory values at baseline and 0-6 hours and 1-2 week

100 We recorded access type, laboratory values at entry, stratified patients per risk

101 Pertinent serum laboratory values at the time of these tests were as fol

102 riteria of receiving MRX for >=48 weeks with laboratory values available at week 48 (W48).

103 ents into those with above-normal and normal laboratory values before implantation and measured blood

104 th Gilbert's syndrome were defined as having laboratory values before the start of conditioning thera

105 ng comorbidities, and initial vital sign and laboratory values between severity subgroups.

106 characteristics, electrocardiogram findings, laboratory values, biomarker levels, and imaging studies

107 Laboratory values, bleeding frequency, and consumption o

108 up, there was no substantial change in serum laboratory values, but a lung function test revealed her

109 ke strikes fell within the range of reported laboratory values, but some far exceeded most observatio

110 oxygen (Fio2), pulse, and temperature) and 4 laboratory values (C-reactive protein (CRP), absolute ly

111 linicians, as falsely increased or decreased laboratory values can result in unnecessary diagnostics

112 of heart failure, psychosocial risk factors, laboratory values, cardiac rate and rhythm, and echocard

113 Patient demographics, laboratory values, clinical characteristics at admission

114 the COVID-19 positive cohort, comorbidities, laboratory values, clinical outcome, and venous thrombos

115 ate analyses correlated demographic factors, laboratory values, clinical parameters, and CsA pharmaco

116 luding treatments, physiologic variables and laboratory values collected before, during, and after a

117 sed since overdose, and outcome from patient laboratory values commonly available on admission in cas

118 Among 36 laboratory values considered in the CHARM program, highe

119 two patients (70%) had clinical features and laboratory values consistent with AFLP, and 7 (15%) had

120 Further adjustment for comorbidities and laboratory values continued to show this protective asso

121 Numerous laboratory values correlate with each other.

122 etabolites, cytokines, microbes and clinical laboratory values, correlate with age.

123 d with specific AML phenotypes as defined by laboratory values, cytogenetics, and clinical outcomes.

124 When sequential laboratory values declined below 8 g/dL (n = 102) and 7

125 medical condition, or clinically significant laboratory values deemed by researchers to be unsuitable

126 physiologic markers (including vital signs, laboratory values, demographics, and continuous cardiore

127 based on perioperative basic metabolic panel laboratory values demonstrated good predictive accuracy

128 ith disease states, current medications, and laboratory values derived from data available from CENTE

129 Of 551 patients with follow-up laboratory values determined, 15% developed hyperkalemia

130 Laboratory values did not change significantly between t

131 At week 5, none of the laboratory values differed significantly compared with b

132 rin were examined to determine whether these laboratory values distinguished patients who responded t

133 Assessment risk scores from vital signs and laboratory values documented during the first 24 hours.

134 ed donor and recipient demographics and peak laboratory values during the first postoperative week.

135 Extrapyramidal Symptom (EPS) rating scales, laboratory values, electrocardiograms, vital signs, and

136 ere uncommon and were predominantly abnormal laboratory values: elevated ALT, thrombocytopenia, and l

137 Among patients with laboratory values exceeding protocol cutoffs, implementa

138 A total of 27 364 laboratory values for 16 laboratory tests were analyzed,

139 oxicity to the mice was detected by numerous laboratory values for bone marrow, liver, and kidney fun

140 m HCV-infected patients with contemporaneous laboratory values for imputing APRI and FIB-4.

141 Laboratory values for lipid levels, hepatic function, an

142 Laboratory values for low-density lipoprotein (LDL), hig

143 The differences in the laboratory values for the acute treatment group versus t

144 s, the model accurately predicted subsequent laboratory values for the majority of individual patient

145 Demographics and laboratory values from 340 Black patients (172 men and 1

146 Biochemical and hematologic laboratory values from 48 procedures in 39 patients (18

147 idence of a difference in changes in general laboratory values from before to after treatment between

148 Demographic data and laboratory values from electronic medical records, inclu

149 patients with NPDR 18 years or older who had laboratory values from January 1, 2002, to June 30, 2019

150 Abstracted laboratory values from MER were used to determine the pe

151 tal of 43 788 radiograph reports, with their laboratory values, from University Hospital RWTH Aachen

152 c WBC scan findings were consistent with the laboratory values, gastroenterologist's clinical assessm

153 ume centers were similar with regard to age, laboratory values, gender, and parathyroid weights.

154 low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (fasting laboratory value >/=130 mg/dL or taking low-density lipo

155 idemia subtypes: high triglycerides (fasting laboratory value >/=150 mg/dL), low levels of high-densi

156 rise question, clinical characteristics, and laboratory values had better discriminative ability in p

157 l using only readily available, time-updated laboratory values had very similar predictive performanc

158 teria, including exclusions based on several laboratory values, had a minimal effect on the trial haz

159 failure, a systematic assessment of routine laboratory values has not been reported.

160 ase, dialysis, stroke, inpatient admission), laboratory values (hemoglobin A(1c), blood urea nitrogen

161 rise question, clinical characteristics, and laboratory values (hemoglobin, C-reactive protein, and s

162 d data on baseline clinical characteristics, laboratory values, HIV status, treatment, and outcomes f

163 on tree modeling, incorporating all clinical laboratory values, identified only CXCL9 >16,100 pg/mL a

164 h their younger counterparts by preoperative laboratory values, illness severity, nutritional status,

165 hics, cancer characteristics, comorbidities, laboratory values, imaging orders, and neighborhood vari

166 Clinical presentation, laboratory values, immunosuppression, and treatment stra

167 kins (ILs) with clinical findings related to laboratory values in COVID-19 patients to identify plaus

168 than any historical or physical findings or laboratory values in identifying congestive heart failur

169 to April 2020 to evaluate sex differences in laboratory values in liver transplant patients, patients

170 Also, patients with markedly abnormal laboratory values including a calcium 12.0 mg/dL, or 24-

171 ment is limited to external measurements and laboratory values including hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c).

172 graft survival, study drug discontinuations, laboratory values including renal function and developme

173 of the coronary arteries was performed, and laboratory values (including the homocysteine concentrat

174 Physical examination findings and routine laboratory values, including complete blood count and ba

175 dy fat, body mass index (BMI), and pertinent laboratory values, including hemoglobin, albumin, and C-

176 grade 3 and 4 adverse events were changes in laboratory values, including increased blood creatine ph

177 ons of TTP, donors with hTTP can have normal laboratory values, including normal hemoglobin, platelet

178 in vital signs, ECGs, or clinical chemistry laboratory values, including prolactin levels.

179 Pertinent laboratory values, including white blood cell count, wer

180 Demographic data, vital signs, laboratory values, injury severity score, abbreviated in

181 fferences in demographics, arrival vitals or laboratory values, injury severity, or mechanism.

182 A dataset of 2,714 laboratory values is available for analysis.

183 Patient comorbidities, severity of disease, laboratory values, kidney replacement therapy, and patie

184 e patients compared to those listed based on laboratory values (LABMELD).

185 sex, race/ethnicity), coexisting illnesses, laboratory values, left ventricular systolic function, a

186 emographic data, selected clinical findings, laboratory values, length of hospital stay, presence and

187 igh-density lipoprotein cholesterol (fasting laboratory value <40 mg/dL [men] and <50 mg/dL [women]),

188 Laboratory values may be erroneous when intraosseous blo

189 (PBC) for which it has a positive effect on laboratory values, may delay the development of liver fa

190 e curated centrally, including demographics, laboratory values, medical history, lesion sites, and pr

191 Patient demographics, vitals, laboratory values, medication order and administration t

192 Pertinent details, including laboratory values, medications, smoking history/status,

193 Demographic characteristics, vital signs, laboratory values, nursing flowsheet data, and outcomes

194 Accuracy was best at laboratory values of 10.5-14.5 g/dL and least at laborat

195 ratory values of 10.5-14.5 g/dL and least at laboratory values of 6.5-8 g/dL.

196 ed faults generally could not be detected if laboratory values of Dc apply to faults in nature.

197 Laboratory values of safety and sputum cultures were col

198 nhalation injury, delay in resuscitation, or laboratory values on initial presentation.

199 f using the existing virologic endpoints and laboratory values or entirely new biomarkers are needed.

200 There was also no significant difference in laboratory values or treatment of identified autoimmune

201 were gastroenterological (17%) and abnormal laboratory values or vital signs (17%).

202 rious adverse events, or changes in clinical laboratory values or vital signs occurred during this st

203 pregnancy-specific reference range for each laboratory value, or by serum TSH concentrations greater

204 mographics, clinical signs or interventions, laboratory values, organ dysfunction measures, and illne

205 asing outcomes with more marked worsening of laboratory values over 2 years, particularly for patient

206 nt on the basis of changes in bodyweight and laboratory values over time (MTD with optimisation phase

207 aired t test were used to analyze changes in laboratory values over time.

208 g to patient characteristics, prescriptions, laboratory values, practice patterns, and outcomes.

209 ), and low serum albumin was the significant laboratory value predictor (odds ratio, 3.8).

210 characteristics, comorbidities, vital signs, laboratory values, procedures, and medications administe

211 ificant differences detected in vital signs, laboratory values, procedures, treatment, or outcome bet

212 In a large insurance database with linked laboratory values, records of women with serum creatinin

213 The secondary outcomes were serum laboratory values relevant to the treatment of kidney st

214 ; P = 0.002; mean +/- SD), whereas remaining laboratory values remained unchanged.

215 l ranges need to be determined by individual laboratories, values reported in the literature may be u

216 re-treatment increased safety risk based on laboratory values, reported adverse event frequencies, o

217 l cases, volunteers recovered completely and laboratory values returned to baseline after specific an

218 The primary outcomes were reactogenicity; laboratory values (serum chemistry and hematology), acco

219 linical characteristics, signs and symptoms, laboratory values, severity measures, and clinical outco

220 against other clinical parameters including laboratory values, severity scores, and outcomes.

221 These easily obtained laboratory values should prompt initiation of antifungal

222 ical notes with predictions based on textual laboratory values significantly enhanced the predictive

223 Grade 3 or higher abnormal laboratory values, signs, or symptoms developed in 5 of

224 Grade >= 3 abnormal laboratory values, signs, or symptoms developed in 5 of

225 ombinations of input features (demographics, laboratory values, structured ECG data, ECG traces) and

226 nicopathologic characteristics, preoperative laboratory values such as absolute neutrophil, lymphocyt

227 biopsy, time from infection to biopsies, and laboratory values such as serum alanine aminotransferase

228 Additionally, laboratory values such as VitD and HCT showed improvemen

229 Laboratory values (testosterone, hematocrit, red blood c

230 tion algorithms incorporating billing codes, laboratory values, text queries, and medication records

231 ion can be defined using postoperative day 7 laboratory values that are highly predictive of early gr

232 tal signs, electrocardiographic findings, or laboratory values that qualified as adverse events.

233 , 99mTc WBC scan findings were compared with laboratory values, the gastroenterologist's initial clin

234 at were already associated with hyperthyroid laboratory values, the rates were similar: 81.2% were ca

235 ing present on admission codes and numerical laboratory values to administrative databases.

236 examined both demographics and inflammatory laboratory values to ascertain those that were at higher

237 nt before and after (177)Lu-PSMA treatments, laboratory values, treatment discontinuation, posttreatm

238 recorded, as well as clinical presentation, laboratory values, treatment, complications, and outcome

239 phic characteristics, clinical presentation, laboratory values, treatments, and outcomes were collect

240 In MarketScan, laboratory values trended in the same direction but were

241 Clinical data including laboratory values, tumor-specific treatment and outcome

242 demonstrate pervasive sex differences in all laboratory values used in MELDNa scoring and highlight t

243 t characteristics, drug characteristics, and laboratory values using a multiple logistic regression.

244 ts in different correlation coefficients for laboratory values versus (99m)Tc-WBC scintigraphy.

245 fety endpoints were adverse events, clinical laboratory values, vital signs, and anti-AMG 334 antibod

246 fety endpoints were adverse events, clinical laboratory values, vital signs, and anti-erenumab antibo

247 characteristics, comorbidities, medications, laboratory values, vital signs, and subsequent outcomes.

248 The degree of change in the laboratory values was more directly associated with whol

249 th at diagnosis, and at least one of the two laboratory values was persistently elevated in 43 percen

250 Prevalence of increased liver laboratory values was similar to that seen in adults.

251 hanges were observed in vital signs, routine laboratory values, weight, metabolic indices, and Abnorm

252 r physical symptoms, current treatments, and laboratory values were also collected.

253 amount of ascites accumulation and relevant laboratory values were assessed during the follow-up per

254 Adverse events and safety laboratory values were assessed.Overall, 202 adults were

255 Increasingly abnormal laboratory values were associated with decreased dischar

256 Patients were included if laboratory values were available within 60 days of diagn

257 Tacrolimus trough levels and laboratory values were closely monitored during the TVR

258 Vital signs and laboratory values were collected to define the presence

259 Laboratory values were considered elevated if they excee

260 Laboratory values were correlated with fat fraction valu

261 Significant changes in vital signs and laboratory values were evaluated by using a combination

262 Baseline laboratory values were in an acceptable range to meet el

263 y progressed to grade IV encephalopathy, and laboratory values were indicative of a poor prognosis wi

264 Physiologic parameters and laboratory values were measured for seven days in a crit

265 he majority of adverse events and changes in laboratory values were mild or moderate.

266 Beneficiaries initiating diuretics with laboratory values were more likely to have an abnormal s

267 Because laboratory values were more predictive than vital signs

268 29.8% (normal range, 37%-45%), but all other laboratory values were normal.

269 Predonation laboratory values were not remarkable, and liver and kid

270 hanges in vital signs, electrocardiogram, or laboratory values were observed.

271 gns, physical examination, ECGs, or clinical laboratory values were observed.

272 Patient demographics, etiology of ALF, and laboratory values were recorded.

273 Laboratory values were strong predictors of mortality bu

274 Laboratory values were the best predictors, with blood u

275 , 13.8-17.2 mg/dL); however, the rest of the laboratory values were within normal limits (Figs 1-5).

276 , 13.8-17.2 mg/dL); however, the rest of the laboratory values were within normal limits.

277 treatment characteristics, and pretreatment laboratory values-were abstracted from medical records.

278 ible grade III to IV toxicities according to laboratory values, which returned to pretreatment levels

279 of acute rejection episodes as well as mean laboratory values with those of a historical cohort of 6

280 ore integrated age, gender, cirrhosis, and 9 laboratory values, with center-specific mortality rates.

281 of resolution of abdominal pain or abnormal laboratory values, would result in a shorter hospital st