ライフサイエンスコーパス: low-risk group

1 cebo high risk group, and 139 in the placebo low risk group).

2 cebo high risk group, and 427 in the placebo low risk group).

3 tance use disorder or other mental disorder (low-risk group).

4 sk 135.8 [95% CI 32.7-564.0] relative to the low-risk group).

5 creening and interventions (if they are in a low-risk group).

6 APOL1 high-risk group) or 0 or 1 copy (APOL1 low-risk group).

7 nce of heart disease failed to distinguish a low risk group.

8 ients with acute cholangitis into a high and low risk group.

9 with 14% better allocation to either high or low risk group.

10 e transcriptome profile was identical to the low-risk group.

11 patients aged 2 years and older were in this low-risk group.

12 d patients younger than 2 years were in this low-risk group.

13 ate-risk group, and 846 (812, 871) mg in the low-risk group.

14 rtex activation in the high-risk than in the low-risk group.

15 22%, respectively) in the high-risk than the low-risk group.

16 and those with a single seizure only as the low-risk group.

17 gh- and intermediate-risk groups than in the low-risk group.

18 bo and 8.11% of eptifibatide patients in the low-risk group.

19 eath; in particular, the OR was 0.52 for the low-risk group.

20 ediate- and high-risk groups relative to the low-risk group.

21 ntify a significant number of cancers in the low-risk group.

22 relative risk of graft loss compared with a low-risk group.

23 gh-risk group and reports the results of the low-risk group.

24 sociated with recurrence and survival in the low-risk group.

25 rognostic significance in the overall or the low-risk group.

26 4 score, although it missed more LREs in the low-risk group.

27 ad no prenatal urine drug test, a presumably low-risk group.

28 ng CHD in the high-risk CKD group versus the low-risk group.

29 howed transitional values between PD and the low-risk group.

30 erior to the standard 6-month regimen in the low-risk group.

31 r odds of mortality compared to those in the low-risk group.

32 at 9 years, compared with 76.8% for the not low-risk group.

33 lymph node may be associated with OS in the low-risk group.

34 agnostic OR 4.58; 4.09-5.13) compared to the low-risk group.

35 evelopment of incident CHB compared with the low-risk group.

36 e intermediate-risk group and only 6% in the low-risk group.

37 oss all willingness-to-pay thresholds in the low-risk group.

38 free and overall survival were higher in the low-risk group.

39 group showed a higher mutation rate than the low-risk group.

40 he high-risk group, and in no patient in the low-risk group.

41 ratio in cardiovascular risk assessment in a low-risk group.

42 d with the high-risk group compared with the low-risk group.

43 high-risk group vs approximately 50% in the low-risk group.

44 n, and no definite RHD was identified in the low-risk group.

45 ensive patients with normal LVM seem to be a low-risk group.

46 onal age have been considered a homogeneous, low-risk group.

47 tients undergoing primary PTCA into high and low risk groups.

48 d to stratify patients into high, medium and low risk groups.

49 nephropathy, or coronary artery disease) in low-risk groups.

50 h biomarker median as a cutoff for high- and low-risk groups.

51 measure were observed between the high- and low-risk groups.

52 ung adenocarcinomas that predicted high- and low-risk groups.

53 o provide useful discrimination of high- and low-risk groups.

54 fied cluster 1 as high-risk and cluster 3 as low-risk groups.

55 status were associated with poor outcome for low-risk groups.

56 f metastatic disease on PSMA PET than do the low-risk groups.

57 ients into high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk groups.

58 models effectively stratified high-risk and low-risk groups.

59 ors and stratify patients into high-risk and low-risk groups.

60 pidomic signatures differentiating high from low-risk groups.

61 h-risk CD3/CD8 groups are twice those in the low-risk groups.

62 he ECGs to divide patients into high-risk or low-risk groups.

63 tify patients into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups.

64 ze patients into clinically useful high- and low-risk groups.

65 s low-risk groups, and 3.44 for high- versus low-risk groups.

66 ides patients into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups.

67 sis, patients were stratified into high- and low-risk groups.

68 ncreased risk of mortality compared with the low-risk groups.

69 finding tumor-positive NSN was 12.3% in the low-risk group (0 factors), 30.9% in the intermediate-ri

70 otic core prevalence (30%), as compared with low-risk group (0.94+/-0.09 mm and 17%, respectively).

71 .3-13.2] with AI-guided screening, p<0.0001; low-risk group: 0.9% vs 2.4%, p=0.12) over a median foll

72 ce in median survival time between high- and low-risk groups (13.8 vs 10.7 years, respectively; P < .

73 th 6.8% (95% CI 4.4-10.0) of patients in the low-risk group, 17.3% (12.0-24.7) in the intermediate gr

74 person-years was 4.1 (95% CI 4.0-4.2) in the low-risk group, 17.7 (15.2-20.2) in the intermediate-ris

75 Examination of the low-risk group, 2 weeks post-EBVST infusion, showed that

76 5% CI, 15%-21%) for the 1230 patients in the low-risk group, 24% (95% CI, 21%-26%) for the 2355 patie

77 mes the occurrence rate of bacteremia in the low-risk group (27.4% vs 0.9%; p < 0.001).

78 ad a mortality rate 60 times higher than the low-risk group (28.2% vs 0.4%; p < 0.001).

79 ed with the rest of the cohort, women in the low-risk group (3.4 percent of the women) had a relative

80 events were enriched in the high-risk versus low-risk group (38% [12/32] vs. 2.4% [1/42], P < 0.0001)

81 s of 87% (low-risk group), 64% (intermediate-low-risk group), 39% (intermediate-high-risk group), and

82 0-day MACE than those with unsuccessful PCI (low-risk group: 4.6% vs. 22%, p < 0.0001; high-risk grou

83 in the initial normal biopsies of high- and low-risk groups (42% and 27%, respectively, P = 0.066).

84 In a three-risk group model, the low-risk group (46% of all patients analyzed), the inter

85 es compared with one fungemic culture in the low-risk group (5.0% vs 0.02%; p < 0.001).

86 de, 49.2% placebo) and 1,045 patients in the low-risk group (50.0% eptifibatide, 50.0% placebo).

87 ifference in 5-year OS between the high- and low-risk groups (63% v 92%, respectively; log-rank P < .

88 rence rates: predicted probabilities of 87% (low-risk group), 64% (intermediate-low-risk group), 39%

89 % CI 84.0-93.8) and 96.2% (93.2-99.2) in the low-risk group; 65.0% (58.2-71.8) and 79.2% (73.4-85.0)

90 o risk-stratify the elderly, 26% were in the low risk group, 68% were in the intermediate risk group

91 in weighted 5-year EFS between high-risk and low-risk groups (75.2% vs 90.3%; log-rank P = .0138) ind

92 A three-stage stratification yielded a low-risk group (80.0% with a two-year MAE risk of 2.9%),

93 sk group, 94.7% (95% CI, 68.1%-99.2%) in the low-risk group, 89.2% (95% CI, 63.1%-97.2%) in the inter

94 en years after diagnosis, 1330 deaths in the low-risk group (92.3%) and 1724 in the high-risk group (

95 imated 5-year OS rates were 100% in the very low-risk group, 94.7% (95% CI, 68.1%-99.2%) in the low-r

96 7.2% (95% CI 95.1-98.4; n=445 [41%]) for the low-risk group, 94.8% (91.7-96.7; n=339 [32%]) for the i

97 within the first year alone, whereas in the low-risk group, 96% of patients were accurately predicte

98 spitals to avoid 1 death was greater for the low-risk group (a range of 114 to 446 versus 37 to 184).

99 Compared with the low-risk group, a high PRS for HS (>=75th percentile) co

100 t-effectiveness of SIT increased, whereas in low-risk groups, a cost-optimized strategy was cost-effe

101 ved comparability of QFT-GIT with TST in the low-risk group (adjusted OR [AOR] 1.2; 95% CI, .4-3.3) b

102 group versus 14 (8%) of 322 patients in the low-risk group (adjusted sub-distribution HR 2.22 [95% C

103 transition to chronic LBP (eg, high-risk vs low-risk groups: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.45; 95% CI

104 meeting all 4 of these criteria made up the low-risk group; all others, the high-risk group.

105 A CAC score of 0 identified a low-risk group among ACC/AHA statin-eligible participant

106 The BASIS cohort includes a low risk group and three high-risk groups who at age 3 w

107 juvant treatment by avoiding therapy in very low risk groups and identifying patients who would benef

108 inguishing clinical feature between high and low risk groups and the first manifestation in 80% of th

109 Eleven patients in the low-risk group and 11 in the high-risk group experienced

110 A total of 400 346 women (69.6%) were in the low-risk group and 175 178 (30.4%) in the high-risk grou

111 ratified 51 of 1613 patients (3.2%) into the low-risk group and 202 of 1477 patients (13.7%) into the

112 ts were 22 +/- 10 ng/mg of creatinine in the low-risk group and 55 +/- 11 ng/mg of creatinine in the

113 1.7-97.5, n=244; p<0.001 for the provisional low-risk group and 65.1%, 50.7-76.2, n=56 vs 82.9%, 75.6

114 rhythmic events (p < 0.001) relative to this low-risk group and displayed a risk of severe arrhythmic

115 s ultrahypofractionation for patients in the low-risk group and moderate hypofractionation for patien

116 tify high-risk patients within traditionally low-risk groups and low-risk patients within high-risk g

117 ing multi-locus genotypes to either high- or low-risk groups and measuring the percentage of cases an

118 Groups of patients with 0 to 2 (low-risk group) and 5 to 7 (high-risk group) dosage-alte

119 d 11731 men had a healthy lifestyle pattern (low-risk group), and the remaining 73040 women and 34608

120 population, more patients (55%) were in the low risk group, and the Duke score (as a continuous vari

121 h small nodules (<1 cm) were assigned to the low-risk group, and a large percentage of individuals wi

122 ors and duodenal cancer were assigned to the low-risk group, and the others to the high-risk group.

123 r of these five conditions were considered a low-risk group, and those that met three or fewer condit

124 embolic events were 1.95 for medium- versus low-risk groups, and 3.44 for high- versus low-risk grou

125 r method) between predictor-defined high and low risk groups; and 2) a permutation test to evaluate t

126 was postponed by more than five years in the low-risk group as compared with the high-risk group.

127 tribution hazard ratios (SHRs) and using the low-risk group as the reference group, increased accordi

128 group was not offset by a later onset in the low-risk group as they matured.

129 was not offset by later first onsets in the low-risk group as they matured.

130 ve repair were similar in increased-risk and low-risk groups at 3% and 5%, respectively.

131 r in both the at-risk and PD groups from the low-risk group (at risk = 7.59 +/- 4.59; PD = 7.71 +/- 5

132 o evidence of improved discrimination in the low-risk group (AUC, 0.74; 95% CI: 0.69, 0.78).

133 p (AUC, 0.70; 95% CI: 0.56, 0.84) versus the low-risk group (AUC, 0.74; 95% CI: 0.70, 0.78).

134 ), by treatment and high-, intermediate-, or low-risk group based on serum PSA level, biopsy Gleason

135 The sample was further divided into low-risk groups based on clinical, biomarker, genetic, o

136 Acute PE cases were divided into high- and low-risk groups based on PE Severity Index (PESI) class

137 patients into clinically relevant high- and low-risk groups based on the gene expression profile and

138 ificant difference between the high-risk and low-risk groups based on the simplified Geneva score (su

139 non-T2 patients, placing them into high- and low-risk groups based on their gene expression.

140 stratified ccRCC patients into high-risk and low-risk groups based on these factors.

141 In particular, stratification into high- and low-risk groups, based on the linear risk score from thi

142 Patients were stratified into high-/low-risk groups by the Halabi nomogram.

143 17115 men with very-low-risk (subset of the low-risk group) (clinical stage, T1c; Gleason score, </=

144 tubular adenomas less than 10 mm represent a low-risk group compared with other patients with colon n

145 d participants into high-, intermediate-, or low-risk groups, compared with traditional risk factor a

146 depression, anxiety, or psychotic disorders (low-risk group) completed a functional magnetic resonanc

147 ificantly greater neuroinflammation than the low-risk group concentrated on subcortical and basal gan

148 l $40530 per QALY gained, while those in the low-risk group cost an additional $211570 per QALY gaine

149 a trend that indicates that patients in the low-risk group could be at greater risk of suffering har

150 In the low-risk group, CT screening helps prevent cases of para

151 In the low-risk group, cumulative graft failure was lower for p

152 elihood methods identified optimal high-risk/low-risk group cutpoints in the training set.

153 al for both D+ groups as compared to the CMV low-risk group (D+R+: 56.61% [95% confidence interval, 5

154 e survival probability was lower than in the low-risk group, decreasing with an increase in the numbe

155 compared cortical thickness across high- and low-risk groups, detecting large expanses of cortical th

156 had a significantly higher CVD risk than the low-risk group (diabetic: odds ratio [OR] = 2.41 [1.11,

157 A hypothesized clinical low-risk group did not have a low risk of IBTR without R

158 At 5 months, the high-risk and low-risk groups differed in household characteristics in

159 urvival was higher in patients composing the low-risk group (estimated <20% RVF risk) compared with t

160 In this clinically low risk group, estimated functional capacity was a stro

161 esponses to paclitaxel chemotherapy, and the low-risk group exhibited higher immune cell infiltration

162 All 5 low-risk groups experienced significantly and markedly l

163 e HIV seroprevalence is at least 2 to 7% in "low-risk" groups, failure to test these patients may res

164 regression predicting median-split high and low risk groups for psychotic-like experiences revealed

165 in the high-risk group was twice that in the low-risk group for all measures (CD3-CT: rate ratio [RR]

166 -year estimate of PSA outcome was 87% in the low-risk group for all patients (P =.70) and 28% versus

167 The low-risk group for resource use had mean (standard error

168 ts with 1 or 2 tubular adenomas constitute a low-risk group for whom follow-up might be extended beyo

169 chotomization of ICU patients into high- and low-risk groups for IC risk is problematic.

170 sed to risk stratify patients into high- and low-risk groups for intensification or de-escalation of

171 nificantly higher in very high- vs high- and low-risk groups for LR (9.4% [95% CI, 9.2%-14.0%] vs 1.5

172 nomograms accurately stratify high-risk and low-risk groups for overall survival in early and late s

173 ransesophageal echocardiography can identify low-risk groups for thrombolysis irrespective of symptom

174 surgeons increased from 0.43 to 0.74 for the low-risk group; for the moderate-to-high-risk group, ORs

175 .45 to 0.77 and were all significant for the low-risk group; for the moderate-to-high-risk group, ORs

176 ly, the new classification identified a very low-risk group (Group 1), a subgroup of intermediate-ris

177 ity, whereas patients predicted to be in the low risk group had a higher probability of survival.

178 Of the 4 groups, the low risk group had significantly younger female recipien

179 ents who improved to or were maintained in a low-risk group had a 1-year mortality <5%.

180 The low-risk group had a 96% probability of survival at 5 ye

181 king status, and alcohol use were all in the low-risk group had ORs for diabetes of 0.61 (CI, 0.56 to

182 al obesity has increased, while those in the low-risk group have decreased.

183 ) versus 77.21% (95% CI 69.21-86.14) for the low-risk group (hazard ratio [HR] 4.14, 95% CI 2.47-6.93

184 isk group and in 36.6% of those in the APOL1 low-risk group (hazard ratio in the high-risk group, 1.8

185 not associated with an OS difference in the low-risk group [hazard ratio (HR): 1.50, 95% CI: 0.92-2.

186 imated EFS (high-risk group vs very low- and low-risk groups: hazard ratio [HR], 45.59; 95% CI, 9.39-

187 50-49.99) versus 68.24% (58.84-79.15) in the low-risk group (HR 3.58, 95% CI 2.00-6.42; p<0.0001).

188 82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.85; P < .001) but not the low-risk group (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.05; P = .54).

189 01) and OS (high-risk group vs very low- and low-risk groups: HR, 21.95; 95% CI, 2.76-174.29; P < .00

190 t the study population involved a relatively low risk group in a previously well-screened and treated

191 cancer with similarly good prognosis as the low-risk group in current guidelines.

192 be very likely to detect NASH, as well as a low-risk group in whom biopsy can be safely delayed or a

193 and MELD >=40 high-risk groups compared with low-risk groups in the derivation group (P < 0.001).

194 oagulation use has increased in nontargeted, low-risk groups in whom antiplatelet agents are appropri

195 stinguishing the GBM patients into high- and low-risk groups (log-rank p = 0.006) for diagnosis and p

196 d this difference was more pronounced in the low risk groups (logEuroScore: $9763 versus $14 073; Hos

197 observed pooled event rates were 12% in the low risk group (<2% predicted), 15% in the medium risk g

198 While low-risk groups may benefit from reassurance or medicati

199 zing patients into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups may more efficiently target early antifu

200 Low-risk group (micropapillomas and sclerotic and benign

201 parameters separated equally sized high and low risk groups more distinctly than a classifier contai

202 Compared with the intermediate (n = 19) and low risk groups (n = 31), there were no differences in a

203 group (n = 1,003), and 0.1% of those in the low-risk group (n = 1,012).

204 .4%) were diagnosed with new-onset HF in the low-risk group (n=6915; Framingham Risk Score, 5.9%) and

205 (intermediate-risk group, n=36), and 84.4% (low-risk group, n=202), and it provided greater net clin

206 pt, suicidal ideation, or thoughts of death [low-risk group; n = 206]).

207 Compared with a low-risk group (no AHO; n = 446) and with exception of n

208 assigned most (57.3%) of the patients to the low-risk group; none of these patients developed hepatic

209 dicting cardiac mortality and morbidity in a low risk group of patients with established coronary art

210 ifferentiate between a high risk group and a low risk group of patients.

211 These parameters can identify a low-risk group of patients for metastasis who can be rat

212 t ICD guidelines fail to distinguish a truly low-risk group of patients with clinically manifest CS,

213 ohol recidivism 8/15, 53%) and the remaining low-risk group of purely alcohol dependent patients (n =

214 odels classified the data into high-risk and low-risk groups of blood lactate levels.

215 sfully separated patients into high-risk and low-risk groups of disease progression.

216 to cardiovascular disease were lower for the low-risk groups of men and women than for those not at l

217 es that were facility-based or restricted to low-risk groups of women.

218 mpared with the reference GSTM1 active/APOL1 low-risk group, other groups had these hazard ratios for

219 hazard ratio for the predicted high- versus low-risk groups over a 30-year span was 7.2 (95% CI, 6.9

220 ear RFS of 17.9% compared with 98.6% for the low risk group (P < 0.0001).

221 ic parents, 25.4% compared with 16.5% in the low-risk group (P < 0.0001).

222 compared to 12.5% (95% CI 5.7%-25.4%) in the low-risk group (p < 0.001).

223 in the high-risk group than for those in the low-risk group (P <.001).

224 showed significantly worse survival than the low-risk group (P = 0.001), with a HR of 2.23 (1.37-3.65

225 e high-risk group, compared with 100% in the low-risk group (P =.036).

226 the high-risk group compared with 87% in the low-risk group (P<.0001).

227 as 55% in the high-risk group and 93% in the low-risk group (P<.0001).

228 cantly stronger in the high-risk than in the low-risk group, particularly along the mesial wall of th

229 oups shared common changes compared with the low-risk group, particularly increased levels of mast ce

230 efficacy offered options for both high- and low-risk group patients.

231 Estimated greater life expectancy for low-risk groups ranged from 5.8 years for CHA women aged

232 sed with breast cancer, whereas women in the low-risk group reached this rate at 51 years.

233 sed with breast cancer, whereas those in the low-risk group reached this rate at age 58 years.

234 paroscopic cholecystectomy in each subgroup (low-risk group: relative risk [RR], 3.14; 95% CI, 2.35-3

235 7% for the high-, the intermediate-, and the low-risk group, respectively (P < .0001).

236 Median OS values in the high- and low-risk groups, respectively, in the testing set were 1

237 nce of developing CKD in the next 5 y in the low risk group (risk score < 0, 33 events), rising to 1:

238 CI, 0.52-0.78, respectively), but not in the low-risk group (risk ratio, 1.278; 95% CI, 0.888-1.839).

239 confidence interval [CI]: 0.6%, 4.6%) in the low-risk group (score < 5.0), 12.8% (95% CI: 7.5%, 19.9%

240 nguished a high-risk group (score >2) from a low-risk group (score <=2) with 1-year survival of 8.3%

241 prediction remains limited, particularly in low-risk groups such as women and younger individuals.

242 es), low-risk (including all men in the very-low-risk group) (T1-T2; Gleason score, </=6; and PSA, <1

243 h with conventional clinical variables for a low risk group that does not need RT does not seem fruit

244 ria separated patients into high-risk versus low-risk groups that predicted 5-year disease-free survi

245 In fact, in these low-risk groups the expression of COX-2 defined a group

246 In an anticipated low-risk group, the cumulative incidence of first breast

247 Relative to the low-risk group, the diabetic group demonstrated associat

248 In the low-risk group, the event-free survival was 91.7% (95% C

249 at within the International Prognostic Index low-risk group, the gene signature provides additional p

250 Compared with the low-risk group, the high- and very high-risk groups demo

251 In the primary models, compared to the Low-risk group, the High-risk group had the highest haza

252 In the low-risk group, the number of diseased vessels was the o

253 For each additional lifestyle factor in the low-risk group, the odds for diabetes were 31% lower (od

254 d to reduce hospitalization by identifying a low-risk group, the small size of this group among ED pa

255 In this comparatively low risk group, this represents an increase in deaths fr

256 Compared with the patients in the low-risk group, those in the medium- and high-risk group

257 10 years varied markedly from 14.4 % in the low-risk group to 56.2% in the high-risk group.

258 dicator and further stratify the GEP 70-gene low-risk group to identify an intermediate-risk group in

259 at accurately discriminate between high- and low-risk groups to guide investments and targeted interv

260 Patients may be separated into high- and low-risk groups to help identify appropriate treatment.

261 ntify not only a high-risk group, but also a low-risk group unlikely to benefit from ICD prophylaxis.

262 -risk group and also better at identifying a low-risk group unlikely to benefit from ICD therapy.

263 The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) into high and low risk groups using LASSO regression on RPPA data.

264 8; 95% CI, 0.24-0.93; P = .03) and 7% in the low-risk group (vs high-risk control: HR, 4.71; 95% CI,

265 5-year disease-free survival in the HER2DX low-risk group was 93.5% (89.0-98.3%) and in the high-ri

266 tantially higher PARs were obtained when the low-risk group was compared with the US population.

267 A low-risk group was defined according to a combination of

268 The low-risk group was further divided based on the presence

269 The rate in the low-risk group was significantly lower than that in the

270 N in classifying patients into high-risk and low-risk groups was compared with that of another valida

271 regression modeling stratified by high- and low-risk groups was used to compare 60-day mortality at

272 -risk and high-risk groups compared with the low-risk group were 4.2 (95% CI: 1.3-13.8) and 9.8 (95%

273 lative incidences at age 50 years among CCSS low-risk groups were < 5%, compared with approximately 2

274 Actual stroke rates in these low-risk groups were 1.1 and 1.5 per 100 person-years, r

275 ogression rates in high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups were 76%, 51%, and 25%, respectively.

276 Low-risk groups were formed by dichotomizing each lifest

277 risk and high-risk groups, compared with the low-risk group, were 7.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]:

278 ent up-front total mesorectal excision (TME; low-risk group), whereas those with a distance <=1 mm an

279 lower in patients with PD compared with the low-risk group, whereas the at-risk group showed transit

280 after AMI can accurately identify a sizeable low-risk group who have a <2% death and reinfarction rat

281 tant prostate cancer into two risk groups: a low-risk group with a median survival of more than 34.9

282 group with a median TTP of 4.8 years, and a low-risk group with a median TTP of 9.3 years.

283 The low-risk group with a single tubular adenoma 1 to 5 mm i

284 -risk patients, with no 30-day deaths in the low-risk group with concerning CTPE findings (0 of 151 p

285 e PAR at the national scale by comparing the low-risk group with the US population.

286 re stratified patients into high-risk versus low-risk groups with 2-y PFS rates of 59.1% versus 89.4%

287 f scarring separates patients into high- and low-risk groups with a 2.7-fold difference in death rate

288 3 Score) generated high-, intermediate-, and low-risk groups with numbers needed to treat (NNTs) to p

289 inned terciles yielded high-, standard-, and low-risk groups with respective median OS estimates of 2

290 arated the patients into predicted high- and low-risk groups with significantly different event-free

291 s in the ENTHUSE 33 trial into high-risk and low-risk groups with significantly different overall sur

292 S ANN stratified patients into high-risk and low-risk groups with significantly different survival, a

293 nts (90.4% including nGTTs) and 99.6% in the low-risk group, with a median follow-up time of 4.2 year

294 rmediate- and high-risk groups compared with low-risk groups, with HRs at 10 years in the high-risk g

295 LDLT recipients into high, intermediate, and low-risk groups, with predicted 3-year graft survival ra

296 ully categorizes patients into high-risk and low-risk groups, with significant differences of clinica

297 0 of 151 patients) vs 4 of 180 (2.2%) in the low-risk group without concerning CTPE findings and 88 (

298 ecular risk factor analysis identified three low-risk groups (WNT, low-risk SHH, and low-risk combine

299 Sigmoidoscopy to the descending colon in the low-risk groups would have detected 51 of 70 (73% [CI, 6

300 The simplified PIAI had a low-risk group (zero to one factors), with 5-year surviv