ライフサイエンスコーパス: radiologic

1 compared with deletion carriers without any radiologic abnormalities (P < .005, P < .002, and P < .0

2 mptoms, 83% had improvement or resolution of radiologic abnormalities, and 47% had cleared the diseas

3 l exposures are independent risk factors for radiologic abnormalities.

4 solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN) is a common radiologic abnormality on chest x-rays or computed tomog

5 activity and OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.79 for radiologic activity).

6 dictors of cPR included a favorable post-LRT radiologic/alpha fetoprotein tumor response, longer time

7 Radiologic anatomical downstaging was uncommon (28%).

8 In a consensus reading, 267 radiologic and 257 histopathologic observations of the l

9 Patient 2 showed a radiologic and biochemical response, whereas patient 1 a

10 airway involvement, in addition to other key radiologic and clinical findings detailed in this paper,

11 SL) of 30 mg/day induced rapid resolution of radiologic and cutaneous lesions and was tapered to 10 m

12 cancerous from non-cancerous regions on both radiologic and digital pathology tissue images.

13 Ancillary radiologic and genomic tests are investigational but may

14 We analyzed the relation between the radiologic and histopathologic factors and recurrence an

15 We aimed to analyze the main radiologic and histopathologic factors of these tumors t

16 ival review (1984-2012) was performed of the radiologic and histopathologic findings of 46 consecutiv

17 Software, hardware, and radiologic and networking infrastructure enables radiolo

18 s of the frequency and associated doses from radiologic and nuclear medicine procedures are rarely co

19 be carefully monitored by both sophisticated radiologic and pathologic evaluations.

20 Biopsy targets and discordance rates between radiologic and pathologic examinations were compared bet

21 identified, and more discordance existed in radiologic and pathologic examinations, with a similar p

22 P-producing tumors is predicted by important radiologic and pathologic factors, and is negligible for

23 During a 2-year follow-up, radiologic and pathologic outcome data for all recalled

24 We sought to identify potential radiologic and serologic markers of pancreatic tumor res

25 ith Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (WM) and a radiologic and/or cytologic diagnosis of BNS treated wit

26 We studied the clinical, radiologic, and histologic features of HIV-related ische

27 performed a prospective study of endoscopic, radiologic, and histologic healing in patients with CD w

28 very 8 weeks thereafter) induces endoscopic, radiologic, and histologic healing in patients with mode

29 cted medical records for pertinent clinical, radiologic, and laboratory data for cryptococcal disease

30 The risks of nutritional, endoscopic, radiologic, and surgical reintervention as well as the o

31 had a lower risk of nutritional, endoscopic, radiologic, and surgical reinterventions when examined v

32 may be used to complement the routinely used radiologic- and nuclear medicine-based modalities.

33 chnologies into perspective to the available radiologic- and/or nuclear medicine-based imaging techno

34 luminescence imaging with three-dimensional radiologic- and/or nuclear medicine-based preinterventio

35 hort, when body mass index was replaced with radiologic anthropometric measurements, greater skeletal

36 ither the orbital quadrant location, nor the radiologic appearance (diffuse vs encapsulated), nor siz

37 graphs to predict the clinical priority from radiologic appearances only.

38 the different presentations, the signs, the radiologic approach to managing seizures, and the differ

39 Radiologic assessment essentially achieved nonsignifican

40 Radiologic assessment of IBD fill was analyzed at baseli

41 Radiologic assessment of intrabony defects (IBDs) and pe

42 ients underwent clinical examination and 198 radiologic assessments.

43 ta-emitters (177)Lu and (90)Y offer specific radiologic-biologic advantages in dedicated clinical sit

44 nflammatory activity over time, serving as a radiologic biomarker for response to medical therapy, an

45 In this article, a model and a repository of radiologic CDEs is described, and three important applic

46 ; firstly, MP with stable and characteristic radiologic changes and secondly SM with atypical radiolo

47 semantic image features, selected to reflect radiologic characteristics of nodule shape, margin, text

48 Prevalence of CCM and clinical and radiologic characteristics of study participants with CC

49 trasound and/or mammography depending on the radiologic characteristics of the lesion.

50 ral single gene disorders share clinical and radiologic characteristics with multiple sclerosis and h

51 alse-positive screening results according to radiologic classification of mammographic features.

52 etastatic disease, treatment continued until radiologic, clinical, or prostate-specific antigen (PSA)

53 e survival (treatment failure was defined as radiologic, clinical, or PSA progression or death from p

54 de an update on important recent advances in radiologic colorectal imaging, with emphasis on detectio

55 EVD disease and preparedness relevant to the radiologic community.

56 recurrence following an initial, unequivocal radiologic complete regression after T-cell-based immuno

57 The primary outcome was radiologic complete response rate (CRR) per RECIST; seco

58 Radiologic (computed tomography (CT) pulmonary angiograp

59 ided into two groups, and their clinical and radiologic conditions were compared using the Mann-Whitn

60 eflects the known difference in clinical and radiologic courses between typical CADASIL patients and

61 Seventeen patients were diagnosed using radiologic criteria alone.

62 ss does not require a biopsy and is based on radiologic criteria.

63 HPD was defined according to clinical and radiologic criteria.

64 eatment consented to have their clinical and radiologic data included in this report.

65 Clinical, laboratory, and radiologic data were collected, including PCR cycle thre

66 Clinical features, radiologic data, and procedure-related data were reviewe

67 e medical record by a neurologist blinded to radiologic data.

68 (PD), 3) clinical attachment level (CAL), 4) radiologic defect depth, and 5) bone fill.

69 esponse definition]; 19.0% vs 6.2%; P = .04 [radiologic definition]).

70 serum of asymptomatic patients precedes the radiologic detection of high-grade serous ovarian cancer

71 rwent FDG PET/computed tomography because of radiologic deterioration at follow-up MR imaging between

72 he treating physician by identifying the key radiologic determinants most likely to influence the tre

73 The accuracy rate of radiologic diagnosis was 80.0% for IgG4-ROD, 77.3% for N

74 ected with HIV and HCV frequently present at radiologic diagnosis with infiltrative-type HCC and port

75 asingly gaining interest within surgical and radiologic disciplines.

76 of negative margins despite low frequency of radiologic downstaging with survival dependent on chemot

77 Radiologic downstaging, vascular resection, and chemothe

78 ealed high negative margin rates despite low radiologic downstaging.

79 al disease and is associated with the use of radiologic dyes.

80 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to standard radiologic evaluation on the re-intervention rate in wom

81 rs to undergo physiologic, morphometric, and radiologic evaluations before and after kidney donation.

82 ld (mean +/- SD, 41 +/- 11.5) and had AP and radiologic evidence of a fluid collection in or around t

83 there are patients with typical clinical and radiologic evidence of ALSP who do not carry pathogenic

84 tion, those without clinical, laboratory, or radiologic evidence of bacterial aspiration pneumonia di

85 tors, history of cardiovascular disease, and radiologic evidence of cerebrovascular pathology.Higher

86 NI may present with clinical symptoms and/or radiologic evidence of PNI (clinical PNI [CPNI]), yet mo

87 Initial radiologic examination included chest radiography and pl

88 Clinical oral and radiologic examination was made from 2000 to 2005.

89 ement were invited to undergo a clinical and radiologic examination.

90 All radiologic examinations should be used in diagnosis but

91 Internal septations and loculations on radiologic examinations should raise some suspicion of t

92 ed 377 million diagnostic and interventional radiologic examinations were performed.

93 The dominant radiologic feature was of an irregular mass (56.8% [109

94 diagnostic accuracy of the three "worrisome" radiologic features (nonsmooth tumor margins, peritumora

95 ores, based on the combination of predictive radiologic features (score without gadolinium administra

96 Based on radiologic features and absence of clinical signs, a low

97 ervised machine learning was used to cluster radiologic features and an association between clusters

98 setting, we here identify the pre-treatment radiologic features by Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

99 greater accuracy than standard clinical and radiologic features in distinguishing 'aggressive/malign

100 independently reviewed and the presence and radiologic features of SCPNs were analyzed for associati

101 or any 1 of the immunologic tests along with radiologic features suggestive of past evidence of tuber

102 ient to recommend ATT, even if there were no radiologic features suggestive of tuberculosis.

103 of the positive immunologic tests along with radiologic features suggestive of tuberculosis.

104 (TL) encephalitis and identify clinical and radiologic features that distinguish herpes simplex ence

105 But IPEH has no specific radiologic features that we can use to differentiate fro

106 entified clinical, laboratory, systemic, and radiologic features that, taken together, help discrimin

107 ment was checked, and diagnostic accuracy of radiologic features was investigated.

108 Radiologic features were analyzed by logistic regression

109 The radiologic features were scored using the Visually AcceS

110 The presence, radiologic features, and metabolic activity of interstit

111 ver, the biological mechanisms, clinical and radiologic features, and the diagnosis and management ha

112 etup, four expert neuroradiologists recorded radiologic features, suggested glioma grade and correspo

113 Nevertheless, atypical radiologic findings add weight to negative microbiologic

114 pathologists sequentially reviewed clinical-radiologic findings and biopsy results, recording at eac

115 s of synovial hemangioma is reported and its radiologic findings are mentioned.

116 Purpose To assess the radiologic findings associated with intimate partner vio

117 The most common radiologic findings in COVID-19 are airspace opacities (

118 aphics, clinical presentation, injuries, and radiologic findings of patients reporting physical abuse

119 We describe the clinical and radiologic findings of sCNSc caused by CARD9 deficiency

120 resent study was to describe the spectrum of radiologic findings on high resolution computed tomograp

121 Radiologic findings revealed a malignant-appearing soft-

122 Patients who had both clinical and radiologic findings that were diagnostic for nonvertebra

123 on host risk factors, clinical symptoms, and radiologic findings, 34 were diagnosed with IA, whereas

124 systemic inflammation, fever and fluctuating radiologic findings.

125 nt and present diagnostic and interventional radiologic findings.

126 and septations (63.2 %) were the most common radiologic findings.

127 The median tipping point for radiologic follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate g

128 viewed 289 MRIs from 64 patients upon a mean radiologic follow-up of 4 years (range, 1-9).

129 2) with surgical exploration or clinical and radiologic follow-up of at least 3 months were retrospec

130 r pathologic data as well as on clinical and radiologic follow-up.

131 histopathologic examination and/or clinical-radiologic follow-up.

132 errors was assessed in terms of clinical and radiologic follow-up.

133 al (age and Karnofsky performance score) and radiologic (Gaussian normalized relative cerebral blood

134 tients with non-AFP-producing tumors include radiologic (>2 tumors [HR, 4.98; 95% CI, 1.72-14.4; P =

135 y analysis of the Multimodality Analysis and Radiologic Guidance in Breast-Conserving Therapy, or MAR

136 f this study is to evaluate the clinical and radiologic healing response of non-contained infrabony d

137 thods: We reported the clinical, functional, radiologic, histologic, and hemodynamic characteristics,

138 diologists planning research in the field of radiologic image analysis using convolutional neural net

139 n phase, but rarely in the scanning phase of radiologic image inspection.

140 were performed of the clinical, laboratory, radiologic image, medical treatment, and clinical course

141 stration and localized comparison of in vivo radiologic images (e.g. MRI, PET) with ex vivo optical r

142 cent literature, it has become apparent that radiologic images can serve as mineable databases that c

143 Two observers independently reviewed radiologic images to evaluate the following features for

144 iveness of the BTS was assessed by comparing radiologic images with histologic results.

145 luded measurement of serum tumor markers and radiologic imaging at defined intervals.

146 Radiologic imaging demonstrated occipital encephalocele

147 clusions: The presence of pleural plaques on radiologic imaging does not confer additional increase i

148 fact, more radiosensitive than adults in the radiologic imaging dose range, rendering dose reduction

149 Radiologic imaging is claimed to carry an iatrogenic ris

150 In mass casualty events, radiologic imaging is located at the centre of patient m

151 t advances in cross-sectional and functional radiologic imaging of the colorectum will positively imp

152 f increasing health care costs is the use of radiologic imaging procedures.

153 nodes (N+) who have a complete clinical and radiologic imaging response after chemoradiation do not

154 Consortium for Radiologic Imaging Study of PKD (CRISP) participants (n=

155 ogression of PKD Study and the Consortium of Radiologic Imaging Study of PKD Study.

156 lication of convolutional neural networks-to radiologic imaging that was focused on the following fiv

157 titative image features derived from routine radiologic imaging to improve cancer diagnosis, prognosi

158 A total of 77 patients who underwent radiologic imaging were classified as primary, secondary

159 In 31 patients, bone scanning and radiologic imaging were performed for pretherapeutic ima

160 e used to cross-validate and compare in vivo radiologic imaging with ex vivo optical imaging techniqu

161 that impacts morbidity; routine liver tests, radiologic imaging, noninvasive fibrosis markers, and Fi

162 -third of ventral hernia recurrences seen on radiologic imaging.

163 % of patients, respectively; symptomatic and radiologic improvements were seen in 85% and 60% of pati

164 trauma centers, opportunistic screening for radiologic indicators of frailty provides an additional

165 ly, 48 with osteopenia only, and 161 with no radiologic indicators.

166 s based on guideline criteria, and objective radiologic inflammation (CRS(O) ) was based on the Lund-

167 Participants with symptoms and radiologic inflammation were classified as CRS(S+O) .

168 ed standardized clinical, epidemiologic, and radiologic information on AFM cases to the Centers for D

169 it is crucial that CDEs be adopted widely in radiologic information systems.

170 samples, often without detailed clinical or radiologic information.

171 h automated segmentation was used to confirm radiologic interpretation.

172 overall reintervention rate (relaparotomy or radiologic intervention).

173 (IFD), changes in recommended biomarkers and radiologic investigations for the evaluation of IFD in p

174 f nonmyositic IOI, and 11 of 14 clinical and radiologic items and 1 of 5 pathologic items for myositi

175 nsensus was achieved on 7 of 14 clinical and radiologic items and 5 of 7 pathologic items related to

176 weeks after surgery, IVDs were evaluated by radiologic IVD height, histological grading, and biomech

177 ound the world who have a strong interest in radiologic journalism.

178 al language processing (NLP) system modeling radiologic language.

179 s lesions and was tapered to 10 mg/day, then radiologic lesions worsened.

180 Radiologic malunion was more common in the casting group

181 Pneumonitis was the most common radiologic manifestation of immune-mediated adverse reac

182 ated adverse reactions than in those without radiologic manifestations (84.6% vs. 44.4%, respectively

183 orable responses was higher in patients with radiologic manifestations of immune-mediated adverse rea

184 e response is even stronger in patients with radiologic manifestations of the immune-mediated adverse

185 patients with adverse reactions, there were radiologic manifestations such as pneumonitis, colitis,

186 of immune-mediated adverse reactions, their radiologic manifestations, and the response pattern acco

187 TSC has a wide variety of clinical and radiologic manifestations.

188 h of studies that have compared clinical and radiologic markers of periodontal inflammation between w

189 To test and compare the association between radiologic measurements of lesion diameter, volume, and

190 Background Modern high-spatial-resolution radiologic methods enable increasingly detailed volumetr

191 Current radiologic methods for diagnosing breast cancer detect s

192 When stratified by radiologic Milan criteria, 5-year survival was better, a

193 Magnetic resonance imaging is the best radiologic modality for differentiating lymphomas from o

194 Correlation with clinical, radiologic, morphologic, and immunohistochemical finding

195 nts meeting the Brighton level 1 criteria of radiologic or surgical confirmation of intussusception w

196 Complications occurring during radiologic or surgical intraportal islet transplantation

197 om 4 families were identified with clinical, radiologic, or pathologic features of ALSP in whom CSF1R

198 onfirmatory features of LAM (i.e., clinical, radiologic, or serologic), the guideline panel made cond

199 Radiologic orbital imaging provides important informatio

200 0.611) was higher compared with that of the radiologic (OS: IBS, 0.175; C index, 0.603; PFS: IBS, 0.

201 cular stroke (eg, procedure times) and other radiologic outcome parameters (eg, radiation exposure) w

202 Demographic, clinical, and radiologic outcome predictors were examined.

203 An independent core laboratory scored the radiologic outcomes in each trial.

204 brain imaging data as well as functional and radiologic outcomes were pooled from randomized phase 3

205 tients with CP in terms of both clinical and radiologic outcomes.

206 eat group (n = 124), clinical (P = .004) and radiologic (P = .02) MS activity was significantly lower

207 in the analyses of clinical (P = 0.866) and radiologic (P = 0.748) data.

208 Clinical and radiologic parameters (i.e., probing depth [PD], relativ

209 Clinical and radiologic parameters such as probing depth (PD), clinic

210 Clinical, biochemical, and radiologic parameters were collected.

211 Clinical and radiologic parameters, including probing depth (PD), cli

212 e findings suggest that patients with benign radiologic-pathologic-concordant percutaneous breast bio

213 luding existing radiogenomics data and other radiologic patterns of disease.

214 However, radiologic performance may lead to misdiagnosis, renderi

215 Although substantial challenges remain, radiologic practice is set to change considerably as AI

216 CDEs can help advance radiologic practice, research, and performance improveme

217 Significant radiologic predictors included midline shift (OR, 6.8; 9

218 d multivariate logistic modeling to identify radiologic predictors of HSE.

219 ding risk, biologic mechanisms, clinical and radiologic presentation, and management of ICI-pneumonit

220 y solutions to the experimental and clinical radiologic problems of today will be overcome by the pro

221 All patients showed clinical or radiologic progression after 1-3 infusions of fresolimum

222 he patient's symptoms exhibited clinical and radiologic progression after several attempts to taper t

223 The primary endpoint was radiologic progression at 12 months according to Europea

224 12 met the study endpoint and another 13 had radiologic progression of ILA.

225 Conclusion The most common causes for radiologic progression of renal cell carcinoma were base

226 ic PFS (rPFS; time from random assignment to radiologic progression or death) per Prostate Cancer Wor

227 PSA progression-free survival, clinical and radiologic progression-free survival, and overall surviv

228 Two simple scores can predict radiologic progression.

229 pose To assess the most common components of radiologic progressive disease as defined by RECIST 1.1

230 ion of PsP versus PD at the time of clinical/radiologic question.

231 ndent test set, with performance compared to radiologic readers.

232 brain and compare its performance to that of radiologic readers.

233 image reconstruction in PET/CT for confident radiologic reading when compared with other reconstructi

234 image reconstruction in PET/CT for confident radiologic reading when compared with other reconstructi

235 Clinical notes and radiologic records were assessed to ascertain clinical t

236 The patient was followed up for clinical and radiologic regression of cSCC.

237 mandatory for tumor relapse after a complete radiologic regression.

238 doscopic response (50% reduction in SES-CD), radiologic remission (magnetic resonance index of activi

239 alter practice to maximize comprehension of radiologic reports and thus optimize the manner in which

240 Although designed for human consumption, radiologic reports contain a wealth of information that

241 language processing algorithm in a review of radiologic reports from January 2004 through October 201

242 Unfortunately, the lack of structure in radiologic reports limits the ability of information sys

243 ss and nonmass enhancement was obtained from radiologic reports.

244 of resources sometimes limit the advance of radiologic research.

245 mary outcomes that included the clinical and radiologic resolution of MRONJ lesions.

246 ) for over 24 wk, which also correlated with radiologic response (decreased lesion number and size).

247 luded toxicity, disease-free survival (DFS), radiologic response (RaR), and biomarker correlates, inc

248 nd osteopontin correlated significantly with radiologic response after TAE.

249 ogression or worsening of clinic conditions, radiologic response assessment was available for 46 pati

250 gression or worsening of clinical condition, radiologic response assessment was available for only 46

251 as not met, since there was no difference in radiologic response between the groups at 3, 6, or 12 mo

252 erability and no demonstrable improvement in radiologic response or disease stabilization compared wi

253 ble antitumor activity by means of objective radiologic response or tumor marker decline was observed

254 Confirmed radiologic response rates were 12% (95% CI, 8% to 18%) f

255 Radiologic response rates were 75% and 63% in the Gef+C

256 ckpoint inhibitors (ICIs), evaluation of the radiologic response to them in solid tumors presents man

257 Tumor radiologic response was assessed on the basis of follow-

258 fenib treatment was initiated, and a partial radiologic response was confirmed within 1 month.

259 ly 151 patients across these studies in whom radiologic response was measured.

260 nically significant responses and a profound radiologic response.

261 Radiologic responses can be dramatic, and decreases in p

262 Radiologic restaging was performed after 3 cycles.

263 tial response) as assessed by an independent radiologic review committee according to the Lugano clas

264 sion-free survival (according to independent radiologic review) was 14.4 months in the R-CHOP group v

265 ogression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiologic review.

266 -free survival (PFS) assessed by independent radiologic review.

267 mpared with that of established clinical and radiologic risk models was demonstrated.

268 mpared with that of established clinical and radiologic risk models.

269 Review of the clinical records, radiologic scans, and histopathologic specimens, with ad

270 Radiologic screening of high-risk adults reduces lung-ca

271 may have implications regarding the value of radiologic screening of other vascular beds, particularl

272 ile the patient present typical clinical and radiologic signs of bile duct obstruction and cholangiti

273 ative cases to enable the two most important radiologic signs to be identified: "hilum overlay" and "

274 Moreover, the use of -omics to inform radiologic strategies may add a dimension to future clin

275 ium (gadodiamide) used for contrast-enhanced radiologic studies.

276 vides much necessary information in a single radiologic study.

277 Radiologic suspicion for COVID-19 (CO-RADS 4-5) was pres

278 s were similar when antifungal treatment and radiologic suspicion of IFD were used as the gold standa

279 re sensitive detection methods to complement radiologic techniques are needed to enhance early detect

280 Radiologic techniques remain the main method for early d

281 imen in Li-Fraumeni syndrome, using multiple radiologic techniques, including rapid whole-body magnet

282 ard ratios (HRs) for the risk of cataract in radiologic technologists according to NM work history pr

283 d on standardizing education for nuclear and radiologic technologists and physicians specifically for

284 inflammatory disease morbidity in 110,368 US radiologic technologists followed from a baseline survey

285 In the years 2003-2005 and 2012-2013, 42 545 radiologic technologists from a U.S. prospective study c

286 ataract in a cohort of nuclear medicine (NM) radiologic technologists on the basis of their work hist

287 of radiation mostly <100 mGy received by US radiologic technologists over 5 years were associated wi

288 Using data from the US Radiologic Technologists Study, a large, nationwide, pro

289 sed risk of cataract was observed among U.S. radiologic technologists who had performed an NM procedu

290 As radiologic technology advances, quantitative imaging is

291 is a serious risk in nuclear accidents or in radiologic terrorism.

292 optimal embargo period preceding release of radiologic test results to an online patient portal.

293 ATT was reached only if both immunologic and radiologic test results were positive.

294 d by several combinations of immunologic and radiologic test results.

295 dings, combined with selected laboratory and radiologic tools, aids in the early diagnosis and treatm

296 posttreatment imaging findings, the current radiologic treatment response assessment algorithms used

297 NoDS, with further stratification by maximum radiologic tumor diameter (5-year HCC-R of 15.5% in DS/<

298 No improvement in radiologic tumor response or OS was observed in patients

299 We reviewed radiologic variables such as the characteristics of the

300 The patient was referred to us for radiologic work up.