ライフサイエンスコーパス: regret

1 (this accounts for around 50% of their total regret).

2 e to the orbitofrontal cortex do not express regret.

3 ter skipping a low-cost choice should induce regret.

4 of consent, approximately one tenth mention regret.

5 interest in PSA were associated with greater regret.

6 th the treatment decision, but 23% expressed regret.

7 DM-Q-9), decisional conflict, and decisional regret.

8 nsequences Questionnaire, and (4) decisional regret.

9 empathy, and a single item assessing career regret.

10 owledge of myopia control, SDM, and decision regret.

11 M and the association of SDM with decisional regret.

12 lting in significant decisional conflict and regret.

13 ess likely to be highly satisfied or have no regret.

14 d surgery, suggesting low levels of decision regret.

15 s 5 of 100 (0-30), representing mild overall regret.

16 ormed to identify the predictors of decision regret.

17 nhibitors may be related to lower decisional regret.

18 2-0.97]), were significantly associated with regret.

19 ls of anxiety, decisional conflict, harm, or regret.

20 past actions and experience satisfaction or regret.

21 questionnaire; and local therapy decisional regret.

22 testing, anxiety, depression, and decisional regret.

23 ment decision were inversely associated with regret.

24 atropine therapy was associated with higher regret.

25 ment, were associated with treatment-related regret.

26 ponential convergence with respect to simple regret.

27 explained 27.4% of the variance in decision regret.

28 prostate cancer experience treatment-related regret.

29 le, with lower scores noting lower levels of regret.

30 in part due to the concern about decisional regret.

31 ssion, (valve-specific) quality of life, and regret.

32 ional bases of sensitivity to sunk costs and regret.

33 a genome-wide multi-omics retinal database, RegRet.

34 re research to examine whether it can reduce regret.

35 ith long-term implications that everyone may regret.

36 dality was not independently associated with regret.

37 ive treatment, might help mitigate long-term regret.

38 analyses to identify factors associated with regret.

39 minority parents are at heightened risk for regret.

40 .95; P = .04) were less likely to experience regret.

41 identify factors associated with heightened regret.

42 met our definition of heightened decisional regret.

43 s that may be addressed to mitigate decision regret.

44 been preferable, which may bring a sense of regret.

45 the one associated with the least amount of regret.

46 ces did not emerge in decisional conflict or regret.

47 ce donation, and none expressed postdonation regrets.

48 [95% CI, 1.2 to 2.5]) and family decisional regret (144 participants; difference in means, 17 [95% C

49 egret (n = 5, 29%); 4 had moderate-to-severe regret (24%).

50 Overall, 14.6% expressed treatment decision regret: 8.2% of those whose disease was managed conserva

51 essment of depression, anxiety, and decision regret (a sense of disappointment or dissatisfaction in

52 on was associated with increased feelings of regret about choosing prolonged mechanical ventilation.

53 e decisions is necessary to prevent parental regret about decision-making, which can lead to psycholo

54 r the relatives might prevent the relatives' regret about refusal and unnecessary loss of organs.

55 family, struggling with difficult emotions, regret about the restrictions in visitation policies, an

56 te, satisfaction, pain, quality of life, and regret about undergoing surgery.

57 Yet, most donors have no regrets about donation.

58 Our results also suggest that anticipated regrets about the consequences of making the wrong decis

59 ; 95% CI, 0.06-0.86) and parental decisional regret (adjusted odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.02-0.87).

60 t living-related renal donors do not express regret after donation and do report enhanced self-esteem

61 s well as a higher incidence of experiencing regret after posting on social media, and of deleting or

62 ported high personal utility and no decision regret after receiving genetic results.

63 h groups, decisional confidence was high and regret after surgery was low.

64 more significant effect on satisfaction and regret after surgery, suggesting focused postsurgical pa

65 y satisfied and 8911 (91%) had absolutely no regret after surgery.

66 nerally associated with decreased decisional regret (all ORs with 95% CIs greater than 1.1; P < .0

67 including work on such complex phenomena as regret, ambiguity, and willingness to pay.

68 that are associated with treatment decision regret among long-term survivors of localized prostate c

69 is framework, we provide a novel analysis of regret (an important metric of learning efficacy) for br

70 patient engagement and reduce postoperative regret and conflict about postoperative treatments.

71 tivity at rest are modulated by postdecision regret and gratification in 18 healthy human subjects us

72 nstruments indicated low rates of decisional regret and high levels of satisfaction with decision fol

73 rgery may have a positive impact on decision regret and is advisable in daily practice.

74 ese donors persist, alongside concerns about regret and long-term psychosocial outcomes.

75 duals report higher levels of resentment and regret and lower levels of happiness and support compare

76 They modulate emotions such as regret and relief, and they support moral judgments such

77 o the counterfactual comparisons that typify regret and relief.

78 or conceived reported the highest decisional regret and represented the largest proportion reporting

79 ey chose more conservatively (regarding both regret and risk) when being watched vs alone.

80 on-specific instruments to assess decisional regret and satisfaction with decision following gender-a

81 Decisional regret and satisfaction with decision to undergo gender-

82 tests were used to test associations between regret and treatment history, complications, and quality

83 t-centered decisions with reduced decisional regret and work-related stress experienced by physicians

84 ealed that participants were less mindful of regret (and more strongly driven by bigger risks) when c

85 h higher scores indicating higher decisional regret) and significantly increased over time (median [I

86 d, including questions regarding motivation, regret, and anonymity.

87 hs after intervention, knowledge, decisional regret, and anxiety immediately after intervention and 1

88 control, treatment decision making, decision regret, and cancer-related outlook.

89 eopardizing donor health, anticipating donor regret, and causing donor inconvenience), ambivalence an

90 Satisfaction, regret, and continuity of care following puberty blocker

91 ontal cortex is active during expressions of regret, and humans with damage to the orbitofrontal cort

92 ontextual factors (acculturation, decisional regret, and satisfaction with informed consent) and soci

93 ontextual factors (acculturation, decisional regret, and satisfaction with informed consent), sociode

94 oning and distress, cancer worry, decisional regret, and surgical outcomes.

95 h care, satisfaction with decision, decision regret, and treatment choice.

96 th care, satisfaction with decision, reduced regrets, and aligned treatment choice with risk category

97 ith lower decisional conflict and decisional regret; and no difference in postdiagnosis exercise.

98 The authors apologize for the error, and regret any inconvenience this may have caused.

99 outcomes, was significantly associated with regret (aOR for change in sexual function from baseline,

100 The rates of regret appear to differ between treatment approaches in

101 Although decision regret appears to lessen or dissipate with time, study o

102 Burnout, empathy, and career regret as measured by Oldenburg Burnout Inventory data f

103 Our main outcome measure was heightened regret as measured by the Decisional Regret Scale.

104 hysician's preferences expressed in terms of regret associated with a certain action.

105 k comprehension, and decisional conflict and regret at 24 to 36 weeks' gestation.

106 rences in anxiety, depression, or decisional regret at 3 months.

107 Results were comparable when assessing regret at 3 years rather than 5 years.

108 e, 64 [IQR, 59-69] years), treatment-related regret at 5 years after diagnosis was reported in 183 pa

109 ion, patterns of deception, causes of sexual regret, attraction to cues to sexual exploitability, att

110 decisions for present others is affected by regret avoidance.

111 (B=-0.66, R(2)=0.567, P<0.01) and decisional regret (B=-0.37, R(2)=0.180, P<0.001) and no difference

112 A regret-based approach is applied to assess the relative

113 Regret-based decision curve analysis (Regret-DCA) was pe

114 Regret-based decision curve analysis provides a novel pe

115 rcinoma and generated a decision model using regret-based decision curve analysis, which integrates b

116 Some participants felt regrets, but a majority were pleased with the results of

117 agement, lower levels of empathy, and career regret compared with medical students with more positive

118 ences in primary motivation, donation rates, regret, cost, or psychosocial and physical outcomes.

119 s of beneficiary and audience on anticipated regret counteracted each other, suggesting that particip

120 essured their partner to test together; none regretted couples' testing.

121 d then how he can use the minimax or minimax-regret criterion to choose an undominated vaccination ra

122 The satisfaction and regret data include responses from a youth or their pare

123 Regret-DCA showed that for physicians with Pt values of

124 Regret-based decision curve analysis (Regret-DCA) was performed on a Cox's regression model de

125 episodic change on slow timescales, minimax regret decision making, active experimentation to accele

126 well as one-month postoperatively decisional regret (decision regret scale (DRS)) and willingness to

127 It remains unclear whether regret derives from generalized mistake appraisal or ins

128 Regret describes recognizing alternative actions could h

129 ratively, valve-specific quality of life and regret did not differ between the groups.

130 al for decisional conflict (DC) and decision regret (DR) is high.

131 =99) reporting moderate to severe decisional regret (DRS [decisional regret scale]>=25).

132 atisfaction with decision or high decisional regret due to the lack of variation in these responses.

133 ns were associated with lower odds of career regret during year 4 of medical school (odds ratio for e

134 % CI, -0.03 to 0.03; P = .83) and decisional regret (effect size, 1.32; 95% CI, -3.77 to 6.40; P = .6

135 hich may reflect greater prediction error or regret emotion after real monetary losses.

136 In contrast, regret entails recognition that an alternative (counterf

137 o understand and find, were glad and did not regret finding out the results.

138 sensitive to fundamentally distinct types of regret following exposure to chronic social defeat stres

139 ces, including decision-making prior to, and regret following, free flap surgery.

140 odel was associated with the least amount of regret for a wide range of threshold probabilities.

141 t antisocial behavior and a striking lack of regret for the consequences of that behavior.

142 s associated with an increased likelihood of regret for those undergoing surgery (adjusted odds ratio

143 happened (55 of 60 surveys [92%]), expressed regret for what happened (52 of 60 [87%]), expressed con

144 ity for these choices and possibly suffering regret for what they could have done differently.

145 Approximately half of the family members regretted having chosen prolonged mechanical ventilation

146 a patient with euthanasia or PAS, 9 (23.7%) regretted having performed euthanasia or PAS, and 15 (39

147 Patients were less likely to have no regret if they experienced a Grade 1 complication (OR 0.

148 The lack of dissatisfaction and regret impeded the ability to perform a more complex sta

149 , shared decision-making (SDM), and decision regret in parents of children with myopia, and assessed

150 Our study raises questions about decision regret in patients who agree to have a prognostic test t

151 xercise, decisional conflict, and decisional regret in patients with ARVC and at-risk relatives.

152 d SDMQ9, and (4) an assessment of decisional regret in relation to SDM components and the most recent

153 most likely to express potential anticipated regret in response to intermediate RFR results.

154 home time and QoL, function, and decisional regret in the survey data were analyzed using Spearman c

155 Career choice regret increased by more than threefold compared with be

156 reporting satisfaction with decision and no regret increased over time and was higher for the interv

157 putational interests impacted the feeling of regret independently.

158 SDM is used, patients report less decisional regret, indicating that SDM may help improve the patient

159 Thus, our data link a regret-induced status quo bias to error-related activity

160 thy to report negative affect in response to regret-inducing counterfactual outcomes.

161 linical data and measured treatment decision regret, informed decision making, general- and disease-s

162 Treatment-related regret is an integrative, patient-centered measure that

163 Behavioral evidence suggests the emotion of regret is higher when errors arise from rejection rather

164 others have continued care, suggesting that regret is not synonymous with stopping care.

165 ic pill bottles for diuretic medication, and regret lottery incentives conditional on the previous da

166 tionship between treatment type and decision regret may be partly explained by differences in SDM, po

167 f action/inaction asymmetries in anticipated regret, may be important in understanding the role of op

168 iving (ADL) and instrumental ADL scales; and regret, measured by the Decision Regret Scale.

169 ul and 50.3% (88/161) reported no decisional regret (median 0, mean 10, range 0-100).

170 Such asymmetry in the genesis of regret might drive the status quo bias on subsequent dec

171 We call this approach "Scientific Regret Minimization" (SRM), as it focuses on minimizing

172 t learning agents through a mechanism called regret minimization.

173 We propose the min-max regret (MMR) decision criterion to account for deep clim

174 ticipants had no regret (n = 8, 47%) or mild regret (n = 5, 29%); 4 had moderate-to-severe regret (24

175 ision Regret Scale, most participants had no regret (n = 8, 47%) or mild regret (n = 5, 29%); 4 had m

176 ed in treatment and less prone to decisional regret, nervousness, and fretting.

177 Equivalently, it has maximum regret no larger than epsilon We consider trials that dr

178 not with trait agreeableness, or anticipated regret, nor could it be explained by subjective probabil

179 e willingness was greatest amongst who would regret not being vaccinated and respondents who trusted

180 Trade-offs and scenario regrets observed in the analysis suggest that the combin

181 icularly rain gardens, resulting in half the regret of most options) over end-of-pipe gray alternativ

182 may be costly (on average, 25% of the total regret of these options) and tend to focus on sewer floo

183 e outcomes and impose unnecessary decisional regret on clinicians and patients alike.

184 Factors associated with regret on multivariable analysis included reporting mode

185 0.58-0.84]), and higher likelihood of career regret on the GQ (186 of 989 [18.8%]; all P < .001).

186 Because no-regrets options are spatially heterogeneous, internation

187 ons of demand can be quickly served with "no-regrets" options-or zones that are low-cost, low-environ

188 days: (1) appendectomy, (2) high decisional regret or dissatisfaction with treatment, and (3) persis

189 parametrically to evoke different levels of regret or gratification.

190 understood their child's results, and denied regret or harm from undergoing sequencing.

191 Subthemes included regrets or hindsight, urgency to start next treatment, a

192 sed their psychological symptoms, decisional regret, patient functional outcome, and patient quality

193 Moral norms, subjective norms, anticipated regret, perception of risk to self, and trust in governm

194 Depression, anxiety, and decision regret prior to prognostication (baseline) and at 3 and

195 Regret produced distinct changes in connectivity of subg

196 baseline HADS depression, baseline decision regret, prognostication test result, and adjuvant therap

197 The concept of regret proves useful in identifying performance trade-of

198 onsequences of negative outcomes by reducing regret, punishment and stress.

199 CI, 0.02-0.54; P = .05), greater decisional regret (r = -0.54; 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.38; P < .001), an

200 The regret rate following gender-affirming surgery is though

201 of algorithmic variants and bounds on their regret rates.

202 on principles of social norming, anticipated regret, reciprocity, and commitment (behavioral content)

203 was often impacted by feelings of guilt and regret regarding their child's delayed diagnosis, fear a

204 tive impact on their lives, and most had low regret regarding their decision to participate in GRF se

205 critical role in reducing parents' decision regret, regardless of the treatment modality.

206 d into the last decision, and (4) decisional regret related to their last treatment decision.

207 95% CI, 1.58 to 13.8) at increased risk for regret relative to whites ( P = .001 across all categori

208 gratification and orbitofrontal cortex after regret, respectively.

209 ation-specific psychosocial outcomes include regret, satisfaction, feelings of abandonment and unmet

210 le for shared decision-making and Decisional Regret Scale (DRS) was distributed using the National Al

211 postoperatively decisional regret (decision regret scale (DRS)) and willingness to exchange face-to-

212 PRO measures included the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), Functional Assessment of Cancer Ther

213 Participants also completed a Decision Regret Scale questionnaire.

214 The median Decision Regret Scale score was 0.0 (IQR, 0.0-0.0) on a 100-point

215 Median (range) score on the Decision Regret Scale was 5 of 100 (0-30), representing mild over

216 for dysphagia-related QOL; and the Decision Regret Scale were also used.

217 ety and Depression Scale (HADS) and Decision Regret Scale were self-administered by the patients prio

218 tisfaction With Decision scale, the Decision Regret Scale, and demographic characteristics, were coll

219 On the Decision Regret Scale, most participants had no regret (n = 8, 47

220 ive, study-specific questionnaires, Decision Regret Scale, Shame and Stigma Scale).

221 scales; and regret, measured by the Decision Regret Scale.

222 ghtened regret as measured by the Decisional Regret Scale.

223 to severe decisional regret (DRS [decisional regret scale]>=25).

224 The decision regret score was associated with baseline HADS depressio

225 Thematic analysis of interviews, decision regret score.

226 re negatively correlated with their Decision Regret scores (-0.51 and -0.48, both P = 0.01).

227 In turn, diminished behavioral regret sensitivity predicted a higher number of prior in

228 However, despite exhibiting intact affective regret sensitivity, they did not use prospective regret

229 et sensitivity, they did not use prospective regret signals to guide choice behavior.

230 ipate in decision-making, and (4) Decisional regret stemmed from a lack of alignment between the deci

231 rio-based approach is used to derive minimum-regret strategies and support infrastructure development

232 ater on and what factors may be related with regretting surgery.

233 I regret that I cannot mention and thank each of these men

234 The authors regret that these errors were made and apologize for the

235 We regret that this was not mentioned appropriately in the

236 The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed.

237 ishes; the family is too distressed and will regret the decision; overruling harms other patients; an

238 We deeply regret the effect of this action on the work of other in

239 hat the original work is properly cited." We regret the error.

240 , Berlin, Germany (S.S., F.B.)." The authors regret the error.

241 The authors regret the errors.

242 However, 4% were dissatisfied and regretted the decision to donate.

243 do not experience psychological problems or regret their abortion 2 years postabortion, but some do.

244 Donors did not regret their decision to donate; several felt the experi

245 in case of refusal, approximately one third regret their decision, and in case of consent, approxima

246 Few donors (3 ADs and 1 TD) regretted their donation decision.

247 Regret theory provides a new perspective for treatment-r

248 Regret theory serves as a novel framework linking both r

249 We deeply regret these errors and apologize to the scientific comm

250 The authors regret this error.

251 earch Hospital, Rozzano, Italy." The authors regret this error.

252 tologists can uniformly act according to the regret threshold model.

253 urgery versus TACE were elicited in terms of regret; threshold probabilities (Pt) were calculated to

254 ually was not experienced expressed the most regret toward surgery (mean [SD] score, 71 [22]).

255 engagement (job satisfaction, career choice regret, turnover intention, career development, and prod

256 r nucleus accumbens was required to suppress regret type I but bidirectionally regulated regret type

257 decisions after rejecting high-value offers (regret type I) was unique to stress-susceptible mice.

258 verse operation, accepting low-value offers (regret type II), was enhanced in stress-resilient mice a

259 regret type I but bidirectionally regulated regret type II.

260 erged as the strongest negative predictor of regret (unstandardized regression coefficient [B] = -0.4

261 ervingness, protecting conscience, potential regret), upholding fairness (equal access to transplanta

262 Patient-reported treatment-related regret using validated metrics.

263 Conclusion Regret was a relatively infrequently reported outcome am

264 Prevalence of decisional regret was also high with 55.3% (n=99) reporting moderat

265 ghtly higher decisional confidence and lower regret was found in the study group, although these diff

266 Behaviorally, experienced regret was higher after an erroneous status quo rejectio

267 Decisional regret was inversely associated with home time in only t

268 Regret was low (3.7% UKDs vs. 7.5% SKDs; P=0.078).

269 Decisional regret was low and did not differ across groups.

270 The median level of decisional regret was low in all result groups, and 98.9% of partic

271 While regret was rare, these experiences need to be better und

272 ot to treat; whereas, the highest decisional regret was reported with anthralin and minoxidil.

273 Regret was substantial and associated with treatment cho

274 with timing of pregnancy and family building regret were assessed using Likert-type scales.

275 ildbearing, infertility, and family building regret were evaluated using chi2 analyses.

276 tments associated with the lowest decisional regret were Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, followed by b

277 nerable population, and to mitigate decision regret, were identified.

278 significantly associated with lower decision regret, whereas atropine therapy was associated with hig

279 es during decision making evokes feelings of regret, whereas higher gains elicit gratification.

280 ones (n = 3; 2 of these individuals reported regret with both), of whom 4 have stopped all gender-aff

281 Self- or parent-reported satisfaction or regret with gender-affirming care and continuation of ca

282 igh levels of satisfaction and low levels of regret with puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormon

283 on model, race/ethnicity was associated with regret, with black (odds ratio [OR], 6.55; 95% CI, 2.30

284 an apology) or nondisclosure (expression of regret without acceptance of responsibility or an apolog

285 s and cognitive computing, may end in ironic regret without pondering the humanness of fallible artif