ライフサイエンスコーパス: retest

1 n the exposure context (long-term extinction retest).

2 conductance response at long-term extinction retest.

3 ay were immediately prompted to practice and retest.

4 duced seizures measured a month later during retest.

5 ontrol), 25%, 50%, and 75%, and the function retested.

6 s of children (12 preterm, 12 controls) were retested.

7 toxic lesions of BLA or OFC, followed by RDT retesting.

8 a preanalytic error, correctly identified on retesting.

9 7 y; weight, 70 +/- 10 kg) underwent a test-retest (18)F-FDG PET/MRI examination of the brain (n = 2

10 +/- 7 y old; 70 +/- 10 kg) underwent a test-retest (18)F-FDG PET/MRI examination of the brain.

11 iple metastases underwent 2 whole-body (test-retest) (18)F-NaF PET/CT scans 3 +/- 2 d apart from 1 of

12 (SHAM) (n = 9) or CHADN surgery (n = 11) and retested 2.5 or 3.5 weeks later while still on the HFHF

13 Test and retest 30-min dynamic (18)F-FDHT PET/CT scans with venou

14 weight +/- 2 [range, 34-37 mmol/kg]; for the retest, 37 mmol/kg +/- 1 [range, 35-39 mmol/kg]; P = .61

15 (49%) CIA(+)/RPR(-)/TP-PA(-) women who were retested, 53% became CIA(-).

16 raveled, 18.2 +/- 5.28 m) compared with test-retest (6.49 +/- 2.21 m).

17 e, and for counseling individuals on when to retest after an exposure.

18 Performance was retested after a 12-h post-learning offline period.

19 Clear guidelines are needed for retesting alongside improved diagnostic tests.

20 Test-retest analyses demonstrated low variability in flortauc

21 Test-retest analyses revealed a good reliability of this test

22 Test-retest analysis showed that the GPD percentage had super

23 ere the most reproducible, including at test-retest and at expert versus trainee comparisons.

24 The results of test-retest and contour-recontour studies were used to filter

25 Test-retest and inter-rater reliability, construct validity (

26 Regional (18)F-FDG brain uptake in a test, retest, and memantine-challenge study was measured in aw

27 ively in all animals and in a subset of test-retest animals using a network quantification approach.

28 A "test-retest" approach was used to identify stable radiomics f

29 d studies of chlamydia-infected men who were retested at a later date without having received treatme

30 a positive screening result in stage 1 were retested at or before the 2-week well-child visit, with

31 (+)/RPR(-)/TP-PA(-); more than half who were retested became CIA(-).

32 ficant differences in antimicrobial duration retest between tests with clinically relevant organism(s

33 1) reliability (stability of criteria during retesting, between raters, over time, and across setting

34 assay and CCCNA in the validation study were retested by CCCNA, 13/17 (76.5%) Clarity-negative but CC

35 13 were treated with 1 g of azithromycin and retested by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on days 14 a

36 The aim of this study was to determine test-retest characteristics and variability of SMGU within an

37 t metrics, RVESRI demonstrated the best test-retest characteristics.

38 A test-retest cohort contained 5 reliable visual fields, within

39 nt change were defined as exceeding 95% test-retest confidence limits based upon the mean sensitivity

40 raclass correlation coefficient values (test-retest consistency) were greater than 0.92 for all regio

41 Therefore, this group acts as a test-retest control for the primary outcome measure examined

42 l groups; 90 participants were assigned to a retest control that did not complete the main outcome me

43 Test-retest correlation coefficients were 0.7 for PPC and 0.5

44 rted unnecessary ART costs were greater than retesting costs within 1 year using assumptions represen

45 The level of agreement between test-retest data and reliability was assessed using Bland-Alt

46 these results was also observed in a second retest dataset, demonstrating the robustness of our find

47 dentified prospectively acquired PET/CT test-retest datasets of 74 patients from multicenter Merck an

48 dentified prospectively acquired PET/CT test-retest datasets of 74 patients from multicenter Merck an

49 In a test-retest design (3- to 5-week interval) adults with persis

50 A test-retest design was used to assess patients with MDD in an

51 Test-retest differences from different scanner models were gr

52 Test-retest differences in ADC for each tumour, was scaled to

53 andom intercept were fitted to evaluate test-retest differences in multiple lesions per patient and t

54 We additionally evaluated retesting during late antenatal care and at delivery wit

55 Retesting during late antenatal care with a dual rapid d

56 Two (test-retest) dynamic (11)C-laniquidar PET scans were obtained

57 tched healthy volunteers to account for test-retest effects.

58 ion through a pilot study (n = 93) with test-retest evaluation (n = 50).

59 ealthy study participants who underwent test-retest examinations within 2 weeks.

60 omen; 15 healthy participants underwent test-retest examinations).

61 te difference of the area of EZ loss on test-retest for the first grader was 0.12 +/- 0.10 mm(2), and

62 elic replacement, and resultant mutants were retested for fitness in the mice.

63 -negative persons (4487 per group), 95% were retested for HIV infection over a median of 29 months.

64 ls treated with ivermectin do not need to be retested for L loa microfilaraemia before the next treat

65 al consistency (Cronbach's test > 0.84, test-retest > 0.7), reliability (>0.9), and acceptability.

66 Fifty-four subjects underwent a baseline-retest heat pain protocol.

67 ed (R(2) >/= 0.926; P < 0.00005) in the test-retest hemispheres.

68 We compared estimated costs of retesting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive pe

69 Follow-up (retest) imaging occurred between 48 h and 4 wk after ini

70 The predictive score was rebuilt and retested in 10 000 training and test sets randomly gener

71 e affects social interactions when fish were retested in groups of 2 and 4.

72 munotherapy (POIT) were depleted of IgG4 and retested in inhibition assays.

73 Rats were then retested in the task, under both baseline conditions and

74 nificant associations (P < 5 x 10(-8) ) were retested in two Copenhagen cohorts (comprising 1,522 cas

75 r associates) across a 4-hr daytime training-retest interval.

76 Test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients were >=0.90.

77 The median (interquartile range) test-retest intraclass correlation was 0.69 (0.57-0.79) and 0

78 Excellent test-retest (intraclass correlation, 0.89-0.99 across studies

79 rection in trial frames, confirmed by masked retest, irrespective of whether deterioration had occurr

80 st and programmatic issues is whether annual retesting is required for everyone.

81 he initial cognitive assessments to minimize retest learning or controlling for frailty proximate to

82 ed features were also highly stable for test-retest (mean +/- std: ICC = 0.96 +/- 0.06).

83 greement (LOA) of the ratio between test and retest measurements was calculated.

84 emonstrate that data normalization and "test-retest" methods might improve the performance of machine

85 features on small prostate tumors using test-retest Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI

86 These samples subsequently retested negative using the Abbott m2000 RealTime HIV-1

87 Retesting occurred at 1, 4, and 8 weeks after the initia

88 opsy for confirmation of disease process and retesting of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, a

89 Retesting of HIV-1 RNA by TaqMan 2.0 confirmed the disco

90 We concluded that the disproportionate retesting of some compounds represents compound repurpos

91 Discrepant results were resolved by retesting of the same specimen by an alternative molecul

92 Retesting of the synthetic eupalinilide E confirmed the

93 For test-retest on different scanners at different sites, the ave

94 Participants were retested on both sequences the following day during fMRI

95 e, we implemented the flurothyl kindling and retest paradigm in AS model mice to assess epileptogenes

96 data can be used to assess whether physician-retesting patterns are in line with established guidelin

97 lation coefficient were used to explore test-retest performance.

98 ignificantly improved without affecting test-retest performance.

99 Test-retest PET imaging, blocking with AT1R antagonist candes

100 Six healthy subjects underwent 120-min test-retest PET scans with both (11)C-EKAP and (11)C-FEKAP.

101 atients were enrolled and completed the test-retest PET/CT imaging protocol.

102 h maximum stress perfusion and CFR, (2) test-retest precision in same subject, (3) stress perfusion a

103 3DO body fat test-retest precision was: root mean squared error = 0.81 kg

104 465 patients had positive results because of retesting prompted by LSG-qPCR positivity.

105 A test-retest protocol was implemented to optimize the reproduc

106 Methods: A test-retest protocol was implemented to optimize the reproduc

107 healthy male subjects participated in a test-retest protocol with dynamic scans and metabolite-correc

108 ods: Six healthy subjects completed the test-retest protocol, and 5 healthy subjects completed the ba

109 ax) and SUVmean were calculated for all test-retest regions.

110 ) and SUV(mean) were calculated for all test-retest regions.

111 Intra-class coefficients for test-retest reliabilities ranged between 0.82 and 0.97.

112 scales in all clinical settings), high test-retest reliability (>0.76 for all domains), high respons

113 consistency (Cronbach-alpha: 0.71) and test-retest reliability (ICC: 0.78).

114 al consistency reliability (alpha=.85); test-retest reliability (ICC=.76); and convergent (r=.81 with

115 ility (Cronbach's alpha=0.81 vs. 0.88); test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0

116 ge 0-15) with excellent inter-rater and test-retest reliability (kappa=0.86, 95% CI 0.83-0.89, P < 0.

117 g, CSF PrP exhibits good within-subject test-retest reliability (mean coefficient of variation, 13% i

118 .97), feasibility (97% completion), and test-retest reliability (r = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.80) were de

119 d excellent internal (alpha = 0.89) and test-retest reliability (r = 92).

120 dality that exhibits variable levels of test-retest reliability across space.

121 resampling of words does not affect the test-retest reliability and diagnostic value of the CNC word

122 ay task is a robust task with excellent test-retest reliability and is well suited to investigate dif

123 Test-retest reliability and the rate of progression were calc

124 Test-retest reliability at a 48-hour interval was supported b

125 ch's alpha and item-total correlations; test-retest reliability by intraclass correlation coefficient

126 At 72-hour follow-up, test-retest reliability can be determined.

127 The AHQ demonstrates high test-retest reliability coefficients for pre- and post-operat

128 The test-retest reliability demonstrated very good reproducibilit

129 erature and in our sample, although the test-retest reliability estimates in the literature are highl

130 The test-retest reliability for both systems was high (average IC

131 SLS I and II (N=300), we evaluated the test-retest reliability for FVC% predicted (FVC%; screening v

132 Test-retest reliability for mean total SWV (MTSWV) was good f

133 ng face validity and pilot testing, the Test-Retest Reliability in a sample of 145 adults confirmed t

134 he aim of this study was to measure the test-retest reliability of (11)C-N,N-dimethyl-2-(2'-amino-4'-

135 , overall Cronbach's alpha of 0.93, and test-retest reliability of 0.66.

136 , overall Cronbach's alpha of 0.98, and test-retest reliability of 0.66.

137 processing parameters can optimise the test-retest reliability of EEG connectivity measures in infan

138 We assessed the test-retest reliability of high spatial resolution diffusion

139 s showed that ADO led to 0.95 or higher test-retest reliability of the discounting rate within 10-20

140 easures and (ii) empirically evaluating test-retest reliability of this battery in a new sample.

141 To date, the test-retest reliability of vibrotactile detection and discrim

142 Test-retest reliability was analyzed with an independent samp

143 Test-retest reliability was confirmed with intraclass correla

144 Test-retest reliability was demonstrated by correlations betw

145 Test-retest reliability was good.

146 Good-to-excellent test-retest reliability was observed for SERT binding in the

147 Internal consistency of the items and test-retest reliability were assessed by Cronbach's alpha and

148 ability (i.e., internal consistency and test-retest reliability) and validity (i.e., convergent, conc

149 nsistency) and intra-class coefficient (test-retest reliability); sensitivity using independent t tes

150 To measure test-retest reliability, a subset of patients completed the A

151 lit-half reliability, modestly improved test-retest reliability, and revealed novel mechanistic insig

152 rtest agreement, intergrader agreement, test-retest reliability, and the time taken to grade using th

153 tion using item response theory models, test-retest reliability, and validity testing.Measurements an

154 FVC% has acceptable test-retest reliability, and we have provided the MCID estima

155 ic analysis, including factor analysis, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, convergent val

156 a of delay discounting by comparing its test-retest reliability, precision, and efficiency with that

157 CGN_ICA had excellent test-retest reliability, showed convergent validity with the

158 ured approximately 10% more variance in test-retest reliability, was 3-5 times more precise, and was

159 rt surveys of self-regulation have high test-retest reliability, while DVs derived from behavioral ta

160 intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability.

161 e (ICC = 0.58) showed clinically useful test-retest reliability.

162 traditional Psi method, with excellent test-retest reliability.

163 als with minimal training and show high test-retest reliability.

164 ), a valid total score and an excellent test-retest reliability.

165 pupillometer examinations to determine test-retest reliability.

166 -derived pupil parameters had excellent test-retest reliability.

167 of 42 patients took the test twice for test-retest reliability.

168 ingle rs-fMRI visits, which showed high test-retest reliability.

169 ency, (Cronbach's alpha coefficient and test-retest), reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient

170 ed with trait anxiety scores (P = .04), test-retest reliable (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.

171 Test-retest repeatability across the various manufacturer, fi

172 Test-retest repeatability and reproducibility was assessed on

173 ary aim of this study was to assess the test-retest repeatability of radiomic features extracted from

174 The test-retest repeatability of shape and heterogeneity features

175 Conclusion: The test-retest repeatability of shape and heterogeneity features

176 TA acquisitions were used to assess the test-retest repeatability of the GPD and vessel density perce

177 goal of this study was to determine the test-retest repeatability of these metrics on PET/MRI, with c

178 es of SUVs: SUV, SUVAUC, and SUVTBR The test-retest repeatability of these metrics, as well as metabo

179 ories, we have designed and completed a test-retest repeatability study for differential HDX-MS exper

180 fied with SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVtotal Test-retest repeatability was assessed using Bland-Altman ana

181 riability of repeated FFR measurements (test-retest repeatability); (2) whether the extent of DeltaFF

182 sing both common and novel measures for test-retest repeatability, however, the quick CSF delivers mo

183 PERSI showed superior test-retest reproducibility (1.84%) and group separation abil

184 Results For test-retest reproducibility analysis and inter- and intraoper

185 ree separate analyses were performed: a test-retest reproducibility analysis, where each of the first

186 (11)C-LSN3172176 displayed excellent test-retest reproducibility and is a highly promising ligand

187 nal PET scan was performed to calculate test-retest reproducibility and reliability.

188 Significant test-retest reproducibility for flortaucipir F 18 was found a

189 ced diffusion MRI has good to excellent test-retest reproducibility in both human cTBI patients and c

190 Test-retest reproducibility in the thalamus was more than 90%

191 The test-retest reproducibility of (123)I-CLINDE is comparable or

192 Conclusion: The test-retest reproducibility of (123)I-CLINDE is comparable or

193 study reports the first data regarding test-retest reproducibility of flortaucipir F 18 PET.

194 ter minimum scan time and the excellent test-retest reproducibility of regional V (T).

195 Test-retest reproducibility was evaluated in 5 subjects.

196 High test-retest reproducibility was found for all virtual cathete

197 Test-retest reproducibility was higher in subjects with immed

198 e V (T) The time stability of V (T) and test-retest reproducibility were evaluated.

199 A burst frequency responses, indicating test-retest reproducibility, were respectively 9% and 24% for

200 HC group test-retest results showed decreased ventromedial prefrontal

201 Discrepancy analysis using results for retested samples from a second NAAT (Xpert C. difficile/

202 fferent CCCNA result was reported for 42% of retested samples, increasing the positive agreement betw

203 Ten of these subjects also underwent a retest scan on the same day.

204 Test-retest scans in individuals with or without T1D (n = 16)

205 ducibility of PET measurements from test and retest scans was assessed.

206 The correlation between test and retest scans was strong for all uptake measures at eithe

207 Additionally, test-retest scans were obtained in 6 animals.

208 The study consisted of 3 parts: test-retest scans; self-saturation to estimate the tracer's i

209 y comparing original test scores with 2-week retest scores.

210 ical P value CritIndex, such that 5% of test-retest series showed significant deterioration with P <

211 esults from MAPS were obtained during 4 test-retest sessions within a 4-month period.

212 Test-retest stability of global visual field indices was asse

213 liability of lesion SUVs, notably their test-retest stability, thus becomes crucial.

214 Simulations, test-retest studies and applications to cross-sectional datas

215 Multiple test-retest studies have been performed to assess SUV repeata

216 Test-retest studies involve repeated scanning of the same pat

217 Test-retest studies were performed with a 3-T MRI system usin

218 pproaches to improve feature stability, test-retest studies, and the evolution of deep learning for m

219 We then assessed SUV in patient test-retest studies.

220 ere observed among sequences in in vivo test-retest studies.

221 e smallest detectable change (SDC) in a test-retest study (Study 2) among patients self-reporting phy

222 cient to quantify V (T) and BP (ND) The test-retest study showed excellent absolute test-retest varia

223 cibility of network activity in a small test-retest study.

224 Test-retest SUV(max) variability was not explained by availab

225 Here, we retested that claim by returning to a spontaneous naviga

226 ts were enrolled, all of whom had pathologic retesting that confirmed HER2-negative primary breast ca

227 the differences in CCR2 expression led us to retest the protection of PRF in both sexes.

228 rom the patient's primary breast cancer were retested to confirm HER2-negative disease.

229 by the readers, the subject was recalled for retesting to confirm the abnormality and for further con

230 peatability of (68)Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC in a test-retest trial in subjects with metastatic prostate adenoc

231 peatability of (68)Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC in a test-retest trial in subjects with metastatic prostate adenoc

232 In addition, global and regional test-retest (TRT) variability was determined for parametric K

233 libration can yield highly reproducible test-retest tumor SUV measurements.

234 eading to aversive emotional experiences, we retested two of these patients (B.G. and A.M.) to examin

235 D of mean percentage change between test and retest using the PERSI reference region was 2.22% for a

236 g SPEs early in the test that can then guide retesting using both SITA algorithms.

237 nstrated satisfactory reliability, with test-retest VA scores having a mean difference of 0.001 (SD +

238 ng 85% of the fundus photographs and further retested (validated) on the remaining (held-out) 15% of

239 , correlation coefficient analysis, and test-retest validation were conducted.

240 evealed excellent agreement between test and retest values.

241 Similar test-retest variabilities and clinical group separations were

242 es take into account expected localized test-retest variabilities in sensitivity, and trend-based ana

243 (Akaike preference, 43.6%), acceptable test-retest variability (12%), no dependence on perfusion cha

244 cibility was observed in the calculated test-retest variability (7.2% +/- 0.75%).

245 these subjects to evaluate medium-term test-retest variability (interscan interval, 26-97 d).

246 The test-retest variability (represented by the intraclass correl

247 -function anxiety) and exhibits minimal test-retest variability (rho = 0.81 [0.64-0.91] for rod-funct

248 a recent study demonstrated substantial test-retest variability (TRV) in SUVs.

249 R and SUVR, effect size (Cohen's d) and test-retest variability (TRV) were evaluated.

250 and SUVR, effect size (Cohen's d), and test-retest variability (TRV) were evaluated.

251 ability that does not show significant test-retest variability across repeated administration.

252 magnitude of and the variable amount of test-retest variability among patients, the confounding effec

253 The relative and absolute test-retest variability and intraclass correlation coefficien

254 clinical studies including analysis of test-retest variability are essential to determine sensitivit

255 -monitoring device by measuring the device's retest variability at 2 months in a cohort of 43 patient

256 -retest study showed excellent absolute test-retest variability for 1TC V (T) (<=5%) and BP (ND) (<=1

257 ct the model best predicting the global test-retest variability from 3 categories of features of the

258 rformance was evaluated with respect to test-retest variability in a phase 2 study of 21 subjects (5-

259 Test-retest variability in high-binding regions (striatum) wa

260 The mean absolute test-retest variability in MA1 V (T) estimates was 7% and 18%

261 Test-retest variability in the whole brain (excluding the cer

262 itional scan to evaluate the within-day test-retest variability of (11)C-AS2471907 volumes of distrib

263 The test-retest variability of (11)C-LY2795050 for VT was no more

264 he aim of this study was to examine the test-retest variability of (123)I-CLINDE binding in healthy s

265 right lung regions of interest, with a test-retest variability of -6% (MA1, n = 1) or -1% +/- 14% (E

266 Test-retest variability of 2TC V (T) values was less than 10%

267 s consistent with published data on the test-retest variability of acuities measured using 5-letter-p

268 In both cases, the test-retest variability of K1 was approximately 19%.

269 ed in A2A-rich regions, with an average test-retest variability of less than 10%.

270 Test-retest variability of MS for CMP was better than for HFA

271 The rule is based on short-term test-retest variability of SD-OCT and is often used in clinic

272 The 95% CI limits for test-retest variability of smartphone acuity data were +/-0.0

273 ayed slow kinetics and relatively large test-retest variability of total distribution volume (V (T))

274 F improved the prediction of the global test-retest variability than using traditional global VF indi

275 The average regional test-retest variability values were 10.7% +/- 2.2% for 2-tiss

276 time), the 95% confidence limit (CL) of test-retest variability was calculated.

277 The global test-retest variability was defined as root mean square devia

278 Test-retest variability was measured by percentage difference

279 progression, symmetry between eyes, and test-retest variability were quantified.

280 atched that from the bolus application (test-retest variability, 1.1% +/- 24.7%), which was not the c

281 To assess test-retest variability, 25 participants completed the questi

282 including dosimetry, kinetic modeling, test-retest variability, and blocking by the P2X7 antagonist

283 ensitivity (MS) were computed to assess test-retest variability.

284 normal subjects was analyzed to assess test-retest variability.

285 ptake and to examine the within-subject test-retest variability.

286 t (Bland-Altman and weighted kappa) and test-retest variability.

287 or showing improvement in HRQOL beyond test-retest variability.

288 1)C-laniquidar uptake and to assess its test-retest variability.

289 o a subset of 25 participants to assess test-retest variability.

290 y tested in the exposure context (extinction retest) versus a different context (context renewal test

291 The agreement between the test and retest was established by a Bland Altman plot with 95% l

292 In a subsequent retest we asked, for the first time, whether young child

293 : Repeatability measurements for PET/CT test-retest with (68)Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC show a wCV 12-14% SUV(ma

294 Discordant results were retested with both assays and by standard culture.

295 lts between the Clarity assay and CCCNA were retested with CCCNA when the Clarity result agreed with

296 The sample not subtyped by either LDT was retested with the FFABR assay and was now negative.

297 : Repeatability measurements for PET/CT test-retests with (68)Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC showed a wCV of 12%-14%

298 ated reliability (internal consistency; test-retest, with n=100 participants).

299 of borderline high cholesterol patients are retested within the 3 year recommended period, however l

300 ably across 4 sites, and scanned twice (test-retest) within 7 days.