コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 trials based on a patient-centered, benefit-risk evaluation.
2 systems to quantity vulnerability for hazard risk evaluation.
3 n-induced antibodies are direly required for risk evaluation.
4 l corona and nanoparticles during ecological risk evaluation.
5 on suboptimal feedback-learning rather than risk evaluation.
6 s, could represent predictive biomarkers for risk evaluation.
7 firm whether hypoalbuminemia plays a role in risk evaluation.
8 e use of visual instead of olfactory cues in risk evaluation.
9 cal use by facilitating safety and potential risk evaluation.
10 als who met guidelines for hereditary cancer risk evaluation.
11 whole exomes are widely available for cancer risk evaluation.
12 d Detroit, about experiences with hereditary risk evaluation.
13 ned by European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation.
14 diagnostics, treatment decision-making, and risk evaluation.
15 activity to risk is consistent with impaired risk evaluation.
16 ch could aid landslide predictive models and risk evaluations.
17 emerging concern and in need of human health risk evaluations.
18 ures may be considered as a group for health risk evaluations.
19 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation: 17.8 +/- 0.1%; mean duration of follow-
20 with version 3 of QRISK, Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2) and atherosclerotic cardiovas
21 estimate risk, including Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 (SCORE2), generally underestimate risk
23 ommend a new risk model (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 [European-SCORE2]) as well as new age-
24 t]) and without (SCORE2 [Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 algorithm], Pooled Cohort Equations) s
25 r risk, evaluated by the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation 2 prediction algorithm, was similar in P
26 risk scores such as the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation 2 system and the Second Manifestations o
28 SCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation [22.3 +/- 9.0% vs. 26.2 +/- 13.0%, p = 0
29 SCORE [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation], 22.4% vs. 6.3%, on a scale of 0 to 100
30 SCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation), 26.9 +/- 17.9%; and mean Society of Th
31 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation 27+/-17%, Society of Thoracic Surgeons s
33 analysis of community well-being and health risk evaluations across several dimensions of health.
34 ion should prioritize a lifespan approach to risk evaluation along with safe, efficacious, and access
35 -making in kidney failure care, living donor risk evaluation and decision-making, priority setting in
36 raffic management, where instantaneous crash risk evaluation and dynamic decision-making are prerequi
39 he prelimbic cortex (PL) is involved in both risk evaluation and in fear and anxiety-like behavior ex
42 ndemic has posed a significant challenge for risk evaluation and mitigation among cancer patients.
43 2012-2018]); expanded access (2010-2017) and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (2008-2018); a
46 monitoring forms submitted to the esketamine Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program a
48 patient and caregiver experiences with these Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) programs
49 bortion (for use with misoprostol) only with Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) restricti
50 t to a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to preven
51 anagement programs were merged into a single risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS), which ma
52 hly liver function tests (LFTs) as part of a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS); however,
54 regulatory drug safety actions, such as the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy initiative, whos
56 and experience of the first 22 months of the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program for pres
57 o from the FDA homepage search, ten from the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Review, and 256
58 higher European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation and more often underwent valve surgery.
59 cies may lead to further improvements in CVD risk evaluation and particularly in identification of ap
60 ed for individualized venous thromboembolism risk evaluation and prophylaxis regimens for patients un
61 of the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons pre
62 e, national, and global stakeholders conduct risk evaluation and to inform resource utilization and s
64 high production costs, incomplete ecological risk evaluations, and undefined application scenarios.
65 DECREASE-I (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography), DECRE
68 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation at baseline was 23.0 +/- 18.3; 84.9% pat
69 ts in older adults, which may inform benefit-risk evaluation at treatment initiation, and highlights
70 orting health authorities in a comprehensive risk evaluation based on the relative toxicity of differ
72 CTION: In the setting of cardiovascular (CV) risk evaluation before major elective surgery, current r
73 and ovarian cancers seen in a breast cancer risk evaluation clinic are accounted for by coding regio
75 ere used to calculate the Comorbid Operative Risk Evaluation (CORE) score based on previously validat
77 (VHA) implemented the Comprehensive Suicide Risk Evaluation (CSRE) in 2019 to standardize suicide ri
78 management visits, and comprehensive suicide risk evaluations (CSREs) via video and total visits acro
80 esearch on cooking impacts to improve health risk evaluations: establishing safe conditions for mushr
82 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) (42.4+/-22.8 versus 24.4+/-1
83 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) (a measure of predicted mort
84 ng the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) combined with postoperative
85 had a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) I of 6 or more (on a scale f
86 gistic European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (EuroSCORE) was detected in all simulati
87 dditive European System of Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), N-terminal pro-B-type natri
88 on the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE), New York Heart Association
90 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation [EuroSCORE]: 15.0% vs. 18.4%; p < 0.001)
91 dipose tissue, may be important for accurate risk evaluation for cardiovascular disease in the elderl
92 The strategy for using CRA to inform TSCA risk evaluation for existing chemicals is based upon int
93 y biomarkers have a clear role to supplement risk evaluation for men undergoing prostate biopsy and f
96 for each transplant recipient a personalized risk evaluation for the development of PTLD based on the
97 risk assessment (CRA) as part of its current risk evaluation for the seven phthalates, the agency rec
98 separate Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluations for seven phthalates: dibutyl phthalate
100 ical clinical risk scores (Systemic Coronary Risk Evaluation, Framingham), logistic and Cox regressio
102 SCORE (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) >6 (HR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.02-6.28; P=0.04
103 led in the Heart Strategies Concentrating on Risk Evaluation (Heart SCORE) Study in March and April 2
105 nd the European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation (HR, 0.88 per 10 mL/min per 1.73 m2; 95%
106 ients (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II [EuroSCORE II] <4%) included in the O
107 ons to European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II improved patient risk stratification,
108 rs and European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II in patients undergoing cardiac surger
109 30 or less, or a European System for Cardiac Risk Evaluation II score of 3.0 or more and underwent CA
110 ity by European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score was 8.7% (5.6%-14.9%), and most
111 median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score, 2.2% [IQR, 1.5%-3.5%]) were in
112 with a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score-predicted mortality of 5% or mo
114 ed for European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic pe
115 RE II [European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II] 3.1%) underwent transcatheter interv
116 ychological assessments, focusing on suicide risk evaluation in clinical data by comparing LLM-genera
117 nrollment in Adreview Myocardial Imaging for Risk Evaluation in Heart Failure (ADMIRE-HF) and index (
118 ADMIRE-HF (AdreView Myocardial Imaging for Risk Evaluation in Heart Failure) established the progno
119 e ADMIRE-HF (AdreView Myocardial Imaging for Risk Evaluation in Heart Failure) study prospectively ev
120 on profiling may have clinical relevance for risk evaluation in MDS at the time of initial diagnosis.
123 biomarkers as a combined panel that improves risk evaluation in the setting of prostate cancer detect
129 that the current metal-by-metal approach in risk evaluations may not be conservative enough for meta
135 This knowledge is essential for accurate risk evaluation of DCIS, treatment de-escalation strateg
138 , addressing an important concern during the risk evaluation of potential renal transplant donors.
139 s also provide important information for the risk evaluation of potential transfer of drug resistance
141 time, we present the necessary data for the risk evaluation of thiacloprid taken up chronically by h
143 anti-HCV-seronegative participants from the Risk Evaluation of Viral Load Elevation and Associated L
145 om 46.1% at baseline, to 69.4% at the stroke risk evaluation phase, to up to 72.6% at the end of the
147 atment Panel III, SCORE [Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation] project, Reynolds Risk Score, ASSIGN [A
148 ive pool of NOM using geochemical models and risk evaluation protocols in which complexed Cu has alwa
149 gistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score 20.0% [range: 13.6% to 28.8%]), 34
154 sociation (ACC/AHA), the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) equations, the Framingham Genera
155 rt equations (PCEs), and Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) high-risk equation, and 1 model
156 ty of Cardiology's (ESC) Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk estimation system and some
158 TE and should be included in thromboembolism risk evaluation similar to any acute and severe infectio
162 tential of using DNA methylation as an early risk evaluation to detect patients with high risk for CR
163 ractitioner are identified for submission to risk evaluation to examine the sensitivity of results.
164 Germline testing supports more accurate risk evaluation to inform screening and risk-reducing me
165 PFOS), but this work reinforces the need for risk evaluations to consider additional bioaccumulative
166 y outcomes were (1) the use of an aggression risk evaluation tool by a psychiatric social worker, (2)
167 sits (4119 visits [80.4%]) had an aggression risk evaluation tool completed, and 627 (15.2%) were lab
171 is analysis compares EPA's first 10 chemical risk evaluations under amended TSCA to best scientific p
173 We give illustrative examples of benefit-risk evaluations using 4 treatment interventions includi
174 ed sixty-four families seeking breast cancer risk evaluation were screened for coding region mutation
175 model, SCORE (System for CRISPR Outcome and Risk Evaluation), which revealed 4.8% of the genome as S