Screening comparative evaluation

R163 Bachorik, P.S., Rock, R., Cloey, T., Treclak, E., Becker, D. and Sigmund, W. (1990). Cholesterol screening Comparative evaluation of on-site and laboratory-based measurements. Clin. Chem. 36, 255-260. 

Figure 3 Multiple DAC with echo amplitude evaluation and screen compare mode (no defect) on the 12 SVGA colour display of the USLT 2000...

These tests not only represent different techniques, but also supply some basic information regarding the use of the insecticides under practical conditions. Because they are screening tests, it is desirable to use insects that are commonly employed by many different laboratories, in order to give a comparative evaluation of the materials. This pro-... 

Evers, A., Hessler, G., Matter, H. and Klabunde, T. (2005) Virtual screening of biogenic amine-binding G-protein coupled receptors comparative evaluation of protein- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols. 

Freitag, D., H. Geyer, A. Kraus, R. Viswanathan, D. Kotzias, A. Attar, W. Klein, and F. Korte. 1982. Ecotoxicological profile analysis, vii. Screening chemicals for their environmental behavior by comparative evaluation. Ecotox. Environ. Safety 6 60-81. 

Kross, B.C. and Cherryholmes, K. (1993) Toxicity screening of sanitary landfill leachates a comparative evaluation with Microtox analyses, chemical, and other toxicity screening methods, in M. Richardson (ed.), Ecotoxicology Monitoring, VCH Publishers, Weinheim, Germany, pp. 225-249. 

Screening chemicals for their environmental behavior by comparative evaluation. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 6, 60-81. Freitag, D., Scheunert, I., Klein, W., Korte, F. (1982) Long-term fate of 4-chloroaniline-14C in soil and plants under outdoor conditions. 

Stern M. Working Group on Serologic Screening for Celiac Disease Comparative evaluation of serologic tests for celiac disease A European initiative toward standardization. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2000 3 513-519. 

Sarafidis PA, Riehle J, Bogojevic Z, Basta E, Chugh A, Bakris GL. A Comparative Evaluation ofVarious Methodsfor Microalbuminuria Screening. Am J Nephrol 2007 28 324-329. 

Comparative evaluation of 1 and cephalostatins 14 and 15 (14, 15) in the NCI in vitro primary screen again revealed a reduced average GI50 cytotoxicity (100 nM and 68 nM respectively) for 14 and 15 compared to 1 [23]. The final pair of cephalostatins (16 and 17) isolated from C. gilchristi exhibited the same cytotoxic profile as the majority of the other cephalostatins with the panel averaged GI50 values of 16 (InM) and 17 (4nM) comparable to that of 1 (InM) [24],... 

Homology Models versus Crystal Structures Comparative Evaluation of Screening Performance... 

This is difficult to achieve in practice, but it is always a good practice to comparatively evaluate candidate supports for thickness, porosity, and tortuosity. Support materials that have been used include porous ceramics, porous metal such as sintered metal, metal screens, metal mesh, and slotted metal plates. Metal mesh has been demonstrated to offer favorable performance and attractive cost The thin Pd-40Cu membranes shown in Fig. 5.4 have been supported on a 70 x 70 mesh the impressions on the membrane surface are caused by the underlying support When evaluating the acceptable pore diameter for the membrane support, a general rule is that the pores or openings in the support should not be greater than about four times the membrane thickness. If the membrane is very... 

The evaluation of a number of immunoassay diagnostic kits was undertaken to determine their usefulness in a regulatory analytical laboratory environment in the food, feed and pesticide areas. Four rapid enzyme immunoassay tests for the detection of aflatoxin residues at the 20 ppb level in animal feeds were compared to the official HPLC procedure. In the pesticide area, a commercial pentachlorophenol competitive inhibition assay for residues in water was investigated as to its applicability to poultry and pork liver matrices. In addition, an ELISA screening procedure for the herbicide fusilade was developed. Modifications were incorporated into the rapid immunoband 1-2 Test procedure for the detection of motile Salmonella in various food and animal feed products resulting in quicker analysis than the standard culture method. Also, a comparative evaluation of a Quik-Card Test for sulphamethazine drug residues in pork urine, liver and muscle tissue, is described. 

---