Glossary entry (derived from question below)
Dutch term or phrase:
9% BI
English translation:
9% blijvende invalideit --> permanent disability
Added to glossary by
Evert DELOOF-SYS
Sep 17, 2004 08:49
19 yrs ago
Dutch term
9% BI
Dutch to English
Medical
Medical (general)
Er wordt naar aanleiding van de orthopedische expertise 9% BI toegerekend.
Proposed translations
(English)
5 +5 | 9% blijvende invalideit --> permanent invalidity | Evert DELOOF-SYS |
3 | Bias Index | Adam Smith |
Proposed translations
+5
1 hr
Selected
9% blijvende invalideit --> permanent invalidity
Zeker in deze context.
Ref.:
... De beoordeling gebeurt in abstracto. Bij de evaluatie van de graad van blijvende invaliditeit (BI) mag de geneesheer zich inspireren op een barema. ...
users.belgacom.net/bn523111/html/bi___bo.html
... invalidity. Back to top. 2. Partial and Permanent Invalidity. The Partial ... Back to top. 3. Total and Permanent Invalidity. The Total and ...
www.statesuper.nsw.gov.au/html/sas/sas7.html
Ref.:
... De beoordeling gebeurt in abstracto. Bij de evaluatie van de graad van blijvende invaliditeit (BI) mag de geneesheer zich inspireren op een barema. ...
users.belgacom.net/bn523111/html/bi___bo.html
... invalidity. Back to top. 2. Partial and Permanent Invalidity. The Partial ... Back to top. 3. Total and Permanent Invalidity. The Total and ...
www.statesuper.nsw.gov.au/html/sas/sas7.html
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "thanks"
45 mins
Bias Index
I'm speculating here, but perhaps this refers to the Bias Index:
"The bias index (BI) is defined as the difference between the proportions of "Yes" for the two raters. The prevalence index (PI) is defined as the difference between the probability of "Yes" and the probability of "No.""
ref. http://www.jmir.org/2004/2/e21/
More context might clarify it.
"The bias index (BI) is defined as the difference between the proportions of "Yes" for the two raters. The prevalence index (PI) is defined as the difference between the probability of "Yes" and the probability of "No.""
ref. http://www.jmir.org/2004/2/e21/
More context might clarify it.
Something went wrong...