{"component": "clause", "props": {"groups": [{"size": 6, "snippet_links": [{"key": "an-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [0, 12]}, {"key": "right-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [29, 37]}, {"key": "to-practice", "type": "clause", "offset": [46, 57]}, {"key": "professional-autonomy", "type": "clause", "offset": [101, 122]}, {"key": "of-clients", "type": "clause", "offset": [151, 161]}], "samples": [{"hash": "bPTYaLjvld4", "uri": "/contracts/bPTYaLjvld4#comment", "label": "Restrictions on Right to Practice", "score": 28.9624538422, "published": true}, {"hash": "kXmGCTXAw43", "uri": "/contracts/kXmGCTXAw43#comment", "label": "Restrictions on Right to Practice", "score": 28.2644233704, "published": true}, {"hash": "fDBK0obrKHs", "uri": "/contracts/fDBK0obrKHs#comment", "label": "Restrictions on a Lawyer\u2019s Right to Practice", "score": 26.2020149231, "published": true}], "snippet": "An agreement restricting the right of lawyers to practice after leaving a firm not only limits their professional autonomy but also limits the freedom of clients to choose a lawyer. Paragraph", "hash": "45915f613c535e743b46c33b03b9aa08", "id": 2}, {"size": 18, "snippet_links": [{"key": "leased-object", "type": "definition", "offset": [65, 78]}, {"key": "the-parties", "type": "clause", "offset": [79, 90]}, {"key": "contract-signing", "type": "clause", "offset": [103, 119]}, {"key": "the-lessor", "type": "definition", "offset": [148, 158]}, {"key": "lease-registration", "type": "clause", "offset": [183, 201]}, {"key": "value-added-tax", "type": "clause", "offset": [209, 224]}, {"key": "voluntary-registration", "type": "clause", "offset": [287, 309]}], "samples": [{"hash": "gY8BjGcm7LV", "uri": "/contracts/gY8BjGcm7LV#comment", "label": "Lease Agreement", "score": 28.2714633942, "published": true}, {"hash": "8UL8Thr86yV", "uri": "/contracts/8UL8Thr86yV#comment", "label": "Lease Agreement", "score": 28.2714633942, "published": true}, {"hash": "76ODYPlLoZI", "uri": "/contracts/76ODYPlLoZI#comment", "label": "Lease Agreement", "score": 28.2714633942, "published": true}], "snippet": "Concerning Clause 10.1: It is here specified what portion of the Leased Object the parties have as per contract signing assumed will be included in the lessor\u2019s voluntary real estate lease registration in the Value Added Tax Register. In order for an area to be included in the lessor\u2019s voluntary registration, such area must be used in one of the following ways:", "hash": "f5f6379a14ad668cfdf030d83aca2a28", "id": 1}, {"size": 6, "snippet_links": [{"key": "law-firm", "type": "definition", "offset": [48, 56]}, {"key": "general-revenues", "type": "definition", "offset": [133, 149]}, {"key": "legal-services", "type": "definition", "offset": [163, 177]}, {"key": "the-arrangement", "type": "clause", "offset": [188, 203]}, {"key": "independent-professional-judgment", "type": "clause", "offset": [232, 265]}, {"key": "the-lawyer", "type": "definition", "offset": [269, 279]}, {"key": "the-firm", "type": "clause", "offset": [294, 302]}, {"key": "these-rules", "type": "definition", "offset": [325, 336]}, {"key": "state-bar-act", "type": "definition", "offset": [344, 357]}, {"key": "form-of-compensation", "type": "clause", "offset": [406, 426]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "definition", "offset": [438, 446]}, {"key": "a-percentage", "type": "definition", "offset": [447, 459]}, {"key": "specific-cases", "type": "clause", "offset": [480, 494]}, {"key": "legal-matters", "type": "definition", "offset": [498, 511]}, {"key": "payment-to-a", "type": "clause", "offset": [554, 566]}, {"key": "goods-and-services-provided", "type": "clause", "offset": [593, 620]}, {"key": "the-compensation", "type": "clause", "offset": [656, 672]}, {"key": "in-particular", "type": "clause", "offset": [811, 824]}, {"key": "pay-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [862, 868]}, {"key": "collection-agency", "type": "clause", "offset": [904, 921]}, {"key": "past-due", "type": "clause", "offset": [939, 947]}, {"key": "delinquent-fees", "type": "clause", "offset": [951, 966]}], "samples": [{"hash": "aTBSaQ22L4I", "uri": "/contracts/aTBSaQ22L4I#comment", "label": "Rules 5.4 Financial and Similar Arrangements With Nonlawyers", "score": 27.4019966125, "published": true}, {"hash": "6oWogQrhUrs", "uri": "/contracts/6oWogQrhUrs#comment", "label": "Rule 5.4 Financial and Similar Arrangements With Nonlawyers", "score": 24.4923305511, "published": true}, {"hash": "lbVtwZzVqel", "uri": "/contracts/lbVtwZzVqel#comment", "label": "Rule 5.4 Financial and Similar Arrangements With Nonlawyers", "score": 24.1939563751, "published": true}], "snippet": "[1] Paragraph (a) does not prohibit a lawyer or law firm* from paying a bonus to or otherwise compensating a nonlawyer employee from general revenues received for legal services, provided the arrangement does not interfere with the independent professional judgment of the lawyer or lawyers in the firm* and does not violate these rules or the State Bar Act. However, a nonlawyer employee\u2019s bonus or other form of compensation may not be based on a percentage or share of fees in specific cases or legal matters. [2] Paragraph (a) also does not prohibit payment to a nonlawyer third-party for goods and services provided to a lawyer or law firm;* however, the compensation to a nonlawyer third- party may not be determined as a percentage or share of the lawyer\u2019s or law firm\u2019s overall revenues or tied to fees in particular cases or legal matters. A lawyer may pay to a nonlawyer third-party, such as a collection agency, a percentage of past due or delinquent fees in concluded matters that the third-party collects on the lawyer\u2019s behalf.", "hash": "7fba59339b7a766f1d7faf4c547af594", "id": 3}, {"size": 4, "snippet_links": [{"key": "paragraph-three", "type": "definition", "offset": [43, 58]}, {"key": "section-15", "type": "definition", "offset": [76, 86]}, {"key": "breaches-or-defaults", "type": "clause", "offset": [171, 191]}, {"key": "related-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [192, 202]}, {"key": "performance-of-the-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [203, 231]}, {"key": "the-closing", "type": "clause", "offset": [240, 251]}, {"key": "opinion-letter", "type": "definition", "offset": [261, 275]}, {"key": "delivery-and-performance", "type": "clause", "offset": [432, 456]}, {"key": "agreements-and-commitments", "type": "clause", "offset": [531, 557]}, {"key": "in-the-case", "type": "clause", "offset": [630, 641]}, {"key": "covered-by", "type": "definition", "offset": [658, 668]}, {"key": "for-the-buyer", "type": "clause", "offset": [681, 694]}, {"key": "to-request", "type": "clause", "offset": [695, 705]}, {"key": "agreement-or", "type": "definition", "offset": [735, 747]}, {"key": "a-party", "type": "clause", "offset": [790, 797]}, {"key": "knowledge-standard", "type": "clause", "offset": [911, 929]}, {"key": "form-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [1000, 1007]}, {"key": "to-apply", "type": "clause", "offset": [1127, 1135]}, {"key": "list-of-agreements", "type": "clause", "offset": [1145, 1163]}, {"key": "schedule-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [1167, 1178]}, {"key": "the-acquisition-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [1179, 1204]}, {"key": "list-of-exhibits", "type": "definition", "offset": [1210, 1226]}, {"key": "sec-filing", "type": "definition", "offset": [1233, 1243]}, {"key": "selection-criteria", "type": "definition", "offset": [1403, 1421]}, {"key": "terms-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [1442, 1454]}, {"key": "all-agreements", "type": "clause", "offset": [1518, 1532]}, {"key": "change-of-control-of-the-seller", "type": "clause", "offset": [1565, 1596]}, {"key": "the-parties", "type": "clause", "offset": [1656, 1667]}, {"key": "agreements-or-commitments", "type": "clause", "offset": [1679, 1704]}, {"key": "legitimate-interest", "type": "definition", "offset": [1741, 1760]}, {"key": "counsel-review", "type": "clause", "offset": [1779, 1793]}, {"key": "significant-issues", "type": "clause", "offset": [1847, 1865]}, {"key": "scope-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [1900, 1908]}, {"key": "review-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [1914, 1923]}, {"key": "the-transaction", "type": "clause", "offset": [2006, 2021]}, {"key": "failure-to-obtain", "type": "clause", "offset": [2126, 2143]}, {"key": "consent-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [2146, 2156]}, {"key": "condition-to-closing", "type": "clause", "offset": [2225, 2245]}, {"key": "consummation-of-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [2250, 2269]}, {"key": "default-under", "type": "clause", "offset": [2302, 2315]}, {"key": "asset-purchase-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [2585, 2609]}, {"key": "the-condition", "type": "clause", "offset": [2655, 2668]}, {"key": "section-73", "type": "clause", "offset": [2672, 2683]}, {"key": "agreement-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [2712, 2724]}, {"key": "material-consent", "type": "definition", "offset": [2797, 2813]}, {"key": "required-by", "type": "definition", "offset": [2938, 2949]}, {"key": "to-buyer", "type": "definition", "offset": [2990, 2998]}, {"key": "obligation-to-close", "type": "clause", "offset": [3001, 3020]}, {"key": "asset-sale", "type": "definition", "offset": [3074, 3084]}, {"key": "by-company", "type": "clause", "offset": [3120, 3130]}, {"key": "with-respect-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [3144, 3159]}, {"key": "selling-company", "type": "definition", "offset": [3164, 3179]}, {"key": "shareholders-of-the-company", "type": "clause", "offset": [3204, 3231]}, {"key": "parties-to-the-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [3257, 3281]}, {"key": "the-company-will", "type": "clause", "offset": [3312, 3328]}, {"key": "individual-shareholders", "type": "definition", "offset": [3351, 3374]}, {"key": "by-the-company", "type": "clause", "offset": [3422, 3436]}, {"key": "as-seller", "type": "clause", "offset": [3437, 3446]}, {"key": "the-assets", "type": "clause", "offset": [3450, 3460]}, {"key": "the-shareholders", "type": "clause", "offset": [3467, 3483]}, {"key": "joining-the-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [3484, 3505]}], "samples": [{"hash": "19VJOMMQaeN", "uri": "/contracts/19VJOMMQaeN#comment", "label": "Noncompetition, Nondisclosure and Nonsolicitation Agreement", "score": 25.9392261505, "published": true}, {"hash": "fc92jWQKIas", "uri": "/contracts/fc92jWQKIas#comment", "label": "Noncompetition, Nondisclosure and Nonsolicitation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "snippet": "The no-breach-or-default opinions given in paragraph three are discussed in Section 15 of the Accord and the related Commentary. This opinion is designed to be limited to breaches or defaults related to performance of the Agreement through the closing when the Opinion Letter is delivered. Some buyers may seek to broaden the opinion to include required post-closing performance, inwhich event the Opinion should cover \u2018\u2018execution, delivery and performance \u2019\u2019 The most troublesome aspect of these opinions is identification of the agreements and commitments described in paragraph 3(b) of the opinion. It is not unusual, at least in the case of opinions not covered by the Accord, for the buyer to request that the opinion cover \u2018\u2018any agreement or commitment known to us to which Seller is a party or by which its property or assets is bound.\u2019\u2019 Use of \u2018\u2018known to us\u2019\u2019 introduces the uncertainties inherent in a knowledge standard and may result in an overly broad reference. The Accord and the model form of Accord opinion take a different approach and favor identifying the agreements and commitments to which this opinion is to apply (e.g., a list of agreements, a schedule to the acquisition agreement or a list of exhibits to an SEC filing). The opining lawyer should then review the agreements and com- mitments listed and give the opinion based upon that review. It is inappropriate to define the selection criteria for this Opinion in terms of the ultimate conclusion to be reached by the opining lawyer (e.g., all agreements and commitments that prohibit a change of control of the seller). This approach of utilizing a specific list requires that the parties define the agreements or commitments in a way that satisfies the buyer\u2019s legitimate interest in having company counsel review those agreements and commit- ments likely to present significant issues while simultaneously limiting the scope of that review to one that is feasible and does not involve disproportionate cost in the context of the transaction. Counsel should take care in agreeing to opine to a very detailed list of insignificant agreements; the failure to obtain a consent to one immaterial agreement does not create an unintended failure of a condition to closing. If consummation of the acqui- sition would result in a default under one of the agreements covered in paragraph 3(b) of the opinion letter, company counsel could not deliver the opinion letter in the form required. Although the default would also constitute an inaccuracy in the represen- tation and warranty in Section 3.20 of the Model Asset Purchase Agreement, that inaccuracy would not necessarily cause the condition in Section 7.3 of the Model Asset Purchase Agreement to fail to be satisfied if consent to the particular agreement was not a \u2018\u2018Material Consent\u2019\u2019 listed on Exhibit 7.3. If by reason of that same default company counsel could not deliver the opinion letter in the form required by Section 7.4(a), however, that condition to Buyer\u2019s obligation to close would not be satisfied. the opinion letter).\u2019\u2019 In an asset sale, this opinion is customarily given by company counsel only with respect to the selling company and not with respect to shareholders of the company, even though they may be parties to the agreement. In many instances counsel to the company will not be counsel to the individual shareholders and the agreements are fundamentally performed by the company as seller of the assets, with the shareholders joining the agreement principally to join in the indemnifications.", "hash": "07f136e750e8329d86857cab912c83a0", "id": 7}, {"size": 5, "snippet_links": [{"key": "number-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [1651, 1660]}, {"key": "add-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [1688, 1694]}, {"key": "the-definition-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [1796, 1813]}, {"key": "type-1", "type": "definition", "offset": [1814, 1820]}, {"key": "hours-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1904, 1912]}, {"key": "figure-2", "type": "clause", "offset": [2138, 2146]}, {"key": "figure-3", "type": "definition", "offset": [2290, 2298]}, {"key": "a-criterion", "type": "definition", "offset": [2569, 2580]}, {"key": "standard-test", "type": "clause", "offset": [2581, 2594]}, {"key": "liability-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [2785, 2797]}, {"key": "automated-systems", "type": "definition", "offset": [3132, 3149]}, {"key": "the-objective", "type": "clause", "offset": [3359, 3372]}, {"key": "single-participant", "type": "clause", "offset": [3531, 3549]}, {"key": "not-reproducible", "type": "definition", "offset": [3720, 3736]}, {"key": "international-classification", "type": "definition", "offset": [3784, 3812]}, {"key": "condition-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [3847, 3859]}, {"key": "given-that", "type": "definition", "offset": [3952, 3962]}, {"key": "clinical-trials", "type": "clause", "offset": [3992, 4007]}, {"key": "complete-agreement", "type": "definition", "offset": [4104, 4122]}, {"key": "development-of-a", "type": "clause", "offset": [4291, 4307]}, {"key": "the-design", "type": "clause", "offset": [4387, 4397]}, {"key": "the-method", "type": "definition", "offset": [4493, 4503]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "definition", "offset": [4596, 4604]}, {"key": "leadership-roles", "type": "clause", "offset": [4640, 4656]}, {"key": "clinical-expertise", "type": "definition", "offset": [4782, 4800]}, {"key": "purpose-of-study", "type": "clause", "offset": [4945, 4961]}, {"key": "further-study", "type": "clause", "offset": [5415, 5428]}, {"key": "determine-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [5432, 5445]}, {"key": "the-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [5557, 5570]}, {"key": "type-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [5698, 5705]}, {"key": "field-of-view", "type": "definition", "offset": [5957, 5970]}, {"key": "previous-experience", "type": "clause", "offset": [6532, 6551]}, {"key": "additional-study", "type": "clause", "offset": [6746, 6762]}, {"key": "the-other-hand", "type": "clause", "offset": [7037, 7051]}, {"key": "the-fact", "type": "clause", "offset": [7053, 7061]}, {"key": "all-participants", "type": "definition", "offset": [7067, 7083]}, {"key": "neonatal-intensive-care-unit", "type": "definition", "offset": [7417, 7445]}, {"key": "interpretation-of", "type": "definition", "offset": [7520, 7537]}, {"key": "present-study", "type": "clause", "offset": [8536, 8549]}, {"key": "with-regard-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [8996, 9010]}, {"key": "the-national", "type": "clause", "offset": [9051, 9063]}, {"key": "basis-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [9106, 9114]}, {"key": "diabetic-retinopathy", "type": "definition", "offset": [9191, 9211]}, {"key": "study-limitations", "type": "clause", "offset": [9237, 9254]}], "samples": [{"hash": "98d6HNlKOOs", "uri": "/contracts/98d6HNlKOOs#comment", "label": "Interexpert Agreement of Plus Disease Diagnosis in Retinopathy of Prematurity", "score": 24.8685836792, "published": true}, {"hash": "eCgSSLE07rZ", "uri": "/contracts/eCgSSLE07rZ#comment", "label": "Interexpert Agreement of Plus Disease Diagnosis in Retinopathy of Prematurity", "score": 24.459274292, "published": true}, {"hash": "frcpdAqeL5i", "uri": "/contracts/frcpdAqeL5i#comment", "label": "Interexpert Agreement", "score": 24.4209442139, "published": true}], "snippet": "This is the first study (to our knowledge) that has sys- tematically evaluated agreement among ROP experts for plus disease diagnosis. Consistent and accurate detec- tion of plus disease has an increasingly critical role in the identification of treatment-requiring ROP. This is par- ticularly relevant because the multicenter ETROP trial recently determined that presence of plus disease is suf- Table. Absolute Agreement in Plus Disease Diagnosis Among 22 Experts Reviewing 34 Imagesa 2 1 (5) 16 (76) 4 (19) 1 (5) 20 (95) 3 14 (70) 6 (30) 0 14 (70) 6 (30) 4 5 (24) 12 (57) 4 (19) 5 (24) 16 (76) 5 3 (14) 9 (43) 9 (43) 3 (14) 18 (86) 6 22 (100) 0 0 22 (100) 0 7 1 (5) 9 (41) 12 (55) 1 (5) 21 (96) 8 21 (96) 1 (5) 0 21 (96) 1 (5) 9 0 9 (43) 12 (57) 0 21 (100) 10 0 0 22 (100) 0 22 (100) 11 22 (100) 0 0 22 (100) 0 12 1 (5) 11 (50) 10 (46) 1 (5) 21 (96) 13 7 (32) 15 (68) 0 7 (32) 15 (68) 14 2 (10) 11 (52) 8 (38) 2 (10) 19 (90) 15 12 (60) 8 (40) 0 12 (60) 8 (40) 16 1 (5) 10 (48) 10 (48) 1 (5) 20 (95) 17 8 (38) 11 (52) 2 (10) 8 (38) 13 (62) 18 1 (5) 10 (46) 11 (50) 1 (5) 21 (96) 19 2 (10) 14 (67) 5 (24) 2 (10) 19 (90) 20 20 (95) 1 (5) 0 20 (95) 1 (5) 21 0 8 (38) 13 (62) 0 21 (100) 22 11 (52) 10 (48) 0 11 (52) 10 (48) 23 17 (77) 5 (23) 0 17 (77) 5 (23) 24 0 5 (23) 17 (77) 0 22 (100) 25 2 (10) 9 (43) 10 (48) 2 (10) 19 (90) 26 16 (73) 6 (27) 0 16 (73) 6 (27) 27 1 (5) 8 (36) 13 (59) 1 (5) 21 (96) 28 14 (64) 8 (36) 0 14 (64) 8 (36) 29 1 (5) 15 (71) 5 (24) 1 (5) 20 (95) 30 17 (81) 4 (19) 0 17 (81) 4 (19) 31 1 (5) 8 (36) 13 (59) 1 (5) 21 (96) 32 3 (14) 14 (64) 5 (23) 3 (14) 19 (86) 33 17 (77) 5 (23) 0 17 (77) 5 (23) 34 22 (100) 0 0 22 (100) 0 a Number of images in each row may not add to 22 because images categorized as cannot determine were excluded for that expert. ficient for meeting the definition of type 1 ROP, which benefits from early treatment regardless of the exact num- ber of clock hours of peripheral disease.4 The main finding from this study is that interexpert agreement of plus disease diagnosis is imperfect. Using a 3-level categorization, all 22 experts agreed on the same diagnosis in 4 of 34 images (12%) (Figure 2), and the mean weighted n statistic for each expert compared with all others ranged from 0.25 (fair agreement) to 0.55 (mod- erate agreement) (Figure 3). Using a 2-level categoriza- tion, all experts who provided a diagnosis agreed in 7 of 34 images (21%) (Figure 2), and the mean n statistic for each expert compared with all others ranged from 0.19 (slight agreement) to 0.66 (substantial agreement) A B C D E F nition, a criterion standard test should have complete accuracy and consensus.13 The extent of disagreement in plus disease diagnosis among recognized ROP authori- ties in this study raises important questions about the re- liability of this standard. This inconsistency presum- ably results from subjective differences in judgment among experts even while viewing the same images or from vary- ing interpretations of the definition of plus disease.3 Sev- eral studies14-16 explored the possibility of plus disease detection using computer-based image analysis. If these automated systems can be shown to have accuracy com- parable to that of human experts, the objectivity and re- producibility of computer-based techniques may offer im- portant advantages over current methods. We emphasize that the objective of this study was to evaluate agree- ment in diagnosis among experts rather than to mea- sure accuracy compared with a criterion standard. The opinion of any single participant in this study would cer- tainly be regarded as a criterion standard for diagnosis, although we note that a criterion standard test cannot be completely accurate if it is not reproducible among multiple observers. The recently revised international classification of ROP introduced an intermediate condition of pre-plus dis- ease.10 The clinical significance of pre-plus disease is not completely clear given that it was not incorporated into clinical trials such as CRYO-ROP or ETROP. Results from our current study suggest that even experts do not have complete agreement about whether a given image repre- sents pre-plus as opposed to plus or neither (Table). If the clinical usefulness of pre-plus disease can be demon- strated,17 future development of a more precise definition of this entity may help guide physicians in diagnosis. The design of a study involving interexpert agree- ment requires an explicit definition of expertise, and the method used for this project warrants some explana- tion. Participants were invited for this study based on academic criteria, as evidenced by leadership roles in ma- jor multicenter clinical trials or by authorship of peer- reviewed ROP literature. This may not necessarily re- flect clinical expertise in a real-world setting. However, there are numerous factors comprising medical exper- tise, some of which may be difficult to quantify for the purpose of study design.18 Furthermore, it could be ar- gued that academic ROP experts may have greater famil- iarity with the published photographic standard for plus disease than the overall population of ophthalmologists who perform ROP examinations. Therefore, we hypoth- esize that disagreement in plus disease diagnosis within the overall population of practicing clinicians may be higher than that among the academic experts in this study. This issue may warrant further study to determine the extent to which these findings are generalizable. From a clinical perspective, it would be most useful to know the agreement of plus disease diagnosis among mul- tiple experts performing serial indirect ophthalmoscopy on the same infant. However, that type of study would be impractical because of infant safety concerns.19 To simu- late a real-world situation for this study, images pre- sented to participants were captured using a commer- cially available RetCam device. This is a contact camera with a 130\u00b0 field of view and is the most well-known in- A 3-Level categorization 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 \u226590 \u226580 \u226570 \u226560 \u226550 \u226540 B 35 2-Level categorization 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 \u226590 \u226580 \u226570 \u226560 \u226550 Absolute Expert Agreement on Diagnosis, % No. of Images No. of Images Mean \u03ba vs Other Experts Mean Weighted \u03ba vs Other Experts strument for pediatric retinal imaging.20-25 In contrast, \u2587\u2587\u2587\u2587- dard binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy provides a 40\u00b0 to 50\u00b0 field of view. It is conceivable that this difference in perspective may have caused difficulty for participants, de- pending on their previous experience interpreting wide- angle ROP photographs. Although this study did not de- tect any correlation between mean n statistics and self- reported level of RetCam experience, this question may deserve additional study with a broader spectrum of im- age graders. On one hand, limited experience in correlat- ing wide-angle images with indirect ophthalmoscopy might result in systematic overdiagnosis or underdiagnosis of plus disease by some participants, thereby increasing variabil- ity. On the other hand, the fact that all participants were asked to review the exact same images in this study might produce decreased variability compared with serial oph- thalmoscopy because examination quality may vary based on infant stability or cooperation. Telemedicine strategies have been proposed as an al- ternative to standard ROP care involving dilated exami- nation at the neonatal intensive care unit bedside. Find- ings from several limited studies20-25 suggest that remote interpretation of retinal images may have adequate sen- sitivity and specificity to identify clinically significant ROP. To our knowledge, these published studies have com- A 0.6 3-Level categorization n = 15 0.5 0.4 n = 7 0.3 0.2 0.21-0.40 (Fair) 0.41-0.60 (Moderate) Mean Weighted \u03ba vs Other Experts B 0.8 2-Level categorization 0.7 n = 6 n = 12 0.6 0.5 0.4 n = 3 0.3 n = 1 0.2 0-0.20 (Slight) Mean \u03ba vs Other Experts Figure 3. Agreement in plus disease diagnosis, based on box plots of the mean n statistic for each of 22 experts compared with all others. A, The mean weighted n statistic in the 3-level categorization (plus, pre-plus, or neither). B, The mean n statistic in the 2-level categorization (plus or not plus). Boxes represent the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile n values. Whiskers represent the 10th and 90th percentile values. pared accuracy of remote interpretation of RetCam im- ages captured by ophthalmic personnel with a criterion standard of dilated ophthalmoscopy by a single exam- iner. The present study reveals several clinically signifi- cant disagreements among acknowledged ROP experts in plus disease diagnosis from wide-angle retinal photo- graphs. To prevent diagnostic errors, this issue should be examined and resolved before the routine deploy- ment of ROP telemedicine systems. However, if imple- mented properly, remote image interpretation at certi- fied centers may offer advantages over dilated examination by a single ophthalmologist with regard to standardiza- tion. This is analogous to the national Fundus Photo- graph Reading Center on the basis of the 7-field photo- graphic reference established by the Early Treatment for Diabetic Retinopathy Study.26 Four additional study limitations should be noted:", "hash": "936f3b0261bbaee03e4255d795453022", "id": 4}, {"size": 4, "snippet_links": [{"key": "an-opinion", "type": "clause", "offset": [32, 42]}, {"key": "due-incorporation", "type": "clause", "offset": [49, 66]}, {"key": "valid-existence-and-good-standing", "type": "clause", "offset": [90, 123]}, {"key": "selling-company", "type": "definition", "offset": [170, 185]}, {"key": "sale-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [287, 294]}, {"key": "the-buyer", "type": "clause", "offset": [319, 328]}, {"key": "transfer-of-the-assets", "type": "clause", "offset": [391, 413]}, {"key": "validly-existing", "type": "clause", "offset": [436, 452]}, {"key": "a-corporation", "type": "clause", "offset": [456, 469]}, {"key": "corporate-status", "type": "clause", "offset": [506, 522]}, {"key": "duly-incorporated", "type": "clause", "offset": [605, 622]}, {"key": "duly-organized", "type": "clause", "offset": [630, 644]}, {"key": "stock-purchase-agreement", "type": "definition", "offset": [677, 701]}, {"key": "in-addition-to-the", "type": "clause", "offset": [703, 721]}, {"key": "authority-to-execute-and-deliver", "type": "clause", "offset": [772, 804]}, {"key": "the-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [805, 818]}, {"key": "contemplated-transaction", "type": "definition", "offset": [837, 861]}, {"key": "asset-sales", "type": "clause", "offset": [1144, 1155]}, {"key": "the-request", "type": "clause", "offset": [1180, 1191]}, {"key": "of-the-seller", "type": "clause", "offset": [1192, 1205]}, {"key": "qualified-to-do-business", "type": "clause", "offset": [1308, 1332]}, {"key": "foreign-corporation", "type": "definition", "offset": [1338, 1357]}, {"key": "nature-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1389, 1398]}, {"key": "location-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1419, 1430]}, {"key": "guidelines-for", "type": "clause", "offset": [1593, 1607]}, {"key": "preparation-of", "type": "clause", "offset": [1628, 1642]}, {"key": "legal-opinions", "type": "definition", "offset": [1656, 1670]}, {"key": "foreign-qualification", "type": "clause", "offset": [1776, 1797]}, {"key": "failure-to", "type": "clause", "offset": [1985, 1995]}, {"key": "material-adverse-effect-on-seller", "type": "definition", "offset": [2020, 2053]}, {"key": "preferred-alternative", "type": "definition", "offset": [2218, 2239]}], "samples": [{"hash": "19VJOMMQaeN", "uri": "/contracts/19VJOMMQaeN#comment", "label": "Noncompetition, Nondisclosure and Nonsolicitation Agreement", "score": 25.9392261505, "published": true}, {"hash": "fc92jWQKIas", "uri": "/contracts/fc92jWQKIas#comment", "label": "Noncompetition, Nondisclosure and Nonsolicitation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "snippet": "Seller\u2019s counsel may argue that an opinion as to due incorporation or due organi- zation, valid existence and good standing is inappropriate in an asset sale because the selling company itself is not being sold. This opinion is commonly given in a variety of transactions other than the sale of a company, however, and the buyer would be justifiably concerned about the effectiveness of the transfer of the Assets if the seller was not validly existing as a corporation. Buyers often accept a more limited corporate status opinion, such as \u2018\u2018is a corporation validly existing,\u2019\u2019 rather than the broader \u2018\u2018duly incorporated\u2019\u2019 or \u2018\u2018duly organized\u2019\u2019 opinion more appropriate in a stock purchase agreement. In addition to the opinion that Seller has the \u2018\u2018corporate power and authority to execute and deliver the Agreement and consumate the Contemplated Transaction,\u2019\u2019 buyers sometimes ask for an opinion that the selling corporation has the corporate power and authority \u2018\u2018to own its properties and engage in its business as presently conducted . . . \u2019\u2019 Although this opinion is usually relatively easy to give, it technically is not necessary in asset sales and often is omitted at the request of the seller\u2019s counsel. Buyers sometime request an opinion from the seller\u2019s counsel that the selling com- pany is qualified to do business as a foreign corporation in all jurisdictions where the nature of its business or the location of its assets would require such qualification. Giving this opinion is strongly discouraged because it is time consuming, difficult and largely fact driven. Certain Guidelines for the Negotiation and Preparation of Third- Party Legal Opinions, published in the Third-Party Legal Opinion Report along with the Accord, concluded that a comprehensive foreign qualification opinion will \u2018\u2018gen- erally not be cost-effective\u2019\u2019 and may be an inappropriate request. Sometimes the for- mulation that the selling company is qualified in all jurisdictions \u2018\u2018where the failure to so qualify would have a material adverse effect on Seller and its operations\u2019\u2019 is re- quested as a compromise, but it is inappropriate for lawyers to make materiality judg- ments, and this opinion is also discouraged. The preferred alternative is to address qualification in specifically identified jurisdictions as in the form opinion above.", "hash": "5e924f339dc7a684c8943b749d287af9", "id": 9}, {"size": 4, "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-terms", "type": "definition", "offset": [10, 19]}, {"key": "other-relevant-legislation", "type": "clause", "offset": [47, 73]}, {"key": "used-in-this-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [78, 100]}, {"key": "the-definition", "type": "definition", "offset": [102, 116]}, {"key": "the-relevant", "type": "clause", "offset": [120, 132]}, {"key": "in-accordance-with-the-law", "type": "clause", "offset": [197, 223]}, {"key": "the-rights-and-obligations", "type": "clause", "offset": [335, 361]}], "samples": [{"hash": "2Tx9SYeeuAv", "uri": "/contracts/2Tx9SYeeuAv#comment", "label": "Data Processing Agreement", "score": 31.1469898224, "published": true}, {"hash": "7qyaKQXUWa1", "uri": "/contracts/7qyaKQXUWa1#comment", "label": "Standard Contract for Data Transfer", "score": 31.1444225311, "published": true}, {"hash": "8LKbl6YHWdf", "uri": "/contracts/8LKbl6YHWdf#comment", "label": "Standard Agreement for Transfer of Personal Data Abroad", "score": 31.1315860748, "published": true}], "snippet": "(a) Where the terms in the Law, Regulation and other relevant legislation are used in this Agreement, the definition in the relevant regulation shall apply.\n(b) This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the Law, Regulation and other relevant legislation.\n(c) This Agreement cannot be interpreted in a way that contradicts the rights and obligations stipulated in the Law, Regulation and other relevant legislation.", "hash": "6adea6579a418d645a7ab50bbd511c59", "id": 5}, {"size": 4, "snippet_links": [{"key": "related-to", "type": "definition", "offset": [51, 61]}, {"key": "performance-of-the-agreement", "type": "clause", "offset": [62, 90]}, {"key": "the-closing", "type": "clause", "offset": [99, 110]}, {"key": "opinion-letter", "type": "definition", "offset": [120, 134]}, {"key": "delivery-and-performance", "type": "clause", "offset": [298, 322]}], "samples": [{"hash": "19VJOMMQaeN", "uri": "/contracts/19VJOMMQaeN#comment", "label": "Noncompetition, Nondisclosure and Nonsolicitation Agreement", "score": 25.9392261505, "published": true}, {"hash": "fc92jWQKIas", "uri": "/contracts/fc92jWQKIas#comment", "label": "Noncompetition, Nondisclosure and Nonsolicitation Agreement", "score": 19.0, "published": true}], "snippet": "This opinion is designed to be limited to consents related to performance of the agreement through the closing when the opinion letter is being delivered. Some buyers may seek to broaden the opinion to include required post-closing performance, in which event the opinion should cover \u2018\u2018execution, delivery and performance of the Agreement.\u2019\u2019", "hash": "11ddb6f48e03595ee8ba2247ae57b142", "id": 6}, {"size": 4, "snippet_links": [{"key": "the-parties-agree-that", "type": "clause", "offset": [0, 22]}, {"key": "types-of-employment", "type": "clause", "offset": [34, 53]}, {"key": "protection-act", "type": "clause", "offset": [137, 151]}, {"key": "necessary-adjustments", "type": "clause", "offset": [212, 233]}], "samples": [{"hash": "fiX4qKGTipu", "uri": "/contracts/fiX4qKGTipu#comment", "label": "National Collective Agreement", "score": 31.1046390533, "published": true}, {"hash": "exFGVKeJNu4", "uri": "/contracts/exFGVKeJNu4#comment", "label": "National Collective Agreement", "score": 21.7318935394, "published": true}], "snippet": "The parties agree that the listed types of employment meet the industry's need for continuity and flexibility. If the Swedish Employment Protection Act is amended, the parties must enter into negotiations on the necessary adjustments.", "hash": "864be59a5d6689d5a298f9ab8e44a0f5", "id": 8}, {"size": 3, "snippet_links": [{"key": "for-the-employer", "type": "definition", "offset": [9, 25]}, {"key": "tax-deduction", "type": "definition", "offset": [66, 79]}, {"key": "to-pay", "type": "clause", "offset": [84, 90]}, {"key": "an-employer", "type": "clause", "offset": [91, 102]}, {"key": "based-on", "type": "definition", "offset": [118, 126]}, {"key": "subsistence-allowance", "type": "clause", "offset": [145, 166]}, {"key": "granted-by", "type": "definition", "offset": [189, 199]}, {"key": "tax-authority", "type": "definition", "offset": [210, 223]}, {"key": "appendix-2", "type": "clause", "offset": [250, 260]}], "samples": [{"hash": "7szr8WmoJO1", "uri": "/contracts/7szr8WmoJO1#comment", "label": "Collective Agreement", "score": 31.3592147827, "published": true}, {"hash": "fiX4qKGTipu", "uri": "/contracts/fiX4qKGTipu#comment", "label": "National Collective Agreement", "score": 31.1046390533, "published": true}, {"hash": "exFGVKeJNu4", "uri": "/contracts/exFGVKeJNu4#comment", "label": "National Collective Agreement", "score": 21.7318935394, "published": true}], "snippet": "In order for the employer not to be obliged to make a preliminary tax deduction and to pay an employer\u2019s contribution based on the amount of the subsistence allowance, an exemption must be granted by the local tax authority. The amounts are shown in Appendix 2.", "hash": "cc6f015a55d3a2d15c22ef33ad5dc5a7", "id": 10}], "next_curs": "ClASSmoVc35sYXdpbnNpZGVyY29udHJhY3RzciwLEhZDbGF1c2VTbmlwcGV0R3JvdXBfdjU2IhBjb21tZW50IzAwMDAwMDBhDKIBAmVuGAAgAA==", "clause": {"parents": [["patent-prosecution", "Patent Prosecution"], ["licensed-patents", "Licensed Patents"], ["comment", "Comment"], ["encoding-rules-for-defined-business-models", "Encoding Rules for Defined Business Models"], ["amount-of-sick-pay", "Amount of Sick Pay"]], "size": 277, "children": [["comment", "Comment"], ["rules-of-origin", "Rules of Origin"], ["trade-in-goods", "Trade in Goods"], ["customs-procedures-and-cooperation", "Customs Procedures and Cooperation"], ["initial-provisions", "Initial Provisions"]], "title": "Comment", "id": "comment", "related": [["comments", "Comments", "<strong>Comments</strong>"], ["review", "Review", "Review"], ["public-comment", "Public Comment", "Public <strong>Comment</strong>"], ["resubmission", "Resubmission", "Resubmission"], ["review-of-public-disclosures", "Review of Public Disclosures", "Review of Public Disclosures"]], "related_snippets": [], "updated": "2026-05-16T05:47:53+00:00"}, "json": true, "cursor": ""}}