ライフサイエンスコーパス: ANCOVA

1 ANCOVA adjusted for potential baseline differences.

2 ANCOVA and Chi-square tests were used to compare the dif

3 ANCOVA and logistic regression were used for analyses.

4 ANCOVA and logistic regression were used to explore base

5 ANCOVA indicated no significant mean +/- SE increase in

6 ANCOVA indicated significant differences between the gro

7 ANCOVA performed on the fraction of infarction (infarct

8 ANCOVA showed no effect of the HP or HNP diet (P > 0.05

9 ANCOVA showed statistically significant improvement in P

10 ANCOVA showed that atrophied T2 lesion volume was associ

11 ANCOVA showed that the improvement of LV ejection fracti

12 ANCOVA was applied to gauge how well the total tumor vol

13 ANCOVA was conducted with sex and APOE as independent va

14 ANCOVA was used to adjust for confounders.

15 ANCOVA was used to examine the effect of categorized alc

16 ANCOVA was used to examine the effect of sustained virol

17 ANCOVA with a 2 x 2 design was then used to identify the

18 ANCOVA-determined associations between quintiles of vita

19 ANCOVA-style analysis identified group effects across th

20 ANCOVAs were conducted to compare MMP9 plasma levels (co

21 ed associated with brain atrophy (P<or=.001, ANCOVA).

22 I animals co-varied significantly (P < 0.03, ANCOVA) with the amplitude of heat hyperalgesia determin

23 is recognition task were tested with a 2 x 2 ANCOVA factorial design (+FH/-FH and +APOE4/-APOE4).

24 faces were tested further in separate 2 x 2 ANCOVAs.

25 ed after clinical characteristic adjustment (ANCOVA F value=1.1, P=.35).

26 After ANCOVA and correcting for multiple comparisons, apples d

27 Analyzing the fMRI data, for AEA and 2-AG ANCOVAs were calculated using a full factorial model, wi

28 An ANCOVA identified significant group differences (CHR-t,

29 An ANCOVA was performed to determine the difference in kine

30 wn latent groups and p = 1.02 x 10(-4) in an ANCOVA with an adjustment for hidden substructures).

31 With the use of an ANCOVA, in which baseline 25(OH)D was accounted for, vit

32 dpoint on the BRIEF-A were analyzed using an ANCOVA model (terms: baseline score, treatment, and inve

33 and healthy subjects were assessed using an ANCOVA model.

34 s efficacy parameters were analysed using an ANCOVA model; binary outcomes were analysed using a logi

35 Analysis was by intention to treat, with an ANCOVA model adjusted for site, age, sex, and baseline s

36 We tested our MRI hypotheses with an ANCOVA model that included intracranial volume and facto

37 alyzed with random-effects meta-analyses and ANCOVA.

38 red t-tests for within-group comparisons and ANCOVA with Bonferroni post hoc tests for between-group

39 ANOVA (ilr) and ANCOVA (log ratios) revealed significant effects of seas

40 Logistic regression and ANCOVA models were performed and adjusted for confounder

41 Cox regression and ANCOVA were used for the analyses.

42 MT were analyzed by using Cox regression and ANCOVA, respectively.

43 nd analysis of variance or covariance (ANOVA/ANCOVA) are among the choices of algorithms for differen

44 udy by partial least squares (PLS) and apply ANCOVA technique with the PLS-identified signatures of t

45 stered hypotheses, a pre-registered Bayesian ANCOVA indicated that the time-saving, UCT, and control

46 ognitive domains were assessed with Bayesian ANCOVAs.

47 change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24 by ANCOVA in the full analysis set.

48 en treatment groups in PROs were analysed by ANCOVA among patients with baseline and at least one oth

49 e test-stimulated AUC C-peptide, analyzed by ANCOVA adjusting for baseline C-peptide, age, and sex (n

50 and at the 4-y examinations were analyzed by ANCOVA.

51 ment on inflammatory markers was assessed by ANCOVA after adjustment for presenting syndrome, country

52 g in multiple brain regions were compared by ANCOVA, adjusted for age.

53 tion for estimated leg oxygen consumption by ANCOVA.

54 The primary efficacy analysis was done by ANCOVA, with treatment, age group, and pooled centre as

55 e treatment effect of BM-MNC as estimated by ANCOVA was 1.25 (95% confidence interval, -1.83 to 4.32;

56 sveratrol and placebo arms were evaluated by ANCOVA adjusting for corresponding preintervention varia

57 er 12 weeks; P:=0.02 between the 2 groups by ANCOVA).

58 patients than in the comparison subjects by ANCOVA.

59 =0.0001 at 4 weeks and p=0.007 at 8 weeks by ANCOVA for overall treatment effect, adjusted for baseli

60 Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusted for age and Cox regression adjusted for

61 Using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) after last observation carried forward (LOCF) im

62 Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analyses tested the interaction that each baseli

63 Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) analysis revealed that differences between perio

64 analyses, including analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and descriptive statistics, were performed to ev

65 Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) assessed energy-adjusted dietary intake across D

66 The analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) least squares mean difference for the change fro

67 t population with an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.

68 e estimated using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model.

69 monly assessed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) or mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM) wit

70 pendent t-tests, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to assess the relationship between OCP use and I

71 A One-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to evaluate the mean difference in

72 Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to determine if clinician-estimated age

73 ysis of variance and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were employed.

74 ariance (ANOVA), and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess within and between treatment

75 ontrol brains, using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with age as covariate.

76 1.56 x 10(-4) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with an adjustment for unknown latent groups and

77 ow that, in general, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) yields greater power than other statistical meth

78 ended solution is an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), but it is rarely used, possibly because both th

79 five-level, one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), followed by post hoc t tests within regions dis

80 cts were compared by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

81 ependent t test, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

82 across groups using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

83 m was examined using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

84 reduction [P<0.0001, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)] in residual tumor volume [0.26; 95% confidence

85 nitive score or age [analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)F (2, 18) = 8.44, P = 0.003].

86 ment effect post-hoc analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] over days 2-7; P = 0.0099 vs. SoC).

87 or change in the steepest corneal curvature (ANCOVA, P = 0.72).

88 Mixed-design ANCOVAs and linear mixed-effects models were used to exa

89 The slopes were not significantly different (ANCOVA, F(4,142) = 0.21, P = 0.93).

90 y post hoc t tests within regions displaying ANCOVA group differences and correlation of such functio

91 there was no significant difference in eGFR (ANCOVA P = 0.13).

92 mblyopic eye across all spatial frequencies (ANCOVA; P < 0.0001 for each peak).

93 +/-4.8 mm Hg, CI -2.2 to 17.0 mm Hg) groups (ANCOVA P=0.0015).

94 at days 28 and 42 between the study groups (ANCOVA, P > 0.05).

95 In 29 symmetrical individuals, ANCOVA and Bonferroni tests compared vertical dimensions

96 oups with respect to change in axial length (ANCOVA, P = 0.37) or change in the steepest corneal curv

97 A, 14.8% (9.6% to 20.1%); P=0.444 by matched ANCOVA adjusted for pretreatment tHcy.

98 Repeated measures ANCOVA and paired t-test were performed to assess change

99 Multivariate and repeated measures ANCOVA tested differences among phenotypes by genotype a

100 We used a mixed-model, repeated measures ANCOVA to assess differences in mean scores between grou

101 Repeated-measures ANCOVA and Superimposition by Translation and Rotation M

102 near regression models and repeated-measures ANCOVA models incorporating potential confounders, such

103 analyzed using mixed-model repeated-measures ANCOVAs following the intention-to-treat principle.

104 In the main analysis, a linear mixed ANCOVA model including the 47 participants completing >=

105 Data were analyzed using a mixed model ANCOVA with a between factor of treatment assignment, a

106 were analyzed across sites using mixed-model ANCOVAs.

107 Repeated-measures mixed-models ANCOVA was used to compare Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS)

108 Multivariate analysis of covariance models (ANCOVA) was constructed in a stepwise fashion.

109 A multivariate ANCOVA revealed a significant overall effect of age grou

110 ) and MICs (11.3 muM) than in HICs (5.0 muM; ANCOVA p=0.0001).

111 than in MICs (31.1 muM) and LICs (25.2 muM; ANCOVA p<0.0001).

112 Data were analysed by use of ANCOVA models.

113 The use of ANCOVA, however, revealed a clear separation between the

114 in MG-ADL total score measured by worst-rank ANCOVA.

115 5 to 9 bpm (P 0.001 for 10, 30 mg doses, RM-ANCOVA).

116 A mixed RM-ANCOVA was conducted to control for baseline differences

117 or outcome on the Action Research Arm Test (ANCOVA statistical P=0.77, and effect size partial eta2=

118 Chi-square tests, ANCOVA, and multiple regression analyses were conducted.

119 The ANCOVA suggested that both ADC and (18)F-FDG in the whol

120 The ANCOVA was repeated for different types of alcoholic bev

121 rmance, failing to reach significance in the ANCOVA analysis.

122 Using the ANCOVA last-observation-carried-forward analysis, a more

123 Therefore, ANCOVA should be used in preference to change score or p

124 No independent effect of imager type (ANCOVA F value=1.4, P=.24) or spin-echo method (P=.67, W

125 performance-based skills assessment (UPSA) (ANCOVA) to measure functionality, MADRS (MMRM) to assess

126 Per-protocol analysis used ANCOVA, adjusted for baseline biomarker value, sex, oede

127 Mixed-effects models that used ANCOVA were generated to estimate weight-for-age z score

128 Analysis was per protocol and we used ANCOVA to analyse pharmacodynamic endpoint data.

129 ated subjects at endpoint (p = 0.014); using ANCOVA with Multiple Imputation (MI) method, the between

130 Data were analyzed by using ANCOVA and mixed linear models with sex and baseline val

131 Analyses were primarily performed by using ANCOVA F tests and Tukey-Kramer-corrected pairwise compa

132 Groups were compared by using ANCOVA, adjusting for inflammation, baseline serum conce

133 justment for baseline values, compared using ANCOVA in all participants with complete data at month 1

134 an inhibitor of Na-K-2Cl cotransport, using ANCOVA with a 2 x 2 factorial study design.

135 Efficacy was evaluated using ANCOVA for the change from baseline to week 8 in the dig

136 Between-group comparisons were made using ANCOVA.

137 n groups with voxel-based morphometry, using ANCOVA (covariates, age and gender; family-wise error co

138 potential pitfalls of imputation when using ANCOVA or MMRM methods, and illustrate how these methods

139 rt Association class (P<0.001) (all P values ANCOVA, perhexiline versus placebo).

140 Data were analysed via ANCOVA, examining between group differences at follow-up

141 d consumption in the diet were estimated via ANCOVA.

142 week 12 differed across the 4 arms by 1-way ANCOVA (P = 0.02); by pair-wise comparisons, only rhGH (

143 e tolerance test differed across arms (1-way ANCOVA P = 0.004), increasing in the rhGH arm relative t

144 Data were analyzed by 3-way ANCOVA with genotype, sex, and diet as the main factors.

145 s revealed abnormalities (five-level one-way ANCOVA, family-wise error correction p < .05): A) fronto

146 jects had greater microfluctuations (one-way ANCOVA, P < 0.001), and a small percentage of the total

147 n were not different between groups (one-way ANCOVA, P = 0.143).

148 Linear models and two-way ANCOVA tests showed significant differences of the BCIs

149 with 'age' and 'sex' as covariates (two-way ANCOVA) was applied with pacing variation (cycling and r

150 ix or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn, NPH) while ANCOVAs compared haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) and weight

151 nd of treatment (week 30) were analyzed with ANCOVA for continuous end points and a generalized linea

152 on change in echo measures was assessed with ANCOVA with adjustment for baseline value and enrollment

153 baseline blood pressure were evaluated with ANCOVA.

154 and PA levels (low, moderate and high) with ANCOVA and with Chair Stand repetitions and energy expen

155 mary Score (CSS) at 12 weeks was tested with ANCOVA adjusted for sex, baseline KCCQ, EF, atrial fibri

156 s with BMD and osteoporosis were tested with ANCOVA and logistic regression, respectively, at the lum