ライフサイエンスコーパス: Student t test

1 ere calculated for both groups and compared (Student t test).

2 Groups were compared (Student t test).

3 Group means were compared (unpaired Student t test).

4 n controls (17.4 +/- 11.8) (P = .004, paired Student t test).

5 -1) +/- 0.95) (P < .001, unpaired two-tailed Student t test).

6 on of RAGE by approximately 4-fold (P <0.05, Student t test).

7 ected controls (49.67% vs 35.09%; P < .01 by Student t test).

8 Metric variables were evaluated using the Student t test.

9 ter delivery was evaluated by using a paired Student t test.

10 e between groups was determined by using the Student t test.

11 involved an unpaired, uncorrected, two-sided Student t test.

12 Statistical significance was analyzed with Student t test.

13 ime constants (tau) were compared by using a Student t test.

14 nation of power and time by using the paired Student t test.

15 B; eGFR </= 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) by using a student t test.

16 Group comparisons were performed with the Student t test.

17 Significance was calculated by using the Student t test.

18 compared by using the Mann-Whitney test and Student t test.

19 Data were compared with the Student t test.

20 althy control animals by using the two-sided Student t test.

21 -interest analysis with the two-sided paired Student t test.

22 Comparisons were performed by using the Student t test.

23 e analysis was performed by using the paired Student t test.

24 ts with DM and control subjects by using the Student t test.

25 d antibody levels were compared by using the Student t test.

26 nce by using a bootstrap method and a paired Student t test.

27 ere compared between patient groups with the Student t test.

28 publication were compared with the unpaired Student t test.

29 f the findings was analyzed with an unpaired Student t test.

30 roups by using the Fisher exact test and the Student t test.

31 tistical analysis was performed by using the Student t test.

32 were tested with analysis of variance or the Student t test.

33 to pretreatment HCV RNA levels by the paired Student t test.

34 gradients (PSGs) were evaluated by using the Student t test.

35 rformed with both paired t test and unpaired Student t test.

36 um distances were compared by using a paired Student t test.

37 or each technique were compared by using the Student t test.

38 analyses were performed by using the paired Student t test.

39 tinuous variables were compared by using the Student t test.

40 Haenszel statistics, and a paired two-tailed Student t test.

41 The data were evaluated using Student t test.

42 Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test.

43 , and duration of sedation with a two-sample Student t test.

44 e compared by repeated-measures analysis and Student t test.

45 e three observers were measured by using the Student t test.

46 nresponders was calculated with a two-tailed Student t test.

47 ents and control subjects were compared with Student t test.

48 ies and specificities were compared with the Student t test.

49 for each procedure and compared by using the Student t test.

50 the two respiratory phases by using a paired Student t test.

51 nificance was determined by using the paired Student t test.

52 e significance of sex was assessed using the Student t test.

53 control subjects were compared by using the Student t test.

54 Groups were compared using the Student t test.

55 Continuous variables were evaluated with a Student t test.

56 th the final treatment response by using the Student t test.

57 image quality and were compared by using the Student t test.

58 fferences were evaluated by using the paired Student t test.

59 with analysis of variance and the two-tailed Student t test.

60 at different dose levels were performed with Student t test.

61 son of the different classes was executed by Student t test.

62 SF-to-BM SUV ratios were compared using the Student t test.

63 ficance was tested using a paired two-tailed Student t test.

64 were compared by using a two-tailed unpaired Student t test.

65 1 month after therapy by using a two-tailed Student t test.

66 antibiotic therapy rate was conducted using Student t test.

67 ed with one-way analysis of variance and the Student t test.

68 e detection rate was determined by using the Student t test.

69 recorded at 6 months were compared with the Student t test.

70 cal analyses were performed using a 2-tailed Student t-test.

71 Changes in T2* were compared based on Student t tests.

72 tion and discriminant validity was tested by Student t tests.

73 Statistical analysis was performed by using Student t tests.

74 ose who did by using the chi(2) and unpaired Student t tests.

75 -way analysis of variance, Fisher exact, and Student t tests.

76 of variance (ANOVA) and paired and unpaired Student t tests.

77 es were performed with Wilcoxon rank sum and Student t tests.

78 correlation, Spearman rank correlation, and Student t tests.

79 ses were performed using unpaired and paired Student t tests.

80 Clinical data were analyzed by using Student t tests.

81 cancer and PZ were compared by using paired Student t tests.

82 from baseline, which was evaluated by paired Student t tests.

83 was performed with chi(2), Fisher exact, and Student t tests.

84 idence intervals and compared using pairwise Student t tests.

85 s using generalized estimating equations and Student t tests.

86 h the probe was visible and when it was not (Student t test, alpha= 0.05).

87 The Fisher exact test and Student t test analysis were performed and relative risk

88 Statistical analysis utilized Student t test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), linear reg

89 Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test, analysis of variance, and Pearson correl

90 ables were compared by using the independent Student t test and analysis of variance.

91 and myocardial perfusion reserve index with Student t test and Bland-Altman analyses.

92 The Student t test and Bland-Altman plots were used to quant

93 ansmurality, and data were compared with the Student t test and Bland-Altman test.

94 Data were analyzed using the Student t test and chi analyses where appropriate.

95 The Student t test and chi(2) test were used for statistical

96 Student t test and Cochran-Armitage trend test was used

97 of MI and adjacent myocardium were compared (Student t test and correlation analysis).

98 Statistical analysis was conducted using the Student t test and correlation analysis.

99 Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test and Fisher exact test.

100 tistical analysis was performed by using the Student t test and Fisher exact test.

101 ed for sedation and discharge times by using Student t test and for adverse events by using Fisher ex

102 Unpaired Student t test and Friedman's repeated-measures ANOVA of

103 Student t test and least-squares linear regression analy

104 who underwent both modalities were compared (Student t test and linear regression analysis).

105 Statistical analyses included a Student t test and linear regression.

106 ferences in variables were analyzed with the Student t test and logistic regression.

107 Statistical analyses were performed with Student t test and multiple linear regression analysis.

108 bjected to statistical analysis, including a Student t test and multiple linear regression.

109 d myocardial fibrosis was evaluated with the Student t test and multivariable regression analysis.

110 tistical analysis was performed by using the Student t test and one-way analysis of variance for the

111 Statistical analysis was performed by Student t test and one-way ANOVA for repeated measures.

112 Data were analyzed with the Student t test and Pearson correlation.

113 fferences were analyzed by means of a paired Student t test and repeated two-way analysis of variance

114 were determined and analyzed by using paired Student t test and Spearman correlation.

115 A Student t test and stratified statistical analyses were

116 ement differences were assessed by using the Student t test and the F test; P < .05 was considered to

117 red, and statistically analyzed by using the Student t test and two-way analysis of variance.

118 (2-tailed) was used to compare proportions, Student t test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to c

119 Statistical analysis included paired Student t test and Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonfer

120 Student t tests and analyses of variance were performed.

121 cement values, were compared by using paired Student t tests and Bland-Altman plots.

122 Student t tests and chi(2) tests were performed to compa

123 Two-tailed Student t tests and repeated-measures analysis of varian

124 Other statistical tests like student t-test and logistic regression were also done.

125 score differences among cases and controls (Student t test) and the risk of developing MS comparing

126 tical tests used were the Fisher exact test, Student t test, and analysis of variance.

127 Continuous data were compared using Student t test, and categorical data using chi2.

128 Continuous variables were compared with Student t test, and categorical variables were compared

129 a were compared by using the Mann-Whitney or Student t test, and correlations were performed by using

130 rences in mean DeltaR2* were tested with the Student t test, and diagnostic accuracy was tested by ca

131 using Wilcoxon rank sum test and two-sample Student t test, and interobserver variability was tested

132 rmed by using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, Student t test, and kappa test of agreement.

133 ysis was performed with the chi(2) test, the Student t test, and logistic regression.

134 tatistical methods used were Cox regression, Student t test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

135 e compared by using the Pearson correlation, Student t test, and multiple regression.

136 intragroup comparisons were performed using Student t test, and P <0.05 was considered statistically

137 compared between animal cohorts by using the Student t test, and receiver operating characteristic (R

138 as performed by using the Fisher exact test, Student t test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, depending

139 lysis of variance, chi(2), Fisher exact, and Student t tests, as well as logistic regression and rece

140 s within patients were performed with paired Student t test, between groups with unpaired Student t t

141 echo MR imaging was quantified and compared (Student t test) by means of enhancement ratios.

142 contrast material was assessed and compared (Student t test) by means of T1 measurements obtained bef

143 rmed using a 1-way analysis of variance, the Student t test, chi test, and Mann-Whitney test where ap

144 Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test, chi(2) analysis, and mixed-model analysi

145 repeated measures analysis of variance, the Student t test, chi(2) test, and correlation analysis.

146 s determined by using the Mann-Whitney test, Student t test, chi(2) test, and Pearson correlation coe

147 were studied by using univariable analyses (Student t test, chi(2) test, or Fisher exact test, as ap

148 Paired Student t test, chi(2) test, Pearson correlation coeffic

149 Student t test, chi(2), and multiple logistic regression

150 Student t test, chi2 test, and multivariate regression a

151 metabolite levels were evaluated with paired Student t tests, cluster-based analyses, and multivariab

152 Data were analyzed by paired Student t test comparing the effect of cell fractions in

153 Comparison of means was performed by using Student t test, correlation was determined by using Pear

154 Student t test demonstrated no difference in mean time t

155 20 frequently significant clones ranked with student t-test discriminating CF antigens from healthy c

156 al inference was tested by means of a paired Students t-test evaluating a reduction in post-amphetami

157 Data were assessed by using the Student t test, exact binomial distribution, two-sample

158 Students t-test, Fischer exact test, and multivariable r

159 Statistical analysis included Student t test, Fisher exact test, analysis of covarianc

160 coronal diameters of the thorax by using the Student t test, Fisher exact test, and Pearson correlati

161 Student t test, Fisher exact test, or linear regression

162 Statistical analyses were performed with the Student t test for continuous bivariate comparisons, the

163 square cross tabulations for categorical and Student t test for continuous data.

164 mal versus nonoptimal ACS care were made via Student t test for continuous variables and chi(2) test

165 Student t test for continuous variables and contingency

166 images were performed by using the unpaired Student t test for continuous variables and the chi(2) t

167 en groups were performed by using the paired Student t test for continuous variables and the McNemar

168 ing a chi(2) test for categorical data and a Student t test for continuous variables, with a Fisher e

169 us section orientations were analyzed with a Student t test for independent groups and a repeated-mea

170 ualitative scores were compared by using the Student t test for independent samples, and SNR profiles

171 d by using the Wilcoxon singed-rank test and Student t test for matched pairs.

172 samples; for intraindividual comparison, the Student t test for paired samples was used.

173 ween the regimens were compared by using the Student t test for unpaired samples; for intraindividual

174 Comparisons were performed by using Student t tests for continuous variables.

175 ted and compared between the two studies via Student t tests for mean location, using a >5% cutoff fo

176 for each age group in 1-year intervals, and Student t tests for unpaired data were performed to comp

177 analyzed IOP variations from baseline with a Student t-test for a paired sample.

178 nces between both groups were analysed using Student t-test for parametric data and Mann-Whitney U te

179 By using a one-tailed Student t test in the positive direction for Dav and in

180 nalysis was performed using chi(2) analysis, Student t test, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with the

181 Paired Student t test, linear regression analysis, and Pearson

182 Statistical analyses included the Student t test, linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis

183 The Student t test, log-rank, or Cox proportional hazards mo

184 Pearson chi(2), Student t test, logistic regression, and kappa statistic

185 t comparisons were analyzed using chi(2) and Student t tests, logistic regression (predictive), and g

186 Comparisons were made by using the Student t test, Mann-Whitney test for quantitative data,

187 Data were analyzed using the Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact te

188 For statistical analysis, Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Spearman's corr

189 Student t test, multiple linear regression analysis, and

190 thermal lesion volume was compared with the Student t test on images obtained immediately, 2 weeks,

191 Paired analysis from Student t test on MRI parameters and clinical parameters

192 Student t tests, one-way analysis of variance, Pearson c

193 ameters on diagnostic performance by using a Student t test or a one-way analysis of variance.

194 Continuous data were compared by the Student t test or ANOVA, and categoric variables were co

195 alth at enrollment and delivery were made by student t test or Fisher's exact test.

196 Student t test, between groups with unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test, and linear regres

197 us variables were compared by using unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test, depending on data

198 Results were compared with Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

199 Follow-up analysis was performed with paired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

200 To compare the two groups, the Student t test or Wilcoxon test were used to evaluate di

201 Quantitative data were compared using the Student t test or Wilcoxon test.

202 isons between groups were performed by using Student t tests or analysis of variance.

203 Statistical analysis was performed by Student t test, or ANOVA followed by Bonferroni correcti

204 Neither the Student t test (P > .2 for all thresholds <0 HU) nor the

205 values over time were evaluated by using the Student t test (P<.05).

206 significant difference between arms 1 and 2 (Student t test, P = 0.02).

207 Student t test, P<0.05 was taken as significant.

208 ession in the severe malaria episode (paired Students t test, P < 0.05).

209 The Student t test, paired t test, and Kruskal-Wallis one-wa

210 knesses, were examined retrospectively using Student t test, Pearson chi(2) test, and logistic regres

211 r operating characteristic curve, two-tailed Student t tests, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa val

212 thout CAD were compared by using McNemar and Student t tests, respectively.

213 ides were assessed by using Tukey-Kramer and Student t tests, respectively.

214 demographic comparisons with age were made (Student t test, Satterthwaite test), and proportion conf

215 Student t test statistics were applied to report signifi

216 The two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Student t test, test for linear regression, analysis of

217 ignificantly higher (with P-value <10(-9) in student t-test) than other state-of-the-art methods, inc

218 The Student t test, the Fisher exact test, and multivariate

219 The Student t test, the Mann-Whitney test, and the Levene te

220 istical significance was determined with the Student t test, the paired t test, a mixed random effect

221 The Student t test was applied for independent samples (P <0

222 Student t test was performed for statistical analysis.

223 The Student t test was performed for statistical evaluations

224 Paired Student t test was performed to compare the accuracy of

225 The Student t test was used for all continuous variables and

226 The paired Student t test was used for data analysis.

227 Student t test was used for statistical analysis, with P

228 The Student t test was used for statistical analysis.

229 Two-tailed Student t test was used for statistical analysis.

230 A two-sided paired Student t test was used for statistical analysis.

231 Student t test was used for the comparison of the FDs of

232 Student t test was used for the comparison of the FDs.

233 equence in a blinded fashion, and the paired Student t test was used to assess differences in technic

234 as determined with kappa statistics, and the Student t test was used to assess differences in the mea

235 Paired Student t test was used to assess the significance of di

236 Student t test was used to compare attenuation and SNR m

237 A paired Student t test was used to compare continuous variables

238 The Student t test was used to compare FA and ADC between ad

239 The standard unpaired Student t test was used to compare groups.

240 The Student t test was used to compare groups.

241 An unpaired, two-tailed Student t test was used to compare groups; Spearman corr

242 used to compare complication rates, and the Student t test was used to compare LOS.

243 The Student t test was used to compare mean lung attenuation

244 compare vascular flow visualization scores; Student t test was used to compare mean study times with

245 A paired Student t test was used to compare mean values in contro

246 ct test was used to compare proportions; the Student t test was used to compare means.

247 The unpaired Student t test was used to compare the average percentag

248 The two-tailed Student t test was used to compare the mean diameters of

249 A two-tailed Student t test was used to compare the T1 and T2 results

250 Two-tailed Student t test was used to compare values between groups

251 The Student t test was used to detect differences between co

252 Student t test was used to determine any demographic dif

253 A two-tailed Student t test was used to determine if significant diff

254 Two-way Student t test was used to determine significant differe

255 Student t test was used to evaluate sex differences in c

256 A paired two-tailed Student t test was used to evaluate significance of post

257 A Student t test was used to examine differences in the in

258 Student t test was used to test for differences in mean

259 Z test or Student t test was used, when appropriate, to calculate

260 ise group comparisons, an unequal two-tailed Student t test was used.

261 Two-tailed Student t testing was used to determine differences in g

262 The Mann-Whitney U test and independent Student t test were used for nonparametric and parametri

263 Two-way analysis of variance and Student t test were used for statistical analyses, with

264 A 2-tailed Fisher exact test and paired Student t test were used for statistical analysis.

265 The Fisher exact test and Student t test were used to assess differences in these

266 The Fisher exact test and Student t test were used to compare clinical factors and

267 ne-way analysis of variance and the unpaired Student t test were used to test for significant differe

268 Chi-square and Student t test were used where appropriate.

269 Fisher exact, Pearson chi(2), and Student t tests were applied as indicated.

270 Paired, one-tailed Student t tests were performed to assess for statistical

271 Student t tests were performed to assess significance be

272 Paired Student t tests were performed to compare results betwee

273 Analysis of variance and Student t tests were performed.

274 analysis of variance and paired and unpaired Student t tests were performed.

275 Mann-Whitney U and unpaired Student t tests were performed.

276 The chi2 and unpaired Student t tests were performed.

277 Analysis of variance, Scheffe, and paired Student t tests were used for data analysis.

278 ts, multiple regression analysis, and paired Student t tests were used for statistical analyses.

279 Student t tests were used for statistical comparisons.

280 Two-sided paired Student t tests were used for statistical evaluation.

281 chi(2) and Student t tests were used to assess frequency and mean d

282 Paired Student t tests were used to compare average SNRs and CN

283 chi(2) and Student t tests were used to compare biopsy time, and th

284 Student t tests were used to compare the OCTA biomarkers

285 Paired Student t tests were used to compare the tumor region wi

286 Student t tests were used to determine differences in rC

287 Two-way analysis of variance and Student t tests were used to determine significant diffe

288 The Wilcoxon rank sum and Student t tests were used to evaluate differences.

289 Fisher exact and Student t tests were used to evaluate the statistical si

290 ed estimating equation regression model, and Student t tests were used to obtain limits of agreement

291 Student t tests were used to perform comparisons.

292 Student t-tests were used to analyze those clinical para

293 f three different feature selection schemas (Student t test, Wilcoxon rank sum test and genetic algor

294 Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and kappa tes

295 hniques were compared by using paired tests (Student t test, Wilcoxon test, or McNemar test, accordin

296 hods were used: Fisher exact test, unmatched Student t test, Wilcoxon's matched pairs test, and the M

297 e compared by using analysis of variance and Student t test with Bonferroni correction.

298 wo-way analysis of variance, followed by the Student t test with post hoc Bonferroni correction.

299 failure were compared by means of two-tailed Student t test, with differences considered significant

300 ifferent bowel loops was compared by using a Student t test, with kappa statistics used to measure in