1                                              Yates corrected and Pearson chi(2) tests were used to ev

2 s (block size of 15 patients) and Fisher and Yates tables of random permutations.

3                  The case of Texas v. Andrea Yates, involving a mother with mental illness who drowne

4                   In a recent publication by Yates and colleagues, the ITH of breast tumors was exami

5                                 The study by Yates et al. in this issue of Cancer Cell provides evide

6 or and on a multi-sample breast cancer data (Yates et al., 2015), where the authors provide validated

7 al analysis, conducted using Fisher's Exact, Yates' Continuity Correction, Fisher Freeman Halton, and

8 udy included Mann-Whitney U and exact Fisher-Yates test.

9          However, in this issue of Immunity, Yates and Russell use carefully defined particles and qu

10 d low-dose zinc supplementation (1.5 mg/kg) (Yates-corrected chi-square P value of 0.033 and a risk r

11                   In particular the model of Yates and Broom introduced a stochastic version followin

12  fracture toughness tests on Poorman schist, Yates amphibolite, and rhyolite dikes from the EGS Colla

13 e Discordant group (3/14; 21%) (chi(2) test, Yates correction, p=0.003) and multivariate analysis sho

14 on of the population over the states for the Yates and Broom model and investigate the effects of som

15 d software (RelEx) previously written in the Yates lab to generate chromatograms directly from tandem

16 d by using the score interval along with the Yates continuity correction.

17 act test and the Z tests of proportions with Yates continuity correction were used to examine the rel

18 ifferentiated-type GCAs (c(2) statistic with Yates correction = 23.3981, p < 0.00001).