ライフサイエンスコーパス: hazard model

1 2.340-11.975; p < 0.001 by Cox proportional hazard model).

2 0.78; P = 0.006 by adjusted Cox proportional-hazards model).

3 alling 8273 subjects) using Cox proportional-hazard model.

4 1.5 for equivalence) and a Cox proportional hazard model.

5 s using a log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard model.

6 ors of worse outcomes using Cox proportional hazard models.

7 ssessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.

8 ing Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models.

9 ier estimation and weighted Cox proportional hazard models.

10 d OS by using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.

11 aluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models.

12 ely and as a composite with Cox proportional hazard models.

13 ompeting-risks Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard models.

14 stimated using multivariate Cox proportional hazard models.

15 ed using covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models.

16 e, Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox proportional hazard models.

17 ely and as a composite with Cox proportional hazard models.

18 th Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox proportional hazard models.

19 01) predicted VF progression on proportional hazard models.

20 through the use of weighted Cox proportional hazard models.

21 effects of inflammatory markers in additive hazard models.

22 FS and OS using univariable Cox proportional hazard models.

23 ence of periodontitis using Cox proportional hazard models.

24 nd stroke was analyzed in a cox proportional hazards model.

25 do a survival GWAS using a Cox proportional hazards model.

26 ion) were evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model.

27 -rank test and a supportive Cox proportional hazards model.

28 tratified log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model.

29 (OS) were assessed with the Cox proportional hazards model.

30 pregnancy was modeled using Cox proportional hazards models.

31 factors determined by using Cox proportional hazards models.

32 sing spatial random-effects Cox proportional hazards models.

33 lan-Meier and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards models.

34 Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models.

35 biopsy was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models.

36 vel regression analyses and Cox Proportional-Hazards Models.

37 ssessed using multiadjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

38 d Fine and Gray proportional subdistribution hazards models.

39 alyzed using time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models.

40 5% CIs were calculated with Cox proportional hazards models.

41 mated HRs and 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazards models.

42 stimated using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.

43 ry, were summarized by marginal proportional hazards models.

44 recurrence with the use of Cox proportional-hazards models.

45 sing multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

46 was analyzed using time-varying proportional hazards models.

47 regnancy was modelled using Cox proportional hazards models.

48 stimated with multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.

49 alyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards models.

50 d ratios were derived using Cox Proportional Hazards models.

51 cted cubic splines based on Cox proportional hazards models.

52 essed using distributed-lag Cox proportional hazards models.

53 C statistic from unadjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

54 using linear, logistic, or Cox proportional hazards models.

55 5% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models.

56 alyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards models.

57 cted cubic splines based on Cox proportional hazards models.

58 g propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards models.

59 ing logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models.

60 S and OS was analyzed using Cox proportional-hazards models.

61 disaster mitigation, particularly for multi-hazard modeling.

62 ular death was evaluated by Cox proportional hazards modeling.

63 urvival were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards modeling.

64 h ALI were identified using Cox proportional hazards modeling.

65 ith hazard ratios (HRs) and Cox proportional hazards modeling.

66 mic position (wealth) using Cox proportional hazards modelling.

67 bloodstream infection using Cox proportional hazards modelling.

68 to 11.7; hazard ratio in a Cox proportional-hazards model, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.18; P<0.001 by th

69 ke, and heart failure using Cox proportional hazards modeling, 5-year AF discrimination using C indic

70 standard and time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models accounting for competing risk of death.

71 atistical analysis included Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age and Mainz Severity Score

72 8-day sepsis survival using Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for age and sex in the UK Biobank

73 ancer risk were assessed by Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for known risk factors (sociodemo

74 A Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for known clinical predictors sho

75 We used Cox-proportional hazards models adjusted for age, sex, location and comor

76 r death were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, sex, region of enrollme

77 urvival were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, stage, grade, treatment

78 lity using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for baseline comorbidities and i

79 We used Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for individual, household, and c

80 er and Nutrition (EPIC) and Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for other risk factors.

81 tat versus allopurinol in a Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted for the stratification variable

82 ociated with mortality in a Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 2.2, 95%CI

83 5% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, sex, calendar year, an

84 We used Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for high-dimensional propensity

85 valuated using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for individual- and census trac

86 Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for the first 5 principal compo

87 Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for comorbidities and cardiovasc

88 Specifically, in a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for multiple potential confounde

89 In Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, smoking, and other fac

90 qNight using random-effects Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for individual- and census trac

91 ismatch and graft loss in a Cox proportional hazard model, adjusting for HLA mismatch and clinical co

92 retransplant-free survival via proportional hazards modeling, adjusting for age, gender, and transpl

93 Proportional hazard models after 1:1 PS matching were used to estimat

94 Cox-proportional hazard models after propensity score matching were used

95 Using mixed-effects Cox proportional hazard models, age (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI

96 luded paired-sample t test, Cox proportional hazard models, Akaike information criterion (AIC), and i

97 ) were calculated using the Cox proportional hazard model and tested using the log-rank test.

98 Cox proportional hazard models and Kapplan-Meier methods were used to ass

99 and 34 years of age using a Cox proportional hazards model and an Aalen hazards difference model.

100 The Cox proportional-hazards model and Kaplan-Meier curve were used to evalua

101 yield results comparable to Cox proportional hazards model and kernel Cox regression.

102 stroke were assessed with a Cox proportional hazards model and propensity-score matching, respectivel

103 Multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling and propensity score-matched analysis w

104 aluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling and propensity score-matched analysis.

105 AMI was evaluated by using Cox proportional hazards models and area under the receiver operating cha

106 n cancer was estimated with Cox proportional hazards models and further adjusted for known ovarian ca

107 We fit proportional hazards models and hierarchical linear regression models

108 survival were assessed via Cox proportional-hazards models and multivariate generalized linear model

109 We applied Cox proportional-hazards models and pooled hazard ratios (HRs) using rand

110 ) of EOS according to BMI using proportional hazard models, and identified potential mediators.

111 of bolus to mortality using Cox proportional hazard models, and used Bayesian clustering to identify

112 ime to ART initiation using Cox proportional hazard models, and, in a post-hoc analysis, we used logi

113 ratios were obtained using Cox proportional hazards models, and a range of relevant covariates were

114 category at baseline using Cox proportional-hazards models, and at any time during the exposure peri

115 eier method, log-rank test, Cox proportional hazards models, and propensity score-matched analyses.

116 entered into multivariable Cox proportional hazard models as a time-varying exposure to estimate haz

117 Cox proportional hazards models assessed consistency of treatment effect

118 Proportional hazards models assessed differences in outcome reduction

119 Cox proportional hazards models assessed the association between TBI and

120 he performance of penalized Cox proportional hazard models built using either pathway- or gene-level

121 We used Cox proportional hazard models calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% con

122 In adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, compared with patients receiving neither

123 e Fine-and-Gray proportional subdistribution hazards model concerning ICU mortality and ICU discharge

124 ble logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models controlled for confounding by patient dem

125 Cox proportional hazards models (controlling for patient gender, age at i

126 We fitted Cox proportional hazard models correlating MICs, DST results, and clinica

127 Cox proportional hazards models coupled with the least absolute shrinkage

128 f disease; a multivariate Cox's proportional hazard model defined recurrence risk for disease.

129 A Cox proportional hazard model determined whether proteins were associated

130 Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models determined association of poor MH and pla

131 xamined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models employing an interaction term between LNR

132 Cox proportional hazard models estimated dementia risk in relation to cog

133 Cox proportional hazard models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for chronic

134 Cox proportional hazards models estimated site-specific hazard ratios (HR

135 Cox proportional hazards models estimated the association between baselin

136 Mediation analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model estimates that patients who have serious s

137 Cox proportional hazards modeling evaluated factors associated with the m

138 Cox proportional hazards models evaluated predictors of loss of >=15 lett

139 matched cohort analysis and Cox proportional hazard model evaluating thrombocytopenia over time.

140 On a multivariable Cox hazard model, evaluation within 30 days of referral was

141 The Cox proportional-hazard model for survival analysis was used to identify

142 an Patient Register, we fitted discrete-time hazard models for diagnosis of Crohn disease (CD) or ulc

143 s were analyzed in adjusted Cox proportional hazard models for MI and ischemic stroke.

144 d ratios (HRs) derived from Cox proportional hazard models for time-to-first event endpoints and Coch

145 bles, a multivariable mixed Cox proportional hazards model for graft failure revealed that donor aged

146 Using a Cox proportional hazards model for mortality from all causes, with data f

147 ing logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards models for hospital and 1-year mortality, respec

148 We ran Cox proportional hazards models for PM2.5 adjusted for eight subject-leve

149 ared with vancomycin, using Cox proportional hazards models for time to 30-day all-cause mortality, C

150 Cox proportional hazards modeling found that bariatric surgery was indepe

151 val (OS) in a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model (hazard ratio [HR] with 95% confidence inte

152 Using Cox proportional hazards models, hazard ratios (HRs) associated with post

153 Contemporary earthquake hazard models hinge on an understanding of how strain is

154 In a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, HLA class II antibodies before transplanta

155 A multiphase parametric hazard model identified 2 different periods based on ris

156 were performed with the use of proportional-hazards models in the per-protocol population (all parti

157 the primary analyses using Cox proportional hazards models in those with no previous CVD and repeate

158 y using confounder-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models (including gait speed and daily walking t

159 Cox proportional hazard models, Kaplan-Meier curves, and z scores were ap

160 ding through time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models may provide biased estimates of the causa

161 th-censored GF (dcGF) using Cox proportional hazard models (median follow-up 4 y).

162 ETU care, a marginal structural proportional hazards model (MSPHM) with inverse probability weighting

163 Identification was through Cox proportional hazards modeling of ROX association with HFNC outcome.

164 Proportional hazards models of time to first injurious violence were

165 with all-cause mortality in Cox proportional hazard model (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.4, p&0<005).

166 , 2.4 to 52.4) according to Cox proportional hazard model (P = .0003).

167 Cox proportional-hazards model (PHM) and propensity score matching were u

168 using linear regression and Cox-proportional hazard models, respectively.

169 d using a log-rank test and Cox proportional-hazards model, respectively.

170 Finally, a Cox proportional-hazard model revealed a hazard ratio of 9.5 (P < 0.005)

171 esults of the multivariable Cox proportional hazard model revealed histological sarcomatoid subtype a

172 Cox proportional hazard model showed that risk factors were female sex (H

173 Cox proportional hazard models showed that patients with carotid constric

174 Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models showed that the age gap was significantly

175 nt outcome prediction using Cox proportional-hazards model showed that protein-activity (but not muta

176 Using Cox proportional hazards models, survival analysis was performed, and dem

177 r survival in multivariable Cox proportional hazards models that included weight and body mass index

178 Using Cox proportional-hazard models, the association of LAESVI and LAEDVI with

179 In fully adjusted Cox proportional hazard models, the red-green cluster was positively asso

180 In an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model, thrombocytopenia was significantly associ

181 exposure was modelled using Cox proportional hazards models (time to first charge) and Andersen-Gill

182 We used Cox proportional hazard models to calculate cohort-specific HRs, and used

183 nd December 31, 2012 and used cause-specific hazard models to compare outcomes in rural versus urban

184 We used Cox proportional hazard models to estimate HRs and 95% CIs for whole grai

185 We used Cox proportional hazard models to estimate HRs and 95% CIs.

186 We used cause-specific hazard models to estimate risk of CKD from the quintile

187 carcinoma (HCC) and conducted cause-specific hazard models to evaluate the risk of cirrhosis and HCC.

188 ing the count, we estimated Cox proportional hazard models to examine associations with incident HF h

189 e analyses which employed Cox's proportional Hazard-Model to adjust for numerous variables simultaneo

190 In this analysis we used a proportional hazards model to assess effects of radiotherapy on risks

191 Meier survival curves and a Cox proportional hazards model to derive an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR).

192 We used the Cox proportional hazards model to evaluate time-related risk of CD based

193 We used a Cox proportional hazards model to identify factors affecting survival and

194 We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) and 9

195 We then used Cox proportional hazards modeling to evaluate adherence to this pattern a

196 ed using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models to adjust for known adverse prognostic fa

197 used linear regression and Cox proportional hazards models to assess the associations of co-prescrip

198 We used Cox proportional hazards models to assess the independent associations of

199 duration, and used adjusted Cox proportional hazards models to compare diabetes medication discontinu

200 They applied Cox proportional hazards models to determine the association between an F

201 We applied Cox proportional hazards models to determine the effect of covariates.

202 We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards models to estimate associations of incident post

203 We fit Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% c

204 We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs), adjustin

205 We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate multivariate hazard ratios (H

206 ed-mortality-ratio-weighted Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the association between influ

207 We used Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of ESKD

208 We used multivariable-adjusted Cox hazards models to evaluate the association of GlycA with

209 We used multivariable proportional hazards models to evaluate the association of HHV-6B(+)

210 We built multivariate Cox proportional hazards models to evaluate the effect of alcohol consump

211 er curves and used adjusted Cox proportional-hazards models to examine the differences between the ea

212 We used Cox proportional hazards models to examine the relationship between green

213 tic regression and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models to identify risk factors for limited heal

214 nnual eGFR assessments, and Cox proportional hazards models to investigate the association between sl

215 scriminative ability of the Cox-proportional hazards models to predict mortality was highest when the

216 In time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models, use of TRT was not associated with an ov

217 e Kaplan-Meier method, with Cox proportional hazard models used to identify factors associated with u

218 e trained and cross-validated a proportional hazards model using bone marrow infiltration, immunoglob

219 Survival was analyzed with Cox proportional hazards models using clinical or pathological staging, a

220 and pathway-level penalized Cox proportional hazards models using SPM and CNV data for 29 different T

221 nverse probability weighted Cox proportional hazards model, using a propensity score based on age, st

222 Cox proportional hazard model was used to adjust for confounders.

223 A Cox proportional hazard model was used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) f

224 A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was created to control for confounders ide

225 A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was then used to analyze the association o

226 A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) f

227 A marginal multivariable Cox proportional-hazards model was used to estimate the association betwe

228 A Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate the association of AA

229 Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the association betwee

230 ethods, and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent predictor

231 Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to compare outcomes including

232 Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to estimate the association of

233 Cox proportional hazards modeling was used with the Fine and Gray method

234 end point, assessed with a Cox proportional-hazards model, was the time to the first pericarditis re

235 Using survival proportional hazard models, we studied the effect of baseline depress

236 Using a Cox proportional hazards model, we compared all-cause mortality across di

237 In Cox proportional hazards models, we estimated unadjusted and adjusted haz

238 Using standard adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, we found a reduction in all-cause mortal

239 Whereas earlier studies assumed proportional hazards models, we used nonparametric regression methods

240 Cox proportional hazard models were fit to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) d

241 Cox proportional hazard models were fit to MCCV training samples using El

242 Cox hazard models were performed by randomized treatment for

243 Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze Organ Procurement and

244 Multistate models and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess suppression over time

245 Unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the association betwee

246 Survey-weighted Cox proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios (HRs) c

247 Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazards of incident

248 Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the associations bet

249 Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the effects of heatw

250 Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the impact of transm

251 Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate relationships betwee

252 Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify predictors of uptake

253 ise logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazard models were used to identify predictors of wound

254 Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used to evaluate differences in pr

255 Cox proportional hazards models were constructed for survival free from a

256 Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to determine association

257 Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to examine the relations

258 et (n = 159), the following Cox proportional-hazards models were constructed, each adjusted for age a

259 For each sex, Cox proportional hazards models were developed to predict major bleeding

260 Cox proportional hazards models were fit to assess the independent progno

261 Cox proportional hazards models were fit to evaluate the association of s

262 Cox proportional hazards models were fit to identify whether size measure

263 Cox proportional hazards models were performed.

264 Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards models were used for subgroup and multivariate a

265 Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess donor and recipient f

266 er curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess survival.

267 Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs

268 Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the risk of developi

269 Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the risk of incident

270 Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare time-to-event outcom

271 Multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine associations betwe

272 Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate [Formula: see text]

273 Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratio (HR) a

274 Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional-hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs)

275 Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 9

276 Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate HRs and 95% CIs of

277 Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (H

278 ivariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate clinical and labora

279 Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the adjusted hazard

280 Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association bet

281 Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association bet

282 Mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine associations between

283 Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine incident breast canc

284 Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify predictors of progn

285 Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate baseline variabl

286 Mixed and proportional hazards models were used to test individual-level associ

287 Cox proportional-hazards models were utilized to estimate the adjusted as

288 ble logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were utilized.

289 th a broken stick model and Cox proportional hazard model with smoothing splines.

290 e SDI and weight change and Cox proportional hazard models with different levels of adjustments to as

291 We specified Cox proportional hazard models with interactions between age, sex, and OS

292 We applied proportional subdistribution hazard models with inverse probability weighting to esti

293 Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with inverse probability weighting were co

294 Cox proportional hazard models with time-updated information on exposure

295 maternal outcomes we applied a proportional hazards model with time-updated IPT exposure.

296 estimated using a mixed-effects proportional hazards model with transplant as a time-dependent covari

297 rtality was determined in 3 Cox-proportional hazards models with (1) no CNS, (2) observed CNS, and (3

298 Multivariable discrete time Cox proportional hazards models with four periods [ovarian stimulation (O

299 We usedCox proportional hazards models with inverse probability of treatment and

300 Multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards models with post-procedure MALE hospitalization