ライフサイエンスコーパス: one-sided

1 Significance threshold was p<0.025 (one sided).

2 5.7%; OR 2.26; 95% CI 1.24 to 4.13; p=0.004, one sided).

3 ratio = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.23; P = .23, one-sided).

4 -move phase (0.73 [95% CI 0.49-1.10], p=0.94 one-sided).

5 hysiology score II), gave a p value of .141 (one-sided).

6 smitting class III and 54 class I (P = 0.16, one-sided).

7 71.4% with CAF (P = .10, two-sided; P = .05, one-sided).

8 2.7% with CAF (P = .19, two-sided; P = .095, one-sided).

9 = .11 [predefined significance level of .10, one-sided]).

10 etect a difference in RECIST v1.1 PFS at the one-sided 0.1 level using a stratified log-rank test.

11 Using an overall one-sided 0.10-level log-rank test, the study had 88% po

12 ry chemotherapy, with the upper bound of the one-sided 90% CI 0.98 (95% CI 0.72-1.05).

13 The lower limit of the one-sided 90% CI for RR was 31.2%.

14 ablish non-inferiority, the upper bound of a one-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) had to be les

15 troenterologist group (mean difference 1.36, one sided 95% CI -1.48).

16 d 437 RFS events, we achieved an HR of 1.26 (one sided 95% UCB, 1.48; favoring AC does not allow a co

17 dered non-inferior if the upper limit of the one-sided 95 % confidence interval (CI) for the differen

18 he placebo group (P=0.95; upper limit of the one-sided 95 percent confidence interval for this differ

19 percent vs. 6.0 percent; hazard ratio, 1.26; one-sided 95 percent confidence interval of 1.51, demons

20 solute risk difference 1.29% [upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 2.50%]; P(noni)(nferiority)=0.14).

21 27.9%] vs 251/890 [28.2%], difference -0.3%, one-sided 95% CI 3.2).

22 Stratified one-sided 95% CI for the difference (without LSG - with

23 The one-sided 95% CI for the underpowered non-inferiority te

24 The one-sided 95% CI for treatment-end difference was (-infi

25 -1R-positive soft-tissue sarcoma group (31%; one-sided 95% CI lower bound 21%; two-sided 90% CI 21-43

26 in IGF-1R-positive bone sarcoma group (35%; one-sided 95% CI lower bound 24%; two-sided 90% CI 24-47

27 21 of 54 in the IGF-1R-negative group (39%, one-sided 95% CI lower bound 28%; two-sided 90% CI 28-51

28 r geometric mean Ki-67 suppression of 83.8% (one-sided 95% CI, >/= 79.0%) for the combination and 66.

29 or = grade 2 skin toxicity was 0% (0 of 25; one-sided 95% CI, 0% to 11%).

30 be non-inferior to EFV+3TC-ZDV if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound for the hazard ratio (HR)

31 , with an estimate of the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval (0.93%) for a between-

32 gnificant areas are 55, 84, 93, and 96% at a one-sided 95% confidence interval.

33 (P < 0.001; protective efficacy, 93%; lower one-sided 95% confidence limit, 62%).

34 (P = 0.002; protective efficacy, 100%; lower one-sided 95% confidence limit, 75%).

35 One-sided 95% lower confidence limits were 0.83 (RMDQ) a

36 or overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.45, one-sided 95% upper CI 1.94; p=0.5056 for non-inferiorit

37 the Xience group (absolute difference -0.3% [one-sided 95% upper confidence bound 1.6%], p(non-inferi

38 tandard cold storage group (difference 2.8%, one-sided 95% upper confidence bound 8.8; p=0.45).

39 rity of single-agent T to AC, defined as the one-sided 95% upper-bound CI (UCB) of hazard ratio (HR)

40 The upper limit of the one-sided 97.5 percent confidence interval for the compa

41 ents in the rituximab treatment group (4.3%; one-sided 97.5% CI -4.25), which lay on the positive sid

42 tainly caused by the cord blood transfusion (one-sided 97.5% CI 0-6.5).

43 Non-inferiority of response was shown if the one-sided 97.5% CI lay on the positive side of the -7% m

44 008] vs tiotropium [n=1467] 1.145 L [0.008]; one-sided 97.5% CI lower limit -0.026 L; p<0.0001).

45 ersus 0.61 (tiotropium, n=1543); ratio 1.29 (one-sided 97.5% CI upper limit 1.44).

46 One-sided 97.5% CIs were used to estimate the noninferio

47 tion of responders 30 min post-dose was 91% (one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI]: 80% to 100%) a

48 guidance was non-inferior to IVUS guidance (one-sided 97.5% lower CI -0.70 mm(2); p=0.001), but not

49 (PY) of follow-up (HIV incidence of 0/100PY, one-sided 97.5%CI:0-1.8/100 PY).

50 1.0 day (2.6) in group 3 (group 3 vs group 1 one-sided adjusted p=0.70).

51 Using a one-sided alpha = .025, a target sample size of 352 pati

52 he hazard ratio (HR) for death, 80% power, a one-sided alpha = .025, and two interim analyses, a samp

53 By using a log-rank test with one-sided alpha = .05 and beta = .10, 190 p53-positive p

54 improvement in median PFS with 80% power and one-sided alpha at 5%.

55 esearch versus control had 90% power at 2.5% one-sided alpha for hazard ratio (HR) 0.75, requiring ro

56 e 80% power, which was calculated by using a one-sided alpha level of 2.5%.

57 Given a 90% CI, a power of 70%, and a one-sided alpha of .05, the margin for noninferiority wa

58 for which we assessed non-inferiority with a one-sided alpha of 0.025, and superiority with a two-sid

59 % for the primary composite endpoint, with a one-sided alpha of 0.05.

60 With 180 patients and one-sided alpha of 0.10, there would be 90% power to det

61 ndpoint was progression-free survival with a one-sided alpha of 0.20.

62 ed in 5 years, 2-year minimum follow-up, and one-sided alpha of 5%, 80% power was calculated.

63 at least a 50% reduction in 3-year LRF rate (one-sided alpha, 0.10; power 90%), assuming a 35% LRF ra

64 at least a 50% reduction in 3-year LRF rate (one-sided alpha, 0.10; power, 90%), assuming a 35% LRF r

65 The study was designed with 80% power for a one-sided alternative at a 10% level of significance to

66 ntrol rate (DCR) of 40% was tested against a one-sided alternative of a true DCR of 60% (alpha = beta

67 the subject has been at times unscientific, one-sided and irresponsible.

68 All p values were one-sided and multiplicity-adjusted.

69 calculations, but is now reported with both one-sided and the traditional two-sided tests of signifi

70 We investigate three one-sided and two two-sided test statistics under Q1 and

71 We clarify the one-sided and two-sided hypotheses, and discuss some iss

72 andomized phase II trials with alpha = 0.10 (one sided) and 20 to 80 patients per arm.

73 nal loss, non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided asymptotic test, against a non-inferiority mar

74 MCP ratio: 0.0007 +/- 0.0088, P = .604), and one-sided Bayes factors provided substantial evidence ag

75 CP ratio: -0.0011 +/- 0.0093, P = .521), and one-sided Bayes factors provided substantial to strong e

76 nian motion of macromolecular complexes with one-sided binding biasing movement in one direction: a B

77 om advanced stage down to stage I by using a one-sided binomial test of proportions.

78 s (sensitivity 0.65, specificity 0.73) using one-sided binomial tests with a significance level of al

79 tient groups were compared by using chi2 and one-sided binomial tests.

80 sello requires mutually capable parties, but one-sided caregiver relationships reveal its development

81 ised by septate uterus with obstruction of a one-sided cavity and formation of hematometra.

82 In contrast, the flow-like properties of one-sided cell-sheet expansion in confining geometries a

83 1%) in the control group versus nine (14.5%; one-sided chi(2) test P = .005) of the amifostine-treate

84 ized over penetrances (i.e., compared with a one-sided chi2(1)).

85 A one-sided Cochran-Armitage test, stratified by geographi

86 cebo (response rate difference 42% [24-58%]; one-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test p<0.0001).

87 dies, showing an age-dependent relationship (one-sided combined p = 3.92 x 10(-9), combined p value f

88 sided loop extrusion to investigate whether 'one-sided' complexes can compact mitotic chromosomes, or

89 These data confirm the original one-sided conclusions but suggest that differences are l

90 One-sided core-jet structures abound, and superluminal m

91 These events were characterized by long one-sided deletions (up to 13 kb) and extensive imperfec

92 localization, L approximately xi, we find a one-sided distribution for T.

93 ally, which correlates with the detection of one-sided DNA double-strand breaks at or near RTS1.

94 failed attacks, individual stomach contents, one-sided escalation, or modern analogs.

95 Another explanation posits that one-sided events reflect events in which heteroduplex is

96 on, as only one of the markers displays NMS (one-sided events).

97 d events would be revealed at the expense of one-sided events, while the second predicts no effect on

98 Analysis of these "one-sided" events revealed recombination junctions at ec

99 placebo group (difference 35%, 95% CI 15-52; one-sided exact Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, p<0.0001).

100 Non-inferiority was declared if the one-sided false discovery rate adjusted (FDRadj) p value

101 ocal compared with single-vision spectacles (one-sided Fisher's exact test P = 0.025).

102 BIS protocol was assessed with the use of a one-sided Fisher's exact test.

103 d a threshold for significance of p<0.00825 (one-sided) for the analysis of overall survival and a th

104 I argue that the one-sided framing of psychological research on political

105 When the donor had one-sided homology, the DSB in most co-transformants was

106 be frozen at 100 K and proved to be heavily one-sided (if not anancomeric).

107 94, which recognize distinct LAM epitopes, a one-sided immunoassay, and blinded cohorts.

108 Our primary outcome was tested using a one-sided independent samples t-test.

109 We find that for one-sided interactions, sufficiently high vaccination co

110 tages for both males and females despite the one-sided killing of male reproductives by larval female

111 of the CDRS equation is obtained by using a one-sided Laplace transform, by assuming constant diffus

112 the capivasertib group (two-sided p=0.0044; one-sided log rank test p=0.0018).

113 upper CI 1.94; p=0.5056 for non-inferiority; one-sided log-rank p=0.0163).

114 hazard ratio [HR] 0.941, 95% CI 0.802-1.104, one-sided log-rank p=0.229).

115 alone (hazard ratio 0.57, 90% CI 0.33-0.98; one-sided log-rank test p=0.044).

116 maintenance placebo versus sunitinib using a one-sided log-rank test with alpha = .15; 80 randomly as

117 -Meier method and were compared by using the one-sided log-rank test.

118 experimental arm and the control arm using a one-sided log-rank test.

119 , 79.4% +/- 3.2% versus 83.5% +/- 2.9%; P by one-sided log-rank tests were .27 and .34, respectively.

120 While one-sided loop extrusion cannot reproduce these phenomen

121 We therefore simulate one-sided loop extrusion to investigate whether 'one-sid

122 The one-sided lower 97.5% confidence limit was 76%, which wa

123 The 95% one-sided lower confidence bound of 4.77 months for medi

124 bulin group (absolute risk difference 15.9%, one-sided lower limit of the 95% CI -2.1%; p(non-inferio

125 unoglobulin (absolute risk difference 17.8%, one-sided lower limit of the 95% CI 0.4%; p(non-inferior

126 -group difference, -0.17 hours per 24 hours; one-sided lower limit of the 95% confidence interval, -0

127 multipliers, and new applications, mostly to one-sided M-ideals.

128 their loading sites and extrude loops in a 'one-sided' manner.

129 One-sided matched-paired t tests were performed to compa

130 rats and in rats with a temporary 90-minute one-sided MCAO followed by 24 hour reperfusion.

131 sailfish bills that show strong evidence of one-sided micro-teeth abrasions.

132 MMEJ-based deletions were RAD51-independent, one-sided MMEJ was RAD51 dependent.

133 ingle-strand annealing; and RAD51 dependent, one-sided MMEJ.

134 The one-sided multipliers of an operator space X are a key t

135 We then describe several new results on one-sided multipliers, and new applications, mostly to o

136 l aperture gradient index objective lens and one-sided oblique illumination using light at 450 nm.

137 a PFS ratio of >/= 1.3 (95% CI, 17% to 38%; one-sided, one-sample P = .007).

138 : interactions that have the same direction (one-sided or bidirectional hypotheses) or are proportion

139 Analyses were performed in one-sided or directed mode and adjusted for multiple tes

140 he consequences of the donor DNA having only one-sided or no homology with the psbA gene.

141 ion with VPC versus PC (hazard ratio = 0.70; one-sided P < .2) and to demonstrate noninferiority for

142 nd sex (n = 82) with significance defined as one-sided P < 0.025, was significantly higher in subject

143 a survival rate of 60% (95% CI, 46% to 73%; one-sided P = .0008 compared with the historic controls)

144 ctively, and showed significant improvement (one-sided p = .001 for both groups) compared with placeb

145 ombination (55%) than with monotherapy (42%; one-sided P = .001).

146 ci previously associated with schizophrenia (one-sided p = .003).

147 ed hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.95; one-sided P = .012).

148 (hazard ratio = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.96; one-sided P = .013).

149 15.5 months) for arms A and B, respectively (one-sided P = .017 by stratified log-rank test).

150 75 [one-sided P = .06]; stratified HR, 0.63 [one-sided P = .01]), favoring CE+V.

151 70% CI, 1.27 to 2.08; 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.60; one-sided P = .02).

152 expected median survival time of 21 months (one-sided P = .025, log-rank test).

153 3-year LRF rate was 23% (95% CI, 13% to 36%; one-sided P = .03) by binomial proportional estimate usi

154 ng patients with high tumor burden (log-rank one-sided P = .03).

155 zard ratio [HR], 0.69; 90% CI, 0.49 to 0.97; one-sided P = .034).

156 el (n = 42; hazard ratio v docetaxel = 0.64; one-sided P = .037); 17.0 weeks for vandetanib 300 mg pl

157 as 92% MR versus 86% OBS (HR = 0.6; log-rank one-sided P = .05) and, among patients with follicular l

158 ratio, 0.69; 90% two-sided CI, 0.47 to 1.00; one-sided P = .05).

159 zard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.07; one-sided P = .055; two-sided P = .11 [predefined signif

160 TRA; odds ratio, 1.80; 95% CI, 0.86 to 3.79; one-sided P = .06).

161 onths (unstratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [one-sided P = .06]; stratified HR, 0.63 [one-sided P = .

162 OS was 91% MR versus 86% (HR = 0.6; log-rank one-sided P = .08).

163 56) versus PC (n = 52; hazard ratio = 0.76, one-sided P = .098); median PFS was 24 weeks (VPC) and 2

164 t (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.87; one-sided P = .156).

165 %) of 105 for AD alone (relative risk, 1.24; one-sided P = .16).

166 r sunitinib (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79 to 2.10; one-sided P = .16).

167 (stratified HR, 0.83; 80% CI, 0.64 to 1.07; one-sided P = .17) for the CE+V and CE+P arms, respectiv

168 el (n = 44; hazard ratio v docetaxel = 0.83; one-sided P = .231); and 12 weeks for docetaxel (n = 41)

169 f responding was 1.27 (90% CI, 0.74 to 2.17; one-sided P = .24).

170 notherapy, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.92; one-sided P = .265).

171 zard ratio [HR], 0.92; 80% CI, 0.73 to 1.16; one-sided P = .32).

172 ate; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.51 to 2.21; one-sided P = .44).

173 4.6 months; HR, 1.09; 80% CI, 0.85 to 1.40; one-sided P = .67).

174 tion factors was 1.28 (80% CI, 0.99 to 1.67; one-sided P = .89).

175 3-year LRF rate was 42% (95% CI, 28% to 56%; one-sided P = .9) by binomial proportional estimate usin

176 ation therapy and monotherapy, respectively (one-sided P = .904).

177 m (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.58; one-sided P = .941).

178 holipid emulsion, and placebo, respectively (one-sided p = .992, low vs. placebo; p = .999, high vs.

179 r second cancer, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.66; one-sided P = 0.00096, which reached the significance le

180 y of the 97.5% confidence interval [CI], -3; one-sided P = 0.024).

181 successfully replicated in the KCOS sample (one-sided P = 0.04).

182 -dose AZD9773 (17.3 d) and placebo (18.3 d) (one-sided p = 0.18 and 0.74, respectively).

183 ebo at day 29 was 0.80 for low-dose AZD9773 (one-sided p = 0.25) and 1.64 for high-dose AZD9773 (p =

184 othesized placebo anesthesia success of 30% (one-sided p value < .0001 by exact binomial test).

185 r trials that test a reduction of therapy, a one-sided P value </= .10 was used to indicate statistic

186 hazard ratio [HR] 0.712, 96% CI 0.56-0.906; one-sided p value 0.0018).

187 rity for dose escalation was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than

188 Two-sided CIs and one-sided P values for planned comparisons were calculat

189 One-sided P values from an unadjusted log-rank test and

190 Employing one-sided P values, addition of either carboplatin (60%

191 ith sorafenib (HR 0.656, 95% CI 0.552-0.779; one-sided p<0.0001).

192 nib (hazard ratio 0.665; 95% CI 0.544-0.812; one-sided p<0.0001).

193 1 year; hazard ratio [HR] 0.35 [0.22-0.53]; one-sided p<0.0001).

194 4-1.6]; hazard ratio 0.37; 95% CI 0.25-0.54; one-sided p<0.0001).

195 plus letrozole group (HR 0.299, 0.156-0.572; one-sided p<0.0001); in cohort 2 (n=99), median progress

196 th a hazard ratio of 0.63 (95% CI 0.50-0.79; one-sided p<0.0001); median survival was 10.6 months (95

197 group (hazard ratio 0.62 [95% CI 0.47-0.80]; one-sided p<0.001).

198 controls); one marker, rs597980, replicated (one-sided P<0.05) and the other two had odds ratios with

199 .2% pregnant with <5% SPTRX3-positive sperm; one-sided p<0.05).

200 th the same risk allele as in prior reports (one-sided P<0.05, false discovery rate<0.15).

201 tcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, with a one-sided P-value threshold of 0.025.

202 0p12.3) formally replicated in our data with one-sided P-values <0.05 and the same risk directions as

203 cal statistics, signed global statistics and one-sided p-values are used to reflect our inferential i

204 recurrent melioidosis and mortality was met (one-sided P=.022).

205 on-inferiority of primary event was not met (one-sided P=.37).

206 (hazard ratio [HR] 0.78 [95% CI 0.67-0.89]; one-sided p=0.00021).

207 ]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.39, 80% CI 0.27-0.55; one-sided p=0.0003) and in the erlotinib plus cabozantin

208 p (4.7 months [2.4-7.4]; HR 0.37, 0.25-0.53; one-sided p=0.0003).

209 ]; hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.84, one-sided p=0.00030).

210 trozole group (HR 0.488, 95% CI 0.319-0.748; one-sided p=0.0004).

211 ponse according to RECIST (95% CI 15.6-42.6; one-sided p=0.00053).

212 versus 13.4% (IQR 1.1 to 21.3) with placebo (one-sided p=0.0010).

213 rogression or death, 0.65, 95% CI 0.49-0.86; one-sided p=0.0012 [primary objective met]).

214 was 7.6 and 5.6 months (HR, 0.74, 0.61-0.90; one-sided p=0.0014 [not significant]) among patients wit

215 ival (hazard ratio for event or death, 0.78; one-sided P=0.002).

216 8 months (12.0-17.7) in the sorafenib group (one-sided p=0.0020).

217 e placebo group (HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.68-0.94]; one-sided p=0.0033).

218 apy group (rate difference 17%, 95% CI 6-27; one-sided p=0.0044 [significance boundary 0.0184]).

219 plus letrozole group (HR 0.508, 0.303-0.853; one-sided p=0.0046).

220 group (hazard ratio 0.77; 95% CI 0.64-0.94; one-sided p=0.0052).

221 ed hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96; one-sided p=0.007).

222 placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; one-sided P=0.009), as was event-free survival (hazard r

223 up (hazard ratio 0.791 [95% CI 0.648-0.964], one-sided p=0.010).

224 azard ratio 0.65 [95% CI 0.45-0.95], nominal one-sided p=0.011).

225 (HR for progression 0.58, 80% CI 0.42-0.79; one-sided p=0.014).

226 ) in the placebo group (HR 0.76 [0.60-0.97], one-sided p=0.014).

227 e placebo group (HR 0.74 [95% CI 0.55-0.98]; one-sided p=0.019).

228 34%, 22-48]) in the placebo titration group (one-sided p=0.019).

229 apy group (rate difference 20%, 95% CI 4-35; one-sided p=0.021 [significance boundary 0.0184]).

230 ths (12.0-15.2) in group C (0.83, 0.69-1.00; one-sided p=0.027).

231 group (difference -1.0, 95% CI -2.0 to 0.1; one-sided p=0.0306).

232 hazard ratio (HR) of 0.58 (80% CI 0.40-0.85; one-sided p=0.032).

233 e risk of death (HR 0.64 [95% CI 0.40-1.05], one-sided p=0.037, whereas the boundary for statistical

234 ) of 62 patients in the standard-dose group (one-sided p=0.043).

235 le (risk reduction 2.4%, 95% CI -0.6 to 5.9; one-sided p=0.045).

236 group (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.72-1.04; one-sided p=0.063).

237 igned to placebo (HR 0.69, 90% CI 0.44-1.07; one-sided p=0.078).

238 ratio [HR] for death 0.80, 80% CI 0.56-1.14; one-sided p=0.21).

239 hazard ratio [HR] 0.940; 95% CI 0.780-1.134; one-sided p=0.26).

240 hazard ratio [HR] 0.969, 95% CI 0.800-1.174; one-sided p=0.3744).

241 8]; hazard ratio 0.968 [80% CI 0.697-1.344]; one-sided p=0.45].

242 b; hazard ratio [HR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.83-1.21; one-sided p=0.52) or overall survival (median not reache

243 316; hazard ratio 1.014, 95% CI 0.786-1.309; one-sided p=0.5436).

244 .0; stratified HR 1.022, 95% CI 0.834-1.253, one-sided p=0.587).

245 cebo plus pembrolizumab: HR 1.13, 0.86-1.49; one-sided p=0.81).

246 atment (hazard ratio 1.15, 95% CI 0.87-1.51, one-sided p=0.86).

247 Statistical significance was tested with a one-sided paired t test.

248 nd remote myocardium in both rats and swine, one-sided paired Wilcoxon tests were performed.

249 One-sided preservation of social ties seems to prevail o

250 We selected a one-sided probability criterion of non-inferiority for t

251 The two-one-sided procedure demonstrated superiority of the pane

252 investment, whereas younger males have more one-sided relationships.

253 ) (hazard ratio, 0.96; upper boundary of the one-sided repeated confidence interval, 1.16; P<0.001 fo

254 ment devices and its operator, allowing only one-sided secure key distribution.

255 wer to detect a 33% prolongation of PFS at a one-sided significance level of .2.

256 nalysis significance level of 0.081 (overall one-sided significance level of 0.20, power of 0.80, and

257 complete and partial remission, tested at a one-sided significance level of alpha = .10.

258 an 75% power to detect 50% prolongation at a one-sided significance level of P < .20.

259 e antibody titres after vaccination, using a one-sided significance non-inferiority margin of 5% for

260 greater, 20% or greater, and 1% or greater (one-sided significance thresholds, p=0.0122, p=0.0120, a

261 which required 534 patients (80% power, 5% [one-sided] significance level).

262 In one-sided situations (e.g. influenza/H1N1) it is suffici

263 plan, we analysed the primary endpoint with one-sided statistical testing with calculation of upper

264 ogression-free survival using a prespecified one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance lev

265 0 months (HR, 0.807; 95% CI, 0.695 to 0.937; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .0023), and ORR was 10

266 d ratio [HR], 0.922; 95% CI, 0.797 to 1.067; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .1388).

267 37.2; hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0 to 1.17; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .39).

268 ard ratio was 1.095 (95% CI, 0.892 to 1.344; one-sided stratified log-rank P = .807), indicating a la

269 ndard care) was 1.227 (97.5% CI 0.656-2.292; one-sided stratified log-rank p=0.77); at 24 months, the

270 ar entry into the channel with asymmetrical (one-sided) sugar addition.

271 o testing the hypothesis of no difference, a one-sided superiority test was conducted.

272 ning the ends, is the canonical example of a one-sided surface.

273 diverse dynamics of condensins that perform one-sided, symmetric two-sided, and asymmetric two-sided

274 implementing the ex situ technique in a real one-sided system are also discussed.

275 ) and sensitivities were compared by using a one-sided t test with a noninferiority margin of 5% (P <

276 etween devices has been determined, the "two one-sided t test" was used to test for equivalence betwe

277 ite score compared with placebo, tested by a one-sided t test.

278 ere statistically significant in the planned one-sided test (P = .03).

279 the positive side of the -7% margin, using a one-sided test done at the 2.5% significance level.

280 ble with equivalence (g=0.25), using the two one-sided test procedure, and ensuring the efficacy of t

281 The two-one-sided test tested the hypothesis of equivalence with

282 ous therapy with respect to survival, with a one-sided test with an upper boundary of the hazard rati

283 fidence interval, 0.54 to 0.95; P=0.004 in a one-sided test) and higher response rates (48% vs. 36%,

284 eatment equivalence was assessed using the 2 one-sided test.

285 The TOST (two one sided tests) approach provides a sounder data driven

286 The trial was designed to use one-sided tests of significance for power calculations,

287 Two one-sided tests with equivalence bounds of 0.5 (Cohen d

288 e FDR when p-values are discrete or based on one-sided tests.

289 from baseline to day 28 were analyzed using one-sided, two-sample t tests or Wilcoxon two-sample tes

290 ratio (HR) of 0.315 in favor of SRB, using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.05 with a sample size o

291 ng pCR is less than or equal to 0.65, with a one-sided type I error rate of 10%.

292 (difference between treatment means, 0.71%; one-sided upper 95% confidence interval, 4.14%; noninfer

293 ifference between 5 mg CCX140-B and placebo (one-sided upper 95% confidence limit -5%; p=0.01) and a

294 vely, at 12 months (relative risk, 0.98; 95% one-sided upper confidence limit, 1.13; P<0.001 for noni

295 surgery at 30 days (relative risk, 1.00; 95% one-sided upper confidence limit, 1.22; P<0.001 for noni

296 cale (between-group difference, 0.12 points; one-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval, 0.

297 VT-B (between-group difference, -0.3 lapses; one-sided upper limit of the 95% confidence interval, 1.

298 en treated and untreated thighs by using the one-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test.

299 XC6--and the MEIS1 HOX coregulator (P <.008, one-sided Wilcoxon test), a pattern of gene expression t

300 One-sided Z tests were used to determine noninferiority.