戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 those without depression (P < 0.001 for each paired comparison).
2 %, 73.4-86.2 vs 73.5%, 66.0-80.1; p=0.025 on paired comparison).
3  statistically higher vs gluteal injections (paired comparison).
4 ically significant (P<.006 for each group of paired comparisons).
5 /year [95% CI: -4.79 to 9.69], P = .0034 for paired comparisons).
6  and end point but without a placebo arm for paired comparison.
7 of individual stimuli or using the method of paired comparisons.
8 ests were used to analyze the differences in paired comparisons.
9 emissions than the TD estimates for 40 of 43 paired comparisons.
10 uch as delayed nonmatching to sample, visual paired comparison, and its rodent analog, the spontaneou
11    Significant differences were found in the paired comparisons between each NIBUT procedure and fBUT
12                                              Paired comparisons between operated and nonoperated fell
13                                      For all paired comparisons between testing methods, eyes with mo
14  with both a 5-point Likert scale and with 8 paired-comparison conjoint tasks (the latter being analy
15                                  We analysed paired comparison data using probit regression analysis
16  used a harmonized global dataset containing paired-comparison empirical values of SOC and different
17                                              Paired comparisons found significant differences between
18  among those who had experienced SCI and the paired comparison group of participants.
19 , for clinical testing by topical, bilateral paired comparisons in 20 patients with atopic dermatitis
20 ed procedures for implementing the method of paired comparisons in the fitting of today's sophisticat
21                                              Paired comparisons included 170 isolates and FFPE tissue
22                                         In a paired comparison including 1213 patients, 73% of the pa
23 tly different among FBP, IRIS, and SAFIRE in paired comparisons (median Agatston score [25th and 75th
24                   This was a within-subject, paired comparison of MDI and CSII and CSII with 12 month
25  median absolute prediction error (1.2 D); a paired comparison of medians showed clinically similar r
26                                              Paired comparison of patient samples at both timepoints
27                                          (2) Paired comparison of qualitative differences in paper ve
28                            For each patient, paired comparison of radiation doses before and after ri
29                                              Paired comparison of residence times for spleen and tumo
30     Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used for paired comparison of subepicardial and subendocardial MV
31                                            A paired comparison of teeth from the same cat with and wi
32                                          The paired comparison of the event-free costs showed that th
33                                          The paired comparison of the event-free plus angina-free cos
34                                           In paired comparisons of 100/cystatin C with iothalamate cl
35  lesional skin was assessed by double-blind, paired comparisons of active drug and placebo ointments
36 ers and two radiologists performed unblinded paired comparisons of curved-paddle vs standard-paddle i
37 n (0.54 [95% CI: 0.25 to 0.82]; P = .003 for paired comparisons of equivalent durations).
38                Corresponding reader-adjusted paired comparisons of false-positive scores revealed sig
39 uced RG2TK+ and wild-type RG2, were used for paired comparisons of probe accumulation in vitro and fo
40                                           In paired comparisons of static stimuli, depth amplitude wa
41 isons of probe accumulation in vitro and for paired comparisons of subcutaneous xenografts produced f
42 nce responses to anchor the results from the paired comparisons on the disability weight scale from 0
43                                  Among these paired comparisons, only eight (12%) of 67 FNA diagnoses
44 other task of recognition memory, the visual paired-comparison, or visual preferential looking task (
45 ternal and in-house datasets with use of the paired comparison permutation tests.
46                                           On paired comparison, phase sequences during monomorphic ve
47 , 9-month-olds, and adults, using the visual paired-comparison procedure.
48 f the primary end points was undertaken with paired comparison procedures by using paired t tests acr
49 of the primary end point was undertaken with paired comparison procedures.
50     Preferential viewing tests (e.g., visual paired comparison) produce robust impairments following
51  necessary to fit many of them-the method of paired comparisons provides the clinician with the abili
52                                 Surveys used paired comparison questions for which respondents consid
53                          Survey responses to paired comparison questions were insensitive to whether
54                             The surveys used paired comparison questions, in which respondents consid
55                                           In paired comparisons, rejection incidence was superior in
56                                  Analysis of paired comparison responses indicated a high degree of c
57  additional analysis examined sensitivity of paired comparison responses to duration of hypothetical
58                                  We analysed paired comparison responses with probit regression analy
59                                              Paired comparisons show that these two synapses are not
60 ciple supporting this procedure, the various paired-comparison strategies and associated approaches,
61 r in sports and games, consumer research and paired comparison studies, and human and animal social h
62 rations were significantly higher (Student's paired comparisons t test, alpha = 0.05) in serum versus
63                                            A paired-comparison t-test was performed over the 8 biolog
64 ions of the fornix were tested on the visual paired comparison task (VPC), a test of recognition memo
65                           We used the visual paired comparison task to test memory abilities in our g
66 cognition impairment when tested in a visual paired comparison task, the data suggest that not all ob
67                    Performance on the visual paired-comparison task depends on the integrity of the h
68 s and suggest that performance on the visual paired-comparison task measures a form of declarative me
69  ages of 1.5, 6, and 18 months on the visual paired-comparison task using delays of 10, 30, 60, and 1
70      We found that performance on the visual paired-comparison task was predictive of subsequent reco
71 delayed nonmatching to sample and the visual paired-comparison task.
72                Over time, studies have found paired comparisons to be sensitive, valid, and reliable
73 ed using the Monell 2-series, forced-choice, paired-comparison tracking procedure.
74 encoding and retrieval processes, the visual paired comparison (VPC) task measures spontaneous eye mo
75  submitting the same adult monkeys to visual paired comparison (VPC) with mixed delays (10-120 sec),
76                                The method of paired comparisons was introduced into the hearing aid l
77 ent from each other, and in neither of the 3 paired comparisons was the difference in IOP between 2 t
78                                Through these paired comparisons, we can exclude the interpatient vari
79 f the codons tested (by the three assays) in paired comparisons were concordant.
80 cells compared with those in HK18 cells; the paired comparisons were made for basal levels before irr
81                                         When paired comparisons were made, the two tests were 88.7%,
82                                              Paired comparisons were performed in 16 patients only be
83  and the Kruskal-Wallis tests, respectively; paired comparisons were performed using Duncan's multipl
84 lerated versus constant-rate injection in 21 paired comparisons were, respectively, 30.8 seconds +/-
85        A total of 102 studies, including 130 paired comparisons, were included, representing 8 tonome
86                                              Paired comparison with monocyte eQTL demonstrates nuance
87 d trials were included, giving a total of 92 paired comparisons with 22,975 patients randomized to 8