ライフサイエンスコーパス: paired t-test

1 3% less starch digested at 90 min, P < 0.05, paired t test).

2 d point (core cancer length) was calculated (paired t test).

3 29 [88] mum; P = .01, determined by use of a paired t test).

4 pulses s(-1)) (P < 0.05 for each comparison; paired t test).

5 ly higher than mean serum levels (P </=0.02; paired t test).

6 gnificantly enhanced with OSEM-3D (P < .001, paired t test).

7 BA(A) currents by 70+/-8% (n=8, P< or =0.005 paired t test).

8 left ventricular (LV) surface area (P < .05, paired t test).

9 ent; 4, very poor) for six colonic segments (paired t test).

10 +/- 2.0 micromol/kg body wt per d; P < 0.05, paired t test).

11 in early group (0.56 cm3 +/- 0.39; P =.004, paired t test).

12 mice was significantly increased (P = 0.037, paired t test).

13 es derived from the mothers (P < 0.0001 by a paired t test).

14 d P = 0.02, respectively, as determined by a paired t test).

15 unit accuracy in seven regions of interest (paired t test).

16 l normalization (12.7% vs. 6.2%, P < 0.0001, paired t-test).

17 o eyes (P = 0.69 and P = 0.43, respectively, paired t-test).

18 -R(-/-): P < 0.01; alpha2A-R(-/-): P < 0.05, paired t-test).

19 microm vs. 506.4 +/- 31.8 microm, P = 0.005, paired t-test).

20 (P = 0.0016 and P = 0.0022, respectively, by paired t-test).

21 occipital lobe seen in controls (p < 0.001, paired t-test).

22 se agreement with a confidence level of 95% (paired t-test).

23 th reference values at 95% confidence level (paired t-test).

24 -0.26) significantly decreased (P < .005 in paired t tests).

25 nt in dimensional measurements was compared (paired t tests).

26 e compared with controls (p < 0.05 for each, paired t-tests).

27 oelectron volts) and phantom size by using a paired t test.

28 es of CL and IOL groups were compared with a paired t test.

29 Group comparisons were analyzed with a paired t test.

30 Significance testing was done with the paired t test.

31 Statistical analysis was performed with the paired t test.

32 isons were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney or paired t test.

33 en baseline and week 8 were calculated using paired t test.

34 cal significance was tested with a one-sided paired t test.

35 nd 5D flow using a signed-rank or two-tailed paired t test.

36 lated and values were compared by means of a paired t test.

37 tested for statistical significance with the paired t test.

38 contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) by using the paired t test.

39 mparisons using Dunnett or Tukey methods and paired t test.

40 uble and single fields were compared using a paired t test.

41 ntion and non-intervention hospitals using a paired t test.

42 Signal intensity was evaluated by using a paired t test.

43 after sonication were compared by using the paired t test.

44 and the influence of BMI were evaluated via paired t test.

45 parisons within groups were performed with a paired t test.

46 cell viabilities were compared by using the paired t test.

47 NS were compared to prestimulus values using paired t test.

48 Comparisons were made by using a paired t test.

49 d with the DBM method and Student two-tailed paired t test.

50 tistical analysis was performed by using the paired t test.

51 .5 and 3.0 T were analyzed with a two-sample paired t test.

52 es multivariate analysis of variance and the paired t test.

53 e and lesions in patients were tested with a paired t test.

54 were evaluated and assessed by using Student paired t test.

55 ts were calculated and compared by using the paired t test.

56 tial function, and data were compared with a paired t test.

57 The PET uptake was compared using a paired t test.

58 Statistical comparisons were made using the paired t test.

59 d statistical significance was tested with a paired t test.

60 ing examinations were performed by using the paired t test.

61 dalities were determined with the two-tailed paired t test.

62 ty of statistical testing, especially of the paired t-test.

63 igned rank test, and the JSW was compared by paired t-test.

64 nd post-laser IOP values were compared using paired t-test.

65 e groups were compared with McNemar test and paired t-test.

66 Data were analyzed with paired t tests.

67 evaluated by using two-tailed nonpaired and paired t tests.

68 ast-to-noise differences were evaluated with paired t tests.

69 ere performed using analysis of variance and paired t tests.

70 was performed with Wilcoxon signed rank and paired t tests.

71 mean values in each phase were compared with paired t tests.

72 lustered on subjects was used, together with paired t tests.

73 d posttherapy studies were compared by using paired t tests.

74 Data were analyzed with multiple paired t tests.

75 re- and postdiet condition were tested using paired t tests.

76 and relative function were compared by using paired t tests.

77 stole) were quantified and compared by using paired t tests.

78 d-measures analysis of variance, followed by paired t tests.

79 on comparisons were made using McNemar's and paired t tests.

80 Statistical comparisons used paired t tests.

81 ifferences in tube voltage, were tested with paired t tests.

82 fter treatment suspension were assessed with paired t tests.

83 er 5 y in young adulthood through the use of paired t tests.

84 (VDV), were compared between visits by using paired t tests.

85 f-interest (ROI) size were compared by using paired t tests.

86 y repeated-measures analysis of variance and paired t tests.

87 values in the ICS treatment period by using paired t tests.

88 and health outcome measures evaluated using paired t tests.

89 mpared before and after the SEE program with paired t tests.

90 etween groups using analysis of variance and paired t-tests.

91 , with post hoc analysis employing ANOVA and paired t-tests.

92 nalysis of variance with post hoc two-tailed paired t-tests.

93 ect longitudinal changes were assessed using paired t-tests.

94 those after placebo administration by using paired t testing.

95 repeated-measures analysis of variance, and paired t testing.

96 was determined with the Student t test, the paired t test, a mixed random effects model, one-way ana

97 n with paired comparison procedures by using paired t tests across individual time points supplemente

98 tial least-squares-discriminant analysis and paired t tests adjusted for multiple testing.

99 cal spatial positions were compared by using paired t test (alpha = .05).

100 Paired t test analyses were also performed to determine

101 Paired t test, analysis of variance, and chi(2) tests we

102 Data were analyzed by using a combination of paired t tests, analysis of variance, contingency tables

103 S </= 3 + 4 and GS >/= 4 + 3 tumors by using paired t tests, analysis of variance, receiver operating

104 Paired t test and 95% confidence interval analyses were

105 Individual groups were analyzed using paired t test and analysis of variance.

106 f LGE quantification was calculated with the paired t test and Bland-Altman statistics.

107 baseline and month 12 were compared using a paired t test and correlated with Pearson analysis.

108 Paired t test and Friedman test with Dunn's post hoc tes

109 nostic confidence were compared by using the paired t test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively.

110 Statistical analysis included the paired t test and odds radio calculations.

111 d statistical analysis involving a voxelwise paired t test and one-way analysis of variance for metab

112 ll-dose sequences were compared by using the paired t test and Pearson correlations.

113 measures analysis of variance with post hoc paired t test and Skillings-Mack test with post hoc Wilc

114 in values and weight was performed with both paired t test and unpaired Student t test.

115 atistical analysis was performed by 2-tailed paired t test and with nonparametric tests where appropr

116 For statistical analysis, paired t tests and a Wilcoxon signed rank test were perf

117 n FBP and ADMIRE were compared by using both paired t tests and analysis of variance tests at the 95%

118 y, and 3D tractograms were analyzed by using paired t tests and analysis of variance.

119 Data were analyzed with paired t tests and Bland-Altman limits of agreement.

120 rements across TAE stages were compared with paired t tests and linear regression.

121 Statistical analysis comprised paired t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, as well as Pear

122 of variance with multiple comparisons and/or paired t tests and regression analysis were used for ana

123 of variance with multiple comparisons and/or paired t tests and regression analysis, as appropriate.

124 h- and low-dose scans were compared by using paired t tests and the signed rank test.

125 Variables were expressed as mean +/- SD; paired t-test and chi(2) test were used as appropriate.

126 with each Statistical analysis was based on paired t-test and linear regression analysis.

127 ere compared with those of fellow eyes using paired t-tests and with those of control eyes using inde

128 r (11)C-tariquidar (+27% +/- 15%, P = 0.014, paired t test) and (11)C-elacridar (+21% +/- 15%, P = 0.

129 4 versus 8017 +/- 1103 micromol/d; P < 0.03, paired t test) and NO(2)/NO(3) (18.1 +/- 1.1 versus 22.9

130 creased orientation dispersion (P < 0.001 by paired t-test) and lower fractional anisotropy (P < 0.00

131 ' normal-appearing cortical grey matter T2* (paired t-test) and with mean cortical T2* in controls (l

132 with DXA, did not differ from DXA (P = .15, paired t test), and was able to identify osteoporosis (a

133 ysis was performed with the chi(2) test, the paired t test, and analysis of variance with repeated me

134 ent was assessed by the Pearson correlation, paired t test, and Bland-Altman (bias) analyses.

135 sis, repeated-measures analysis of variance, paired t test, and Bland-Altman analysis were used; for

136 The Wilcoxon signed rank test, paired t test, and Friedman analysis of variance were co

137 The Student t test, paired t test, and Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA were use

138 distributed variables were compared by using paired t tests, and categorical data were compared by us

139 The chi2 test, paired t tests, and generalized linear mixed models were

140 ponders and nonresponders were analyzed with paired t tests, and OS was calculated with the Kaplan-Me

141 tabolism between on and off conditions using paired t tests, and Pearson linear correlations were use

142 with repeated-measures analysis of variance, paired t tests, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

143 r-observer reproducibility, unpaired t-test, paired t-test, and Bland-Altman analyses to determine li

144 Paired t-tests, ANOVA and generalized-estimating-equatio

145 Similarly, paired t tests are common when comparing means from the

146 glucose transporter, and hexokinase assays (paired t test), as well as pharmacologic assays against

147 sis of variance and Bland-Altman analysis; a paired t test assessed change from baseline to after tre

148 k, peak value, and slope of enhancement in a paired t test at the 95% significance level.

149 ) significantly decreased by 3.5% (P = .012, paired t test) at 1 month and 4.2% (P = .007) at 3 month

150 Student paired t tests based on a logarithmic scale were perform

151 ignificant difference tests, independent and paired t tests, Bland and Altman analyses, correlations,

152 Ventricular volumes were compared with paired t tests, Bland-Altman analysis, and correlation c

153 ve and postoperative MRD2 and lagophthalmos (paired t test, both P < .0001).

154 Based on paired t tests, both groups had significant improvement

155 7 versus 8449 +/- 1086 micromol/d; P < 0.05, paired t test) but was not additive to bosentan.

156 ion effects of FA were evaluated by 2-tailed paired t test comparison of mean 5-minute preinjection a

157 At 6 months, paired t test comparisons within groups showed statistic

158 Paired t test comparisons yielded significant difference

159 Paired t-test comparisons were all statistically signifi

160 One-way analysis of variance, paired t tests, concordance and Bland-Altman tests, and

161 Student paired t-test confirmed a statistically significant diff

162 anges during treatment were determined using paired t-tests corrected for multiple hypothesis testing

163 Measurements were compared with paired t test, correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis.

164 tireader multicase data and with the Student paired t test for analysis of observer-specific paired d

165 arison of CT fluoroscopy times, a two-tailed paired t test for comparison of age and tumor size, and

166 yses were performed by using a single-tailed paired t test for comparison of CT fluoroscopy times, a

167 -69 versus steady state (days 70-182) used a paired t test for continuous endpoints or Kappa statisti

168 (6-month) data were compared using Student's paired t test for parametric data and the Wilcoxon match

169 othelium, and the opposite pattern with VWF (paired t test for TM and EPCR, each P < .001; for VWF, P

170 tatistical significance was determined using paired t testing for longitudinal imaging and 2-way ANOV

171 ristic curves for diagnostic performance and paired t tests for continuous variables.

172 and body mass index for group comparison and paired t-test for FEP-Sibling pairs.

173 fferences in mound volume were detected with paired t tests in 14 patients with early and late sonogr

174 n change of FA for regions that survived the paired t tests in patients treated with chemotherapy.

175 n detectability than 2D (P < 0.025, 2-tailed paired t test) in patients of normal size (body mass ind

176 Paired t-tests indicated a significant decrease of muscl

177 ction and autorefraction were compared using paired t-tests, intraclass correlations, and Bland-Altma

178 Statistical analyses included paired t tests, Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, and

179 re compared with the baseline score by using paired t tests (level of significance, P < .007).

180 Wilcoxon signed-rank test, paired t test, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient

181 tistical analysis was performed by using the paired t test, linear regression, and Bland-Altman analy

182 d with microsphere MBF measurements by using paired t tests, linear correlation, and Bland-Altman ana

183 intracellular volume fraction (P = 0.015 by paired t-test), lower myelin-sensitive contrast (P = 0.0

184 Statistical analyses included the paired t test, Mann-Whitney nonparametric test for group

185 ally by means of descriptive statistics, non-paired t-test, Mann-Whitney rank sum test, Spearman rank

186 e analyzed using descriptive statistics, the paired t test, McNemar test, and a general linear model.

187 tatistical analysis was conducted by using a paired t test, multilevel analysis, and analysis of cova

188 eld in saline injected controls, P < 0.05 by paired t-test, n = 10).

189 ycan synthesis to 43% of controls (P < 0.02, paired t-test; n = 16) and produced a relative inhibitio

190 ially expressed genes, results from standard paired t-test of normalized data are compared with those

191 ant differences between both methods using a paired t-test of the results on a 95% confidence level.

192 ise on circulating miRNAs was assessed using paired t-tests of baseline and post-training expression

193 Paired t-tests of tumor/normal tissues identified 511 ge

194 ve and operative groups were compared using: paired t test on a propensity score-matched subset and m

195 ttreatment variables were analyzed using the paired t test or Wilcoxon rank test.

196 The paired t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for

197 Within-group changes were analyzed with paired t tests or repeated measures analysis of variance

198 tion, the k1 and k2 significantly increased (paired t test P = 0.046 and P = 0.023, respectively).

199 tralateral saline-treated muscle (one-sample paired t test p=0.002).

200 NNA treatment (mean 42.9% [range 12.0-62.1]; paired t test p=0.0070), which was sustained for up to 2

201 uction of 16.9 mum and 22 mum, respectively (paired t-test p = 0.001 and 0.0003).

202 TESv2 (mean change 0.97 +/- 1.77; two-tailed paired t-test P = 0.003) and the CMTESv2-R (mean change

203 year (mean change 2.24 +/- 3.09; two-tailed paired t-test P = 0.009) and over 2 years (mean change 4

204 Sv2-R (mean change 1.21 +/- 2.52; two-tailed paired t-test P = 0.009) increase significantly with res

205 years (mean change 4.00 +/- 3.79; two-tailed paired t-test P = 0.031) with respective standardized re

206 CMT2A (mean change 0.84 +/- 2.42; two-tailed paired t-test P = 0.039).

207 erformance differences are significant (with paired t-test p-values less than 0.05).

208 D) (placebo 1.3 (0.2); citalopram 1.4 (0.2); paired t-test P=0.003).

209 T2-weighted MR images by means of a Student paired t test (P = .05).

210 cts with SCH (19.5 +/- 5.3 vs. 23.7 +/- 4.1, paired t test, p < .0001); however, no correlations were

211 visit after starting binimetinib treatment (paired t test, P < .001).

212 erative score (25.38 vs 17.24, respectively, paired t test, P < .01).

213 ability Index, EQ-5D, and pain interference (paired t test, P < .013).

214 on, glucose uptake, and hexokinase activity (paired t test, P < .05).

215 compared with matched normal breast tissues (paired t test, P < 0.0001) and a general inverse correla

216 rgery compared with the preoperative values (paired t test, P = .05 and P = .02, respectively).

217 between PET/CT and PET/MR images was found (paired t test, P = .95).

218 3.6 dB in right and left eyes, respectively (paired t-test, P < 0.01).

219 ased and ALCS depth increased significantly (paired t-test, P < 0.01); no change in RNFL thickness wa

220 djacent normal in 54% of the examined cases (paired t-test, P<0.001).

221 ples (mean yield = 7.6 micro g/two brushes) (paired t test: p < 0.001), while DNA yields from cheek a

222 %), gait (49%) and postural stability (56%) (paired t-tests: P < 0.001).

223 l oxygen/mL brain tissue/min after recovery (paired t test; P < 0.05).

224 Measurements were compared with a paired t test; P </= .05 indicated a significant differe

225 ose of the phenotypically wild-type retinas (paired t-test; P < 0.01 and P < 0.01, respectively).

226 ant RGC-specific loss in Brn3b(-/-) retinas (paired t-test; P < 0.01).

227 ly higher in M versus IF in soils post-1940 (paired-t test; p < 0.001).

228 in patients with TLE than controls (p<0.05, paired t-test), particularly to neocortical regions incl

229 left carotid arteries were analyzed by using paired t tests; possible sex differences, by using unpai

230 Paired t test, repeated measures analysis of variance (A

231 nalyzed by using one-sample, two-sample, and paired t tests, respectively.

232 Voxel-based paired t tests revealed significantly decreased activati

233 Paired t tests show that tissue metabolite profiles can

234 Paired t testing showed no significant differences betwe

235 Paired t tests showed no significant differences between

236 acquired 120 min after injection (P < 0.001, paired t test; signal-to-noise ratio at 60 min after inj

237 e data by ANOVA [F(1,10) > 9, p < 0.013] and paired t-test [t(9) = -3.675, p = 0.005].

238 , 0.82 +/- 0.11 and 0.84 +/- 0.10; Student's paired t-test, t = 2.79, P = 0.02; t = 2.80, P = 0.02; a

239 +/- 1.4 to 5.5 +/- 1.2 l min(-1) (P = 0.003, paired t test), tended to decrease stroke volume from 97

240 test (6.3 minutes) was shorter (P < 0.0001, paired t-test) than the FT test (11.8 minutes).

241 We used a paired t test to compare ICP with insufflation and desuf

242 We used paired t tests to assess whether HRs and SEs from publis

243 ges during the 12-month follow-up period and paired t tests to compare HSK-affected eyes with fellow

244 Statistical analysis included paired t tests to detect any differences in responses to

245 In all groups, we used paired t tests to study changes in neuropsychologic test

246 ogic test scores and whole-brain voxel-based paired t tests to study changes in WM fractional anisotr

247 the contralateral eye was achieved employing paired t tests to the visual function measures.

248 sets for each group were then compared using paired t-tests to detect differences between the 2 popul

249 ally tested for intraindividual differences (paired t tests) to avoid effects resulting from variatio

250 Paired t tests used to compare images obtained before an

251 A paired t test was conducted with the subject as the unit

252 Paired t test was performed to compare excess foci befor

253 Paired t test was used for the statistical analysis.

254 Paired t test was used to analyze changes in readability

255 The paired t test was used to assess significance of differe

256 The paired t test was used to compare biparietal diameter (B

257 was used to compare image rating scores, the paired t test was used to compare CRs, and kappa statist

258 The paired t test was used to compare the time to interventi

259 A paired t test was used to determine significant differen

260 Paired t-test was performed to compare the macular thick

261 The paired t-test was used for statistical analysis with a 0

262 es were determined for each patient, and the paired-t test was used to analyse the data.

263 sures general linear model and the Student's paired t test were used to analyze changes in laboratory

264 inear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and paired t testing were performed.

265 barriers that contribute to nonadherence and paired t tests were conducted for the preimplementation

266 One-sided matched-paired t tests were performed to compare data from healt

267 correlations with the reference values, and paired t tests were performed to compare the means.

268 Paired t tests were performed to test within-group diffe

269 Two-sided Fisher exact and paired t tests were used for categorical and continuous

270 Two-tailed paired t tests were used for statistical analysis.

271 Paired t tests were used to assess improvement before an

272 The chi2 and paired t tests were used to assess these findings in pat

273 Two-tailed paired t tests were used to compare change in tumor hemo

274 naccuracies across sound-masking levels, and paired t tests were used to compare each sound-masking l

275 nd-Altman, and reclassification analyses and paired t tests were used to compare results.

276 Paired t tests were used to compare SI and SI ratios (DN

277 The Wilcoxon signed rank and paired t tests were used to compare the difference betwe

278 Paired t tests were used to compare tumor-to-liver contr

279 Paired t tests were used to estimate and evaluate the si

280 d using conditional logistic regression, and paired t tests were used to evaluate case-control differ

281 Paired t tests were used to evaluate changes in HRQL ove

282 Match paired t tests were used to evaluate for dyadic differen

283 Paired t tests were used to identify differences in outc

284 nt analyses, multiple linear regression, and paired t tests were used to select biomarkers of interes

285 Repeated measures ANCOVA and paired t-test were performed to assess changes in MMP an

286 Paired t-tests were used for statistical analyses.

287 Paired and non-paired t-tests were used to determine differences betwee

288 Student's paired t-tests were used to determine the significance o

289 Discriminant validity was described using paired t tests, whereas internal consistency was describ

290 27.2 +/- 13.1 mL/min per 1.73 m (P<0.001 on paired t test), which represents a 29.2% drop in the ser

291 ean difference 11.9 +/- 6.0 mum, P < 0.0001, paired t-test), while there was no significant differenc

292 ween cleaning methods were compared by using paired t tests with Bonferroni correction for 3 comparis

293 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.05; post hoc paired t test) with reduced penetration-aspiration score

294 sample, we performed responsiveness testing (paired t tests) with 75 patients with HF receiving inter

295 +/- 15.2% (66.1 +/- 146 feet, p < 0.0001, by paired t test), with an intraclass correlation coefficie

296 d SSDE size-specific dose estimate was made (paired t tests), with Bonferroni adjustment.

297 McNemar test and procedural times by using a paired t test, with P < .05 indicating a significant dif

298 were compared in the two groups by means of paired t test, with subsequent histologic analysis to co

299 Statistical analysis was performed by using paired t tests, with P<.05 considered to indicate a sign

300 he two procedures led to comparable results (paired t-test, with t<tcrit).