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 val, 0.22 to 0.78; P = 0.006 by adjusted Cox proportional-hazards model).
2 e to progression) were evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model.
3 ed by the log-rank test and a supportive Cox proportional hazards model.
4 , and their risk was estimated through a Cox proportional hazards model.
5 odel and transplant-free survival with a Cox proportional hazards model.
6 for clinically relevant covariates in a Cox proportional hazards model.
7 ups using a stratified log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model.
8 all survival (OS) were assessed with the Cox proportional hazards model.
9 etween DAPT and stroke was analyzed in a cox proportional hazards model.
10 were used to do a survival GWAS using a Cox proportional hazards model.
11 tment, was analyzed using time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models.
12 (MVHRs) and 95% CIs were calculated with Cox proportional hazards models.
13 ted using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards models.
14 urvival was estimated using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.
15 tality were assessed using multiadjusted Cox proportional hazards models.
16 y (n = 582) using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.
17 drome we estimated HRs and 95% CIs using Cox proportional hazards models.
18 zoster risk was analyzed using time-varying proportional hazards models.
19 to the next pregnancy was modelled using Cox proportional hazards models.
20 cidence was estimated with multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.
21 Survival analyses were performed using Cox proportional hazards models.
22 cular territory, were summarized by marginal proportional hazards models.
23 ear and hazard ratios were derived using Cox Proportional Hazards models.
24 using restricted cubic splines based on Cox proportional hazards models.
25 ions were assessed using distributed-lag Cox proportional hazards models.
26 the Harrell C statistic from unadjusted Cox proportional hazards models.
27 e with incident CVD using random-effects Cox proportional hazards models.
28 d 95% CIs were estimated from cause-specific proportional hazards models.
29 ion and the time of prison release using Cox proportional hazards models.
30 with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards models.
31 a risk factor using linear, logistic, or Cox proportional hazards models.
32 Hazard ratios were calculated with Cox proportional hazards models.
33 nd 95% CIs estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.
34 n R/S and incident all-cause mortality using proportional hazards models.
35 dex and mortality was investigated using Cox proportional hazards models.
36 s (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models.
37 of dementia, separately, using adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.
38 90 days was examined with time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models.
39 636 incident cases) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models.
40 sing logistic and linear regression, and Cox proportional hazards models.
41 factors for epilepsy were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models.
42 ncome, and area-based deprivation) using Cox proportional hazards models.
43 e risk of developing breast cancer using Cox proportional hazards models.
44 nce intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models.
45 lyzed using life tables and time-varying Cox proportional hazards models.
46 with survival after ALS diagnosis using Cox proportional hazards models.
47 roups using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models.
48 ty were assessed using Andersen-Gill and Cox proportional hazards models.
49 Analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazards models.
50 justed restricted cubic splines based on Cox proportional hazards models.
51 itiation using propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards models.
52 evaluated using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models.
53 to the next pregnancy was modeled using Cox proportional hazards models.
54 s, with risk factors determined by using Cox proportional hazards models.
55 ssociations using spatial random-effects Cox proportional hazards models.
56 on rates with Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models.
57 surveillance biopsy was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models.
58 s for distant recurrence with the use of Cox proportional-hazards models.
59 f PNI with DFS and OS was analyzed using Cox proportional-hazards models.
60 via multi-level regression analyses and Cox Proportional-Hazards Models.
61 nd cardiovascular death was evaluated by Cox proportional hazards modeling.
62 and patient survival were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards modeling.
63 ssociated with ALI were identified using Cox proportional hazards modeling.
64 re assessed with hazard ratios (HRs) and Cox proportional hazards modeling.
65 with CLAD-free survival was assessed by Cox proportional hazards modeling.
66 95% confidence intervals using multivariable proportional hazards modeling.
67 thout RVAD using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards modeling.
68 ted using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and proportional hazards modeling.
69 ssed using univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling.
70 nd socioeconomic position (wealth) using Cox proportional hazards modelling.
71 ram-negative bloodstream infection using Cox proportional hazards modelling.
72 val [CI], 4.0 to 11.7; hazard ratio in a Cox proportional-hazards model, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.18;
73 dent AF, stroke, and heart failure using Cox proportional hazards modeling, 5-year AF discrimination
74 constructed standard and time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models accounting for competing ris
76 use-specific mortality was assessed with Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, sex, AMD s
79 cardiovascular death were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, sex, regio
80 isease-free survival were assessed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, stage, gra
81 5-year mortality using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for baseline comorb
82 biomarkers with SAR were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for clinicopatholog
84 ion into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) and Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for other risk fact
85 ulated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and a Cox proportional-hazards model adjusted for baseline differe
86 ) for febuxostat versus allopurinol in a Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted for the stratificat
87 ofile was associated with mortality in a Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]
88 s (HRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, sex, cale
89 ortality rate ratios were estimated with Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age, sex, ethn
91 death were evaluated using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for individual- an
92 or lithium exposure were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for potential conf
95 of 30-day readmission, we constructed a Cox proportional hazards model adjusting for age, sex, race,
99 and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for baseline progn
100 Aeq24 and LAeqNight using random-effects Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for individual- an
101 t hoc analyses of HF and related events, Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for region and bas
102 ) and overall retransplant-free survival via proportional hazards modeling, adjusting for age, gender
103 e 6) were estimated using random effects Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for personal- and
104 RRs were computed for hip fracture using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for potential con
105 s between 16 and 34 years of age using a Cox proportional hazards model and an Aalen hazards differen
106 rse data and yield results comparable to Cox proportional hazards model and kernel Cox regression.
107 harge 30-day stroke were assessed with a Cox proportional hazards model and propensity-score matching
108 2012) were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling and propensity score-match
110 ios (HRs) calculated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and area under the curve ana
111 months after AMI was evaluated by using Cox proportional hazards models and area under the receiver
112 isk of ovarian cancer was estimated with Cox proportional hazards models and further adjusted for kno
116 AL) and tooth survival were assessed via Cox proportional-hazards models and multivariate generalized
119 the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, Cox proportional hazards models, and propensity score-matche
120 by NT-proBNP category at baseline using Cox proportional-hazards models, and at any time during the
124 ng sex-stratified multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, black women and men were mo
126 s) of breast cancer were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models, considering exposure as a t
127 Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models controlled for confounding b
133 rvival, was examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models employing an interaction ter
141 differences in rehospitalization using a Cox proportional hazards model, following sequential adjustm
142 random variables, a multivariable mixed Cox proportional hazards model for graft failure revealed th
147 nidazole compared with vancomycin, using Cox proportional hazards models for time to 30-day all-cause
148 hock stage using logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards models for hospital and 1-year mort
151 el of P < .10 constructed a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model in which the impact of each c
152 alysis using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models in order to estimate the ass
153 We conducted the primary analyses using Cox proportional hazards models in those with no previous CV
154 All analyses were performed with the use of proportional-hazards models in the per-protocol populati
155 Elderly study using confounder-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models (including gait speed and da
156 adjustments for covariates, results from Cox proportional hazards models, including SBP and DBP, join
157 rying confounding through time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models may provide biased estimates
158 he course of ETU care, a marginal structural proportional hazards model (MSPHM) with inverse probabil
165 for independent outcome prediction using Cox proportional-hazards model showed that protein-activity
166 report time-to-event outcomes using the Cox proportional hazards model so that a treatment effect is
168 ssociations were evaluated with weighted Cox proportional hazards models stratified by race/ethnicity
170 predict 2-year survival in multivariable Cox proportional hazards models that included weight and bod
171 ns with incident AMD were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models that were adjusted for age,
172 , and butter were tested with the use of Cox proportional hazards models that were adjusted for age,
174 ependent OAT exposure was modelled using Cox proportional hazards models (time to first charge) and A
176 usted Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a Cox proportional hazards model to derive an adjusted hazard
177 se were analyzed by using a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model to determine risk factors for
182 (HDL-P) subfractions across groups, and Cox proportional hazards modeling to determine associations
186 were evaluated using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models to adjust for known adverse
188 entinoids and used linear regression and Cox proportional hazards models to assess the associations o
190 nd follow-up duration, and used adjusted Cox proportional hazards models to compare diabetes medicati
199 ed standardized-mortality-ratio-weighted Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the association
203 ing Kaplan-Meier survival and univariate Cox proportional hazards models to examine the effect of LSF
205 r method to estimate 5-year survival and Cox proportional hazards models to generate hazard ratios.
206 We used logistic regression and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models to identify risk factors for
207 up to four annual eGFR assessments, and Cox proportional hazards models to investigate the associati
211 ed Kaplan-Meier curves and used adjusted Cox proportional-hazards models to examine the differences b
213 mpared by treatment arm and region, with Cox proportional hazards modeling used to evaluate predictor
214 s with AWM, we trained and cross-validated a proportional hazards model using bone marrow infiltratio
215 therapies in a propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazards model using data from the British A
217 d gene-level and pathway-level penalized Cox proportional hazards models using SPM and CNV data for 2
218 ed using an inverse probability weighted Cox proportional hazards model, using a propensity score bas
219 isk factors for disengagement based on a Cox proportional hazards model, using multiple imputation fo
228 aplan-Meier methods, and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independ
234 mary efficacy end point, assessed with a Cox proportional-hazards model, was the time to the first pe
235 eight clinical variables and a penalised Cox proportional-hazards model, was used to compare method p
253 aluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox proportional hazards models were used for subgroup and m
259 Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess survival
288 ivation dataset (n = 159), the following Cox proportional-hazards models were constructed, each adjus
292 using the Andersen-Gill extension to the Cox proportional hazards model while accounting for the comp
294 gression; for maternal outcomes we applied a proportional hazards model with time-updated IPT exposur
295 benefit was estimated using a mixed-effects proportional hazards model with transplant as a time-dep
296 for 30-day mortality was determined in 3 Cox-proportional hazards models with (1) no CNS, (2) observe
300 d hazard ratios (HRs) for death by using Cox proportional hazards models, with adjustment for age, se