ライフサイエンスコーパス: random allocation

1 were assigned to one of four wedges through random allocation.

2 d by telephone interview about 3 weeks after random allocation.

3 Materials were supplied after random allocation.

4 ipants and investigators were unaware of the random allocation.

5 ients according to the treatment assigned at random allocation.

6 the auto-auto group subsequently underwent a random allocation (1:1) to maintenance therapy (thalidom

7 Random allocation (1:1) was stratified by location, infr

8 During the 15 days after random allocation, 12 (1%) infants died in group A, comp

9 , and 781 were angiographically eligible for random allocation; 454 of these patients constitute the

10 ents were enrolled and 676 were eligible for random allocation, 598 (88%) of whom were randomly assig

11 Following random allocation, 747 women received T+CEF, and 753 wom

12 ration of organ support at 30 days following random allocation, a rank-based endpoint with death eith

13 ened, of whom 220 (72%) met all criteria for random allocation after the 12-to-18-week run-in period

14 full analysis set of patients, who underwent random allocation and received at least one dose of stud

15 oposed algorithm is better than Round Robin, Random Allocation, and Threshold Based algorithms in ter

16 r, both the save-the-most-lives approach and random allocation are seriously flawed.

17 tional studies to compensate for the lack of random allocation by balancing measured baseline charact

18 REVIEW Random allocation conducted by the primary researcher as

19 By random allocation, each defect was filled with PPart or

20 sed roots were hand root planed only and, by random allocation, either a fitted AD or fitted CT graft

21 n the United Kingdom in the 1940s introduced random allocation for participants to either the treatme

22 Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg o

23 ity of objective response within 6 months of random allocation in each arm.

24 e provided to recipient groups, as per their random allocation, in October, 2015, and in September, 2

25 An independent statistician generated a random allocation list, using block randomisation with v

26 ndomised with a validated computer-generated random allocation list.

27 ith documented hyperlipidemia; double-blind, random allocation of > or = 100 patients to statin monot

28 in protein sequences may arise due to nearly random allocation of alpha and beta structure along wild

29 al design and include: the potential for non-random allocation of cases by consultants to trainees; r

30 in one indicator in studies designed without random allocation of interventions into treatment and co

31 Random allocation of participants resulted in well-balan

32 Replication is needed that includes a random allocation of patients to conditions to ensure th

33 wing eligibility criteria were required: (i) random allocations of treatments; (ii) patients with SV-

34 rolled trial or controlled-clinical trial or random-allocation or double-blind method, or single-blin

35 omly assigned (1:1; via a computer-generated random allocation overseen by Gynuity Health Projects) t

36 By random allocation, PG or ePTFE was placed into or fitted

37 rom confounded associations because of their random allocation prior to disease.

38 standard care) or the shortest time, using a random allocation schedule and stratified by centre and

39 The random allocation schedule was computer-generated and ce

40 The random allocation schedule was computer-generated; patie

41 eir assigned clubs based on a computer-based random allocation scheme.

42 ce-response system with a computer-generated random allocation sequence (stratified by cirrhosis stat

43 day or 14 day bladder catheterisation (via a random allocation sequence computer generated centrally

44 We used a computer-generated random allocation sequence to randomly assign (1:1) part

45 The random allocation sequence was computer generated.

46 f the diluted mixture were administered at a random allocation sequence with a 1-week washout period.

47 are (control group) via a computer-generated random allocation sequence with permuted blocks of varyi

48 , or 6-monthly ART dispensing using a simple random allocation sequence.

49 Without it, even properly developed random allocation sequences can be subverted.

50 tratification on CSF-pNFH levels measured at random allocation showed that IL-2(LD) was associated wi

51 ognostic covariates, all measured at time of random allocation, showed a significant decrease of the

52 group (Group S) according to a computerized, random allocation software program.

53 Patients were assigned by random allocation software to receive red yeast rice, 18

54 e practice centres, using computer-generated random allocation stratified by site, to carpal tunnel s

55 After random allocation, tirofiban was administered either int

56 Random allocation to 1 of 3 groups (1:1:1) based on age:

57 Random allocation to 1 of 4 treatments (placebo metformi

58 Random allocation to 100 mg of aspirin once daily vs mat

59 Random allocation to a conventional antipsychotic, halop

60 Following random allocation to a testing and training set, we deri

61 esistance-type exercise program 3 d/wk, with random allocation to a twice-daily MFMD containing added

62 ndard messaging groups followed by partially random allocation to access to viral tool kit or no vira

63 entre and viral genotype (1-5 vs 6) with 1:1 random allocation to an oral fixed-dose combination of s

64 Lack of random allocation to antibiotic therapy might have biase

65 e measured under free-living conditions with random allocation to daily breakfast (>/=700 kcal before

66 e measured under free-living conditions with random allocation to daily breakfast (>/=700 kcal before

67 Random allocation to endoscopic transgastric or surgical

68 The time from random allocation to first bloodstream or CSF infection

69 The primary outcome was the time from random allocation to first microbiologically confirmed b

70 ire-Lung Cancer 13 (QLQ-LC13) at the time of random allocation to groups, at weeks 4 and 8, every 8 w

71 independence from dialysis at 90 days after random allocation to groups, which was assessed in an in

72 Random allocation to intake of non-nutritive sweeteners

73 Random allocation to LD-MTX (<=20 mg/wk) or placebo.

74 ng data from 312,321 participants, naturally random allocation to long-term exposure to lower LDL-C w

75 This study evaluated the effect of naturally random allocation to lower LDL-C mediated by polymorphis

76 Random allocation to placebo or canakinumab (50, 150, or

77 Random allocation to pragmatic standard care or early PN

78 s opioid and/or benzodiazepine infusions and random allocation to protocolized sedation (n = 209) (co

79 article concentrations at baseline and after random allocation to rosuvastatin 20 mg/d or placebo wer

80 al Evaluating Rosuvastatin) before and after random allocation to rosuvastatin 20 mg/d or placebo, wi

81 ardiovascular disease (CVD) before and after random allocation to rosuvastatin 20 mg/d or placebo.

82 te formation and conception, meiosis ensures random allocation to the offspring of one allele from ea

83 Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and comparison of levosim

84 variant(s) are the instrument (analogous to random allocation to treatment group in an randomized co

85 ing a public selection of computer-generated random allocations, to enhanced standard of care (includ

86 emales and 50 males) with HIV-1 who received random allocation treatment, we found that early 3BNC117

87 The median follow-up time after random allocation was 10.3 years.

88 Random allocation was done by the study statistician usi

89 Random allocation was done with a pseudorandom number ge

90 Random allocation was done with a web-based program, whi

91 The random allocation was generated by computer and patients

92 Random allocation was masked to study investigators and

93 Random allocation was performed, and two healthcare dist

94 Random allocation was stratified by hormone receptor sta

95 Random allocation was to usual medical care or CBT-based

96 ient ischaemic attack within 180 days before random allocation were enrolled in CREST at 117 clinical

97 Random allocations were determined by coin toss and were

98 ate patients who benefit from SB better than random allocation when assessed by the Qini curve and C-

99 e not associated with better outcomes than a random allocation when deciding between decompression al