ライフサイエンスコーパス: relative hazard

1 " (FARs) to compute confidence intervals for relative hazards.

2 rtional hazards models were used to estimate relative hazards.

3 independently associated with SCD in whites (relative hazard 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.

4 e placebo group (139 [13.6%] vs 183 [18.2%]; relative hazard 0.72 [0.58-0.90]).

5 thout prior VTE had an 18% hazard reduction (relative hazard 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99; P=0.040).

6 ned to placebo, a nonsignificant difference (relative hazard 0.87, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.14).

7 onversion were associated with risk of AIDS (relative hazard 0.91 [95% CI 0.84-1.00], p=0.04) and dea

8 th but not other death (univariate p = 0.95, relative hazard 0.95, p = 0.66).

9 er HAART initiation also improved prognosis (relative hazard = 0.34, 95% confidence interval: 0.16, 0

10 -3 'A and CCR5 promoter P1/approximately P1 (relative hazard = 0.37).

11 s11884476, reached genome-wide significance (relative hazard = 0.3; P =3.370 x 10(-9)) after statisti

12 32 and C-C chemokine receptor 2 (CCR2)-64I (relative hazard = 0.44); 2) interleukin 10 (IL10)-+/+ in

13 combination with CCR5-Delta 32 or CCR2-64I (relative hazard = 0.45); and 3) IL10-+/+ in combination

14 okers (per standard deviation (SD) increase, relative hazard = 0.74, 95% confidence interval: 0.55, 0

15 was significant for invasive breast cancer (relative hazard = 0.78; 95% CI = 0.65, 0.95; P for trend

16 oth those who did and did not receive HAART (relative hazards = 0.06 and 0.33, respectively; p < 0.00

17 icantly lower risk of bloodstream infection (relative hazard, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.6

18 icantly lower risk of bloodstream infection (relative hazard, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.6

19 children than among wt/wt children (P=.056; relative hazard, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-1.1

20 CI, 0.13 to 0.80; P=0.02) and colon cancer (relative hazard, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.96; P=0.04).

21 a decreased risk of invasive breast cancer (relative hazard, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.80; P=0.02) and

22 tes was detected among HCV-infected persons (relative hazard, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.05-4.4

23 Risk was decreased with aspirin (relative hazard, 0.5 [CI, 0.2 to 0.8]) or statin use (re

24 hazard, 0.5 [CI, 0.2 to 0.8]) or statin use (relative hazard, 0.5 [CI, 0.2 to 0.9]).

25 ciated with increased risk for hip fracture (relative hazard, 0.5 [CI, 0.2 to 1.3]).

26 duction associated with vitamin E treatment (relative hazard, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.87; P=0.014).

27 ases versus 126 cases per 1000 person-years (relative hazard, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4

28 re randomization had a 44% hazard reduction (relative hazard, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.00; P=0.048), w

29 interval, 0.50-0.87), sudden cardiac death (relative hazard, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.8

30 women with hormone receptor-positive tumors (relative hazard, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87).

31 therapy group and 9.5% in the placebo group (relative hazard, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89]; P = 0.006)

32 erval, 0.69-0.98), cardiovascular mortality (relative hazard, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.8

33 nce interval, 0.37-0.86), and heart failure (relative hazard, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.9

34 wer risk for death in the hospital (adjusted relative hazard, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.93]) and at 30

35 6 to 0.98), and were 29% less likely to die (relative hazard, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.95).

36 line (eg, for >200 cells/muL above baseline; relative hazard, 0.71; P = .02), although it was no long

37 nprovoked VTE, the hazard reduction was 27% (relative hazard, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94; P=0.016).

38 ents treated at for-profit centers (adjusted relative hazard, 0.74; 95 percent confidence interval, 0

39 ases versus 166 cases per 1000 person-years (relative hazard, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.93; P=0.01).

40 o group, a significant 21% hazard reduction (relative hazard, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.94; P=0.010).

41 to 1.04]) and at maximum follow-up (adjusted relative hazard, 0.80 [CI, 0.66 to 0.96]).

42 for current level of viral load suppression (relative hazard, 0.80; P = .11).

43 atients of cardiologists at 1 year (adjusted relative hazard, 0.82 [CI, 0.65 to 1.04]) and at maximum

44 eduction in the primary composite end point (relative hazard, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.9

45 not receiving any antihypertensive therapy (relative hazard, 0.91; 95 percent confidence interval, 0

46 25 among women randomly assigned to placebo (relative hazard, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.13]; rate diffe

47 ction was caused by one or more viral types (relative hazard=0.3 [95% CI 0.21-0.42], and 0.14 [0.08-0

48 erence, there was an increased risk of AIDS (relative hazard 1.39; 95% CI 1.16-1.67, p=0.0004) and al

49 rd = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.48, 3.56) and diabetes (relative hazard = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.49, 2.62).

50 val: 0.55, 0.99) but not in current smokers (relative hazard = 1.13, 95% confidence interval: 0.83, 1

51 ced and became statistically nonsignificant (relative hazard = 1.2).

52 followed by those with undiagnosed diabetes (relative hazard = 1.31, 95% CI: 0.48, 3.56) and diabetes

53 han individuals with the RH or HH genotypes (relative hazard = 1.6; p = 0.0001).

54 was associated with a 1.81-fold higher risk (relative hazard = 1.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.

55 djusted relative hazard of cancer mortality (relative hazard = 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.

56 1.13, 4.49) and age >45 years at initiation (relative hazard = 1.92, 95% confidence interval: 0.98, 3

57 oss (1.1% and 0.8%; P = 0.18) and fractures (relative hazard, 1.0 [CI, 0.60 to 1.71).

58 ancer cells remained unrelated to prognosis (relative hazard, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.42).

59 ificant following adjustment for the latter (relative hazard, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.99-1.19).

60 justing for comorbidity and year of surgery (relative hazard, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.47-2.62]).

61 e analysis included age older than 45 years (relative hazard, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0

62 treated in not-for-profit centers (adjusted relative hazard, 1.20; 95 percent confidence interval, 1

63 th risk of nosocomial bloodstream infection (relative hazard, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.6

64 percent higher risk of subsequent diabetes (relative hazard, 1.28; 95 percent confidence interval, 1

65 an increased risk of coronary heart disease (relative hazard, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.01 to

66 c abnormalities was nonsignificantly higher (relative hazard, 1.36 [CI, 0.93 to 1.99]), largely becau

67 dergoing hemodialysis during the first year (relative hazard, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.64 to 3.06]), but the r

68 ociated with increased risk of HCMV disease (relative hazard, 1.49 and 1.44 per log increase, respect

69 re of 13.3% for VVI-40 vs 22.6% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.97-2.46), also trended

70 squamous cells of undetermined significance (relative hazard, 1.58 [CI, 0.99 to 2.52]).

71 ity of 6.5% for VVI-40 vs 10.1% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.84-3.09) and hospitaliz

72 ith 73.3% for patients treated with DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0

73 e without HCV infection to develop diabetes (relative hazard, 11.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-96

74 ong women who had lower-extremity fractures (relative hazard, 18.1 [CI, 5.4 to 60.4]) or cancer (rela

75 d with accelerated intracouple transmission (relative hazard 2.23, 95% CI 1.52-3.26, p<0.0001).

76 iabetes, i.e., percent body fat, M, and AIR (relative hazard 2.6 [1.1-6.2], P = 0.03).

77 mparison with other AIDS-defining diagnoses (relative hazard = 2.01, 95% CI 1.38-2.93).

78 likely to have had a myocardial infarction (relative hazard = 2.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.02, 4

79 ll count of <200 cells/microl at initiation (relative hazard = 2.25, 95% confidence interval: 1.13, 4

80 , 11.8), followed by sharing cotton filters (relative hazard = 2.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 5.0

81 olone group had an increased risk of stroke (relative hazard, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.14 to 4.23; P=0.02), fo

82 ted with a twofold increase in hip fracture (relative hazard, 2.2 [CI, 1.0 to 4.4]), but use of thyro

83 oing peritoneal dialysis in the second year (relative hazard, 2.34 [CI, 1.19 to 4.59]).

84 more likely to acquire a new HPV infection (relative hazard, 2.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-4.7

85 alysis confirmed regional perfusion defects (relative hazard, 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-5.1

86 up experienced venous thromboembolic events (relative hazard, 2.7 [95% CI, 1.4 to 5.0] [P = 0.003]; e

87 .10; P = 0.009) and low global flow reserve (relative hazard, 2.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-6.6

88 d the strongest predictor of seroconversion (relative hazard = 3.5, 95% confidence interval: 1.3, 9.9

89 was increased in seropositive men (adjusted relative hazard, 3.58; P=.02).

90 a threefold increased risk for hip fracture (relative hazard, 3.6 [95% CI, 1.0 to 12.9]) and a fourfo

91 e hazard, 18.1 [CI, 5.4 to 60.4]) or cancer (relative hazard, 3.9 [CI, 1.6 to 9.4]) and for 90 days a

92 ith undetectable NT-proBNP after adjustment (relative hazard 4.0 [95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1 to

93 variates, was highest for sharing "cookers" (relative hazard = 4.1, 95% confidence interval: 1.4, 11.

94 ratio, 7.37; P= .024), progression to AIDS (relative hazard, 4.01; P=.03), and viral set point (P= .

95 4]) and for 90 days after inpatient surgery (relative hazard, 4.9 [CI, 2.4 to 9.8]) or nonsurgical ho

96 2.4 to 9.8]) or nonsurgical hospitalization (relative hazard, 5.7 [CI, 3.0 to 10.8]).

97 iated with an increased risk of CMV disease (relative hazard, 5.78).

98 age, sex, body fat, M, and AIR, higher ALT [relative hazard 90th vs. 10th centiles (95% CI): 1.9 (1.

99 A high WBC value predicted diabetes (relative hazard 90th vs. 10th percentiles [95%CI] of 2.7

100 rticipants of normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9), relative hazard (95% confidence interval) of incident st

101 eferent PLMI <5 group had a 2-fold increased relative hazard (95% confidence interval, 1.14 to 3.49;

102 9) for one or more births with GDM; adjusted relative hazards (95% CI) were 0.9 (0.6-1.4) for one or

103 were associated with increased risk of ESRD; relative hazards (95% confidence interval) were 3.04 (1.

104 diseased vessels, and clinical presentation, relative hazards (95% confidence limits) for MI or death

105 coinfection was associated with an increased relative hazard (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] [95% confide

106 al microbleeds are associated with a greater relative hazard (aHR) for subsequent intracranial haemor

107 Metrics such as relative hazards and relative risks do not account for t

108 er adjustment for potential confounders, the relative hazards (and 95% confidence intervals) for card

109 Relative hazards associated with aspirin use in higher-r

110 d subdistribution hazard regression to model relative hazard based on age, APOE genotype, sex, educat

111 competing risks analysis: the cause-specific relative hazard ((cs)RH) and the subdistribution relativ

112 Also, the relative hazard did not increase in women with post-HAAR

113 The relative hazard for 3-vessel CAD (HR: 4.21; 95% CI: 2.47

114 The age-adjusted relative hazard for AIDS for subjects with 10,000 or mor

115 rent PLMA <1 group had a 1.26-fold increased relative hazard for all-cause cardiovascular disease.

116 Compared with eGFR 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2), the relative hazard for all-cause graft loss increased in an

117 The relative hazard for all-cause mortality ranged from 1.68

118 s was associated with the loss of GBV-C RNA (relative hazard for death as compared with men with pers

119 postoperative time demonstrated an increased relative hazard for death in frail patients (hazard rati

120 Conversely, for patients with CAD, the relative hazard for death was 0.61 for ICA versus no ICA

121 In patients with <50% stenosis, the relative hazard for death was 2.2 (p = 0.011) for ICA ve

122 unadjusted intention-to-treat analysis, the relative hazard for fracture (cinacalcet versus placebo)

123 sis (a measure of actual drug exposure), the relative hazard for fracture was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0

124 ziliensis and helminths took longer to heal (relative hazard for healing, 0.47 [95% confidence interv

125 The relative hazard for incident diabetes increased across l

126 s, margin status, tumor grade, and age), the relative hazard for patients whose stroma expressed SPAR

127 The relative hazard for the percentage of predicted DL(CO) b

128 However, the risk varied by CRP tertile: the relative hazards for African Americans compared with Cau

129 portional hazards regression to estimate the relative hazards for age, race/ethnicity, family history

130 inked mortality files, the authors estimated relative hazards for all-cause and cause-specific mortal

131 The corresponding relative hazards for all-cause-related death were 1.64 (

132 Moreover, the relative hazards for disease progression prior to treatm

133 The relative hazards for hip fracture and wrist fracture for

134 This study examined relative hazards for mortality and functional limitation

135 sociation of specific alleles with different relative hazards for progression to AIDS.

136 We calculated the relative hazards for subtrochanteric and diaphyseal frac

137 After adjustment for risk factors, the relative hazards for the same comparisons were 1.32 (95%

138 de Kaplan-Meier survival curves and adjusted relative hazards from the Cox proportional hazards model

139 These associations were driven by higher relative hazard in normotensive people (compared with th

140 1935 patients (49.2%) in the placebo group (relative hazard in the cinacalcet group vs. the placebo

141 The relative hazard increased 16% for each 5-micromol/L incr

142 A cause-specific relative hazards model is proposed for estimation of ind

143 e control group (n=2476), corresponding to a relative hazard of 1.05 (95% CI 0.84-1.32, intention-to-

144 tality increased with each age decile with a relative hazard of 1.09 (95% confidence interval: 1.08 t

145 doubling of NT-proBNP was associated with a relative hazard of 1.3 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.6) for coronary

146 proportional hazards modeling, the adjusted relative hazard of 3-year graft failure for cadaveric do

147 y >15% between measurements had a 50% higher relative hazard of adverse event than those whose galect

148 ng 1990 to 1993 as the reference period, the relative hazard of AIDS was 1.04 (95% confidence interva

149 The relative hazard of AIDS-related or all-cause death did n

150 Similarly, the overall adjusted relative hazard of AKI increased with decreasing eGFR.

151 The relative hazard of all-cause death was 3.44 (CI, 1.67 to

152 The adjusted relative hazard of all-cause mortality for the lowest qu

153 By 1992, the relative hazard of all-cause mortality was 1.9 (95% conf

154 In the multivariate model, the relative hazard of allograft loss associated with SLE as

155 glucose tolerance had the greatest adjusted relative hazard of cancer mortality (relative hazard = 1

156 ention in older persons are limited, and the relative hazard of cardiovascular disease associated wit

157 ases (compared with negative IgG titers, the relative hazard of CHD was 1.6 (p < 0.01)).

158 The relative hazard of CVD mortality was 2.3 (95% confidence

159 The relative hazard of death from acute ischemic heart disea

160 causes of 2.66 (95% CI, 1.42 to 4.99) and a relative hazard of death from AIDS of 47.61 (CI, 5.69 to

161 x 10(9) cells/L after HAART initiation had a relative hazard of death from all causes of 2.66 (95% CI

162 ng diagnosis was associated with an elevated relative hazard of death in comparison with other AIDS-d

163 ween September, 1997, and March, 1998, had a relative hazard of death of 0.16 (0.08-0.32), which rose

164 of diagnosed diabetes than men and a greater relative hazard of death than nondiabetic women, leading

165 for the number of T cells transplanted, the relative hazard of developing fatal GVHDLS was 62-fold h

166 The overall adjusted relative hazard of developing HF was 1.94 (1.49 to 2.53)

167 The average yearly reduction in the relative hazard of graft failure after one year was 4.2

168 The relative hazard of in-hospital mortality was 68% higher

169 The relative hazard of incident asthma among those with elev

170 between education/income and CVD events, the relative hazard of incident CVD associated with a 1-cate

171 ype 2 diabetes at baseline and estimated the relative hazard of incident type 2 diabetes over 3.2 yea

172 confidence interval [CI]: 2% to 17% greater) relative hazard of mortality and a 25% greater (95% CI:

173 nd a 25% greater (95% CI: 8% to 44% greater) relative hazard of myocardial infarction.

174 fter adjustment for age, sex, and study, the relative hazard of SCD associated with each C allele at

175 The adjusted relative hazard of seroconversion, controlling for demog

176 With a Cox's model, we estimated that the relative hazard of stroke at any point for people with s

177 x proportional hazards regression model, the relative hazard of suicide was lowest among participants

178 x proportional hazards regression model, the relative hazard of suicide was lowest among participants

179 Second, we estimated the relative hazard of transmission during the acute phase v

180 The adjusted relative hazard of virologic failure for patients who st

181 lure/death compared with IHHD patients, with relative hazards of 0.45 (95% confidence interval [95% C

182 cantly faster progression to AIDS and death (relative hazards of 1.58 and 2.22, respectively).

183 hose in the bottom quintile had age-adjusted relative hazards of 3.14 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1

184 ring use of a seroincident cohort, estimates relative hazards of AIDS for persons at equal duration o

185 Compared with immediate treatment, the relative hazards of AIDS were 2.68 (p = 0.003) and 1.05

186 eatinine ratios <10 mg/g as a reference, the relative hazards of AKI, adjusted for age, gender, race,

187 Compared with normal subjects, the adjusted relative hazards of cancer mortality were 1.1 (95% confi

188 The relative hazards of cardiovascular death (International

189 Adjusted relative hazards of CKD were modeled using Cox proportio

190 to account for competing risks in assessing relative hazards of death and ESRD.

191 Relative hazards of death were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.58-1.31)

192 The relative hazards of disenrollment from the 4 plans when

193 Compared with quintile 1, the relative hazards of EBP for quintiles 2-5 of plant food

194 rtional hazards models were used to estimate relative hazards of ESLD with covariates.

195 The relative hazards of gastrointestinal (HR, 1.91 [CI, 1.75

196 We sought to estimate the relative hazards of graft failure at different current a

197 Complementary log-log models estimated relative hazards of incident diabetes by interim births

198 Complementary log-log models estimated relative hazards of incident metabolic syndrome among ti

199 Adjusted relative hazards of MI or death associated with pathogen

200 In CKD cohorts, adjusted relative hazards of mortality did not decrease with age.

201 er, between 3 and 5 years, reductions in the relative hazards of the BVS compared with everolimus-elu

202 treated by surgery only, the relative risks (relative hazard) of early recurrence (recurrent disease

203 In unadjusted analyses, pericardial fat (relative hazard per 1-SD increment: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.15,

204 is were at increased risk for earlier death (relative hazard per SD increase, 1.15 [CI, 1.01 to 1.30]

205 l fractures, and severe vertebral fractures (relative hazard per SD increase, 1.58 [CI, 1.06 to 2.35]

206 th longer lactation were stronger among GDM (relative hazard range 0.14-0.56; P = 0.03) than non-GDM

207 ge 0.14-0.56; P = 0.03) than non-GDM groups (relative hazard range 0.44-0.61; P = 0.03).

208 Relative hazard rate (RHR) estimates for BL and TL compa

209 An overall relative hazard rate (RHR) of 0.89 (P = .49) was determi

210 rimarily in boys who began TG at 60 mg/m(2) (relative hazard rate [RHR] 0.65, P = .002).

211 in which 7-year EFS was only 34% (P < .001; relative hazard rate [RHR] = 2.2) and OS was 46% (P < .0

212 Cohort-specific relative hazard rate ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence int

213 competing risk survival analysis to compare relative hazard rates associated with age, hypertension,

214 Among women 70 years or older, relative hazard rates declined 14% for those with ER-pos

215 Among women younger than 70 years, relative hazard rates declined 38% for those with ER-pos

216 or breast cancer deaths after diagnosis, and relative hazard rates for women with ER-positive and ER-

217 Relative hazard rates were assessed with Cox proportiona

218 Relative hazards rates (RHR) were 2.11 and 1.22 for pro-

219 c reconstruction of epidemic trees, but uses relative hazards rather than serial intervals to assign

220 Relative hazard ratio (HR) of death for obese or overwei

221 resolution D) was a significant univariate (relative hazard ratio 0.79 per SD change, p = 0.011) and

222 nal hazards models provided estimates of the relative hazard ratio for mortality from all causes, bre

223 In an adjusted multivariable analysis the relative hazard ratio was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.1-2.9, P=.03) w

224 with zidovudine plus didanosine (18 percent; relative hazard ratio, 0.50; P<0.001), zidovudine plus z

225 1), zidovudine plus zalcitabine (20 percent; relative hazard ratio, 0.54; P<0.001), or didanosine alo

226 ; P<0.001), or didanosine alone (22 percent; relative hazard ratio, 0.61; P<0.001).

227 ed vs not assigned to reduced sodium intake (relative hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI

228 41, 36 kb upstream of PROX1 on chromosome 1 (relative hazard ratio, 0.69; Fisher's combined P = 6.23

229 ose assigned vs not assigned to weight loss (relative hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.87; P<.001).

230 as mean diameter of extracapsular extension (relative hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval: 1.

231 The relative hazard ratios for death were 0.55 (P=0.008), 0.

232 xual or mucosal and parenteral transmission (relative hazard ratios, 0.72 and 0.63, respectively; com

233 ment and each outcome event, in terms of the relative hazard reduction and absolute risk reduction (A

234 sk of liver cancer was lower with HAART use (relative hazard (RH) = 0.32).

235 ently associated with improved survival: B1 (relative hazard (RH) = 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI

236 apy without protease inhibitors before AIDS (relative hazard (RH) = 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI

237 The unadjusted relative hazard (RH) for CHD events in HERS was 0.99 (95

238 o placebo, the unadjusted intention-to-treat relative hazard (RH) for venous thromboembolism declined

239 baseline mSP, mortality rates decreased with relative hazard (RH) of 0.89 (0.86 to 0.92).

240 LMW apo(a) and Lp(a) level >123 nmol/L, the relative hazard (RH) of ASCVD was 1.73 (P < 0.0005), com

241 th was associated with a 40% increase in the relative hazard (RH) of developing CDC class A or B symp

242 Relative hazard (RH) of ESLD death was derived from the

243 The relative hazard (RH) of first progression or death was s

244 in a neighborhood characterized by poverty (relative hazard (RH)=1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI)

245 than twice the risk of all-cause mortality (relative hazards (RH) 2.30, 95% confidence interval (CI)

246 Adjusted relative hazards (RH) of death compared with AVF were 1.

247 ent HRT was associated with reduced MI risk (relative hazard [RH] 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98).

248 less likely to be listed than male patients (relative hazard [RH] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI],

249 tly associated with risk of nonfatal stroke (relative hazard [RH] 1.18; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.66), fatal s

250 with an increased risk of early barotrauma (relative hazard [RH] 1.67 per 5-cm H2O increment; 95% CI

251 ndent risk factor for both repeat gonorrhea (relative hazard [RH] = 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI

252 Kringle-IV repeats) predicted ASCVD events (relative hazard [RH] = 1.38, P = 0.02; RH = 1.58, P < 0.

253 ndependent predictor of disease progression (relative hazard [RH] for each doubling of HIV-1 RNA leve

254 was not associated with progression to AIDS (relative hazard [RH], .82; 95% confidence interval [CI],

255 the 707 patients not taking clarithromycin (relative hazard [RH], 0.25 [95% confidence interval (CI)

256 up, but not significantly so (14% reduction; relative hazard [RH], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]

257 creased risk of all-cause mortality overall (relative hazard [RH], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]

258 en in the placebo group had MI or CHD death (relative hazard [RH], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI]

259 HCV-uninfected patients, 264 events [24.4%]; relative hazard [RH], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]

260 ival was 13.0 and 20.5 months, respectively (relative hazard [RH], 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI]

261 arrested for new gun and/or violent crimes (relative hazard [RH], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]

262 sociated with smoking in HIV-infected women (relative hazard [RH], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.10-1.60; P=.003),

263 d risk of high-trauma fracture (multivariate relative hazard [RH], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]

264 ve partners with either DRB1*0301-DQB1*0201 (relative hazard [RH], 1.60; P=.009) or DRB1*1503-DQB1*06

265 by week 8 were associated with progression (relative hazard [RH], 1.67; 95% confidence limits [CL],

266 an 2 mile/d (17.8 vs 10.3/1000 person-years; relative hazard [RH], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]

267 d acquisition in the HIV-1-negative partner (relative hazard [RH], 1.79).

268 that risks of HPV included sexual behavior (relative hazard [RH], 10.10; 95% confidence interval [CI

269 f HIV-1 to cohabiting seronegative partners (relative hazard [RH], 2.00; P = .004).

270 apid disease progression (I/I249 vs. V/V249: relative hazard [RH], 2.19 [95% confidence interval {CI}

271 ion to high-grade cytological abnormalities (relative hazard [RH], 2.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-

272 tients with pre-HAART nucleoside experience (relative hazard [RH], 2.86; 95% confidence interval, 2.2

273 virologic failure in the VCV 25 mg/day arm (relative hazard [RH], 21.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]

274 g diarrhea-related hospitalization or death (relative hazard [RH], 3.2, 95% CI, 2.1-5.1 increase 4-24

275 ociated with more-rapid progression to AIDS (relative hazard [RH], 5.50; P=.0001).

276 associated with slower progression to AIDS (relative hazard [RH]=0.19, 95% confidence interval [CI],

277 infarction or coronary heart disease death (relative hazard [RH]=0.79, 95% confidence intervals [CI]

278 After multivariate adjustment, both mild (relative hazards [RH] = 1.24; 95% confidence interval [C

279 fourth quartiles of baseline Lp(a) level had relative hazards (RHs) (compared with the first quartile

280 Relative hazards (RHs) of achieving this were 1.08 (95%

281 used multivariate Cox models to estimate the relative hazards (RHs) of incident diabetes related to b

282 tive hazard ((cs)RH) and the subdistribution relative hazard ((sd)RH).

283 Fully adjusted relative hazards showed that risk reductions associated

284 ing use of a seroprevalent cohort, estimates relative hazards since the beginning of therapy eras for

285 The relative hazard values were computed to evaluate the ris

286 ng of time after kidney transplantation, the relative hazard was 0.56 (95% confidence interval, 0.32

287 Caucasians (34% versus 56% at 5 years); the relative hazard was 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9) after adjus

288 or provision of commercial cinacalcet), the relative hazard was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.58 to 0.87).

289 characteristics and multiple fractures, the relative hazard was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.98).

290 For unprovoked VTE, the relative hazard was 0.90 (CI, 0.70 to 1.16) and the rate

291 As compared with placebo, the relative hazard was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI],

292 tes in a Cox proportional hazards model, the relative hazard was 3.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1

293 The corresponding relative hazards were 0.76 (0.66-0.86), 1.60 (1.48-1.72)

294 For stroke mortality, the corresponding relative hazards were 0.94 (0.86-1.03), 1.15 (1.05-1.25)

295 siologic, behavioral, and dietary variables, relative hazards were 1.0, 0.96, 0.71, 0.64, and 0.70 in

296 For method II, the corresponding relative hazards were 1.52 (95% CI: 1.10, 2.09), 1.03 (9

297 For method I, the relative hazards were 1.52 (95% confidence interval (CI)

298 ty of the hypoxemia index, the corresponding relative hazards were 1.6 (95% CI, 0.6-4.4), 2.9 (95% CI

299 Relative hazards were comparable in patients with asympt

300 The highest relative hazards were observed in systemic autoimmune di