ライフサイエンスコーパス: significance level

1 ression severity below a predefined clinical significance level).

2 do not have a charge cluster (even at the 5% significance level).

3 ower, >=80%; 1-sided Fisher exact test, 2.5% significance level).

4 ired 534 patients (80% power, 5% [one-sided] significance level).

5 o especially benefit from PRRT (not reaching significance levels).

6 rection and another 12 replicated at nominal significance level.

7 lect predictors that meet a priori specified significance level.

8 ondary outcome measure at an unadjusted 0.05 significance level.

9 ariance, followed by a Tukey test using a 5% significance level.

10 -based procedure required for estimating the significance level.

11 hese spectra in the PCA score plot within 5% significance level.

12 -year FFS of 64% versus 74% at two-sided .05 significance level.

13 nutrient-content data, considering the 0.01 significance level.

14 pearman correlation coefficients with a 0.05 significance level.

15 ct transcripts that do not reach genome-wide significance level.

16 esis was rejected at the [Formula: see text] significance level.

17 ied permutation procedure to control overall significance level.

18 ated with schizophrenia (SCZ) at genome-wide significance level.

19 to be detected at the stringent genome-wide significance level.

20 as used for statistical analysis with a 0.05 significance level.

21 jacent to this gene that reached genome-wide significance level.

22 odel, exceeding the conservative genome-wide significance level.

23 Newman Keuls's post hoc test at alpha = 0.05 significance level.

24 e 2355), with 83% power, at the 5% two-sided significance level.

25 6 SNPs associated with glioma risk at the 1% significance level.

26 nd BAG3, associated with EF at a genome-wide significance level.

27 th docetaxel in relation to the prespecified significance level.

28 ment to achieve the desired power at a given significance level.

29 nserved than the remaining surface at the 5% significance level.

30 al compared with historical controls at a 5% significance level.

31 ys to achieve a desired power at a specified significance level.

32 in specific ethnic groups but not at global significance level.

33 grouping alleles on the value of D' and the significance level.

34 tistic of interest and determine its overall significance level.

35 P-value less than 0.05 was considered as the significance level.

36 ority margin was set at 10% and a 5% 1-sided significance level.

37 ociated with lung cancer risk at genome-wide significance level.

38 d ethnicity-specific analyses at a stringent significance level.

39 ve development at an uncorrected genome-wide significance level.

40 and specificity of the two conditions at 5% significance level.

41 th 3-month functional outcome at genome-wide significance level.

42 gin, using a one-sided test done at the 2.5% significance level.

43 of enhancement in a paired t test at the 95% significance level.

44 with only nongenetic factors at nearly every significance level.

45 d with breast cancer risk at the genome-wide significance level.

46 2.36%]), demonstrating superiority at the 5% significance level.

47 to detect the original effect size at the 5% significance level.

48 ts and analysis of variance tests at the 95% significance level.

49 n triplicate by considering t-tests at a 95% significance level.

50 to detect two novel risk loci at genome-wide significance levels.

51 s, support for which falls below genome-wide significance levels.

52 No SNP achieved genome-wide significance levels.

53 dent on statistical assumptions, for example significance levels.

54 = 9.3 x 10(-4); ADAMTS17, P = 8.5 x 10(-4)) significance levels.

55 identified patients with short TTFT at high significance levels.

56 were relatively spared, even at subthreshold significance levels.

57 ativity network of 113 TFs with user-defined significance levels.

58 sholds obtained at the 5% and 10% point-wise significance levels.

59 ercentage activation and at all single-voxel significance levels.

60 st, we employ bootstrap methods to calculate significance levels.

61 i shared with other traits at equally strict significance levels.

62 loci (TCF7L2 and KCNQ1) reaching genome-wide significance levels.

63 , P = 8.3 x 10(-9)), all reaching exome-wide significance levels.

64 ools of 500 individuals, we conclude that at significance level 0.05 we would have 95% (82%) power to

65 for equivalence (equivalence margin 10% with significance level 0.05) and consisted of the composite

66 ing analysis of variance and post hoc tests (significance level 0.05).

67 For example at the 0.05 significance level, a 13% increase in sample size is nee

68 n the package encompass single SNP analyses, significance-level adjustment, preconditioning and model

69 with vaginal acquisition of GBS at the 0.05 significance level: African-American race (hazard ratio

70 The significance level (alpha) was set at 0.05.

71 ni correction was performed by adjusting the significance level (alpha).

72 using a t-test, while keeping beta<0.01 at a significance level, alpha, of 0.05.

73 ation results as a basis for testing at what significance level, alpha, one can reject a null hypothe

74 The new test maintains the nominal significance level and can be adapted to test hypotheses

75 n APOA5 associated with CAD at a genome-wide significance level and provided new insights into pathwa

76 also proposed a heuristic of determining the significance level and the effective number of independe

77 A randomization procedure to evaluate the significance level and the false-discovery rate in compl

78 nificant SNPs at p-value [Formula: see text] significance level and we pinpointed four genes, ESR1, P

79 justing sample sizes to account for variable significance levels and power, as well as the density an

80 o possibly large difference in the resulting significance levels and the numbers of genes detected.

81 ished in European populations at genome-wide significance level, and found multiple independent assoc

82 sly control type I errors at the genome-wide significance level, and further demonstrate their utilit

83 null hypotheses without biasing the nominal significance level, and it identifies the subset of phen

84 inal diet history, and no real difference in significance levels appeared.

85 d that several SNPs reaching the genome-wide significance level are located in or adjacent to the loc

86 Statistical significance levels are based on the observed variabilit

87 These significance levels are obtained after the consideration

88 eltam = +/-1.5 Da, we find that the computed significance levels are sufficient to demonstrate the ab

89 ld be significantly more impactful at the 5% significance level, as long as the high-accuracy test ha

90 us that reached the conventional genome-wide significance level at less than 5.0 x 10(-8): an interge

91 tor were identified based on the statistical significance levels at p<0.005.

92 of intentional violence in the game (at a 5% significance level based on a 2-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum

93 ests on the same genome, the usual pointwise significance level based on the chi-square approximation

94 ociated loci selected from SNPs of different significance levels based on the summary data of the GIA

95 us near the FER gene (5q21) at a genome-wide significance level, best represented by SNP rs10447248 (

96 s effect was not significant at a study-wise significance level (Bonferroni threshold P < 5.8 x 10(-4

97 eak revealed a variant meeting the corrected significance level (Bonferroni-corrected p=5.01x10(-5))

98 I propose that establishing significance levels by coalescent simulation with recomb

99 Furthermore, the genomewide significance level can be appropriately controlled when

100 ts has important applications for estimating significance levels, clustering algorithms, and process

101 e a matching threshold with some statistical significance level, e.g. p = 0.01, for each spectrum, an

102 or count all transmissions and estimate the significance level empirically.

103 ontrol type I error rates at the genome-wide significance level even when case-control ratios are ext

104 tion, despite the need to use more stringent significance levels, even when effect sizes differ betwe

105 conds originating above the bright point and significance levels exceeding 99%.

106 methylation in cord blood at epigenome-wide significance level [false discovery rate (FDR)<0.05].

107 tified as associated with OCD at genome-wide significance level, follow-up analyses of genome-wide as

108 ia (OR = 7.82, P = 0.001), with the combined significance level for all three studies achieving P = 5

109 No SNPs or common CNVs reached a genome-wide significance level for association with height or body m

110 Two chromosomal regions reached genome-wide significance level for childhood asthma symptoms: the 14

111 variant filters or weights and adjusting the significance level for correlations between variants yie

112 interim analyses, the two-sided statistical significance level for disease-free survival was set at

113 ovided evidence for linkage at a genome-wide significance level for loci on 6q (P = 2.7 x 10(-6)) and

114 Using the traditional alpha = 0.05 significance level for null hypothesis significance test

115 P-value combination was used to determine a significance level for the combined evidence within each

116 has raised the question of how to adjust the significance level for the fact that multiple tests are

117 Regardless of the significance level for variable selection, the prognosti

118 istical methods give different estimates and significance levels for a risk factor.

119 P-value adjustments to correct the observed significance levels for the individual (i.e. for each ge

120 tep-down adjustments to correct the observed significance levels for the individual ANOVA t-tests for

121 lyses were performed to determine genomewide significance levels for this study.

122 ses, results on IFFS were assessed on a 4.3% significance level; for the other endpoints, 5% was used

123 tatistically rigorous strategy for combining significance levels from multiple methods of driver disc

124 error rate of.00574, leading to a genomewide significance level >.05.

125 28% more peptides were identified above the significance level in a standard and extended search spa

126 sociated with periodontitis at a genome-wide significance level in the pooled samples, with P = 1.09E

127 tests that allow determination of empirical significance levels in the presence of linkage disequili

128 Three of these SNPs met nominal significance levels in the replication cohort with odds

129 se effects, those that reached an alpha=0.05 significance level included calcium, folate, thiamin, vi

130 ith BUA and five with VOS at the genome-wide significance level, including three novel loci for BUA a

131 Bonferroni-corrected significance level is known to be conservative, leading

132 e in a rank order list [based on statistical significance level] is tested against a randomly shuffle

133 ber of false positives reaching the observed significance level less than 0.05 per study).

134 rade gliomas and 11 low-grade gliomas (P<.05 significance level, Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test, Bonferro

135 Although no regions achieved a 5% genomewide significance level, maximum LOD-score values were >2.0 (

136 At high significance levels, more differences were observed in t

137 The locus on chromosome 1 reached genomewide significance levels (nonparametric LOD score of 3.30 at

138 ere associated with lobar ICH at genome-wide significance levels (odds ratio [OR] = 1.82, 95% confide

139 association with SCC reached the genome-wide significance level [odds ratio (OR) for additive model =

140 A significance level of < 0.05 was considered in this stud

141 BMI; weight (kg)/height (m)(2)) at a minimum significance level of </=5 x 10(-7) in the US National H

142 le comparisons with the Bonferroni-corrected significance level of <0.0015.

143 power of 80% with concordant sib pairs at a significance level of .0001 are given, stratified by par

144 A Bonferroni-corrected significance level of .001/6 = .00017 was used to accomm

145 ific performance levels by using a two-sided significance level of .0294.

146 A 2-tailed t test with a significance level of .05 was used for all comparisons.

147 nalyses were done by using chi(2) tests with significance level of .05.

148 ession analysis and two-sided t tests with a significance level of .05.

149 45 with approximately 85% power at two-sided significance level of .05.

150 t were used for statistical analyses, with a significance level of .05.

151 ided P = .055; two-sided P = .11 [predefined significance level of .10, one-sided]).

152 ect a 33% prolongation of PFS at a one-sided significance level of .2.

153 g major molecular response, were tested at a significance level of 0.0001 to adjust for multiple comp

154 was protocol-specified and used a two-sided significance level of 0.001 and a p value at or below th

155 ed with relapse-free survival at a stringent significance level of 0.001 to account for multiple comp

156 ignificantly associated (Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.003) with many ion properties re

157 ention type and occasion factor time, with a significance level of 0.01.

158 fied one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance level of 0.02.

159 error rate of 0.05 to calculate an adjusted significance level of 0.0253.

160 near and generalized linear mixed model at a significance level of 0.05 (P value).

161 ore nearly impossible to ensure a genomewide significance level of 0.05 using the available statistic

162 animals required to obtain 80% power with a significance level of 0.05 varied substantially across b

163 A significance level of 0.05 was applied for 95% confidenc

164 Adopting a cFDR nominal significance level of 0.05, 287 loci were identified for

165 of zero between-group difference tested at a significance level of 0.05.

166 On the basis of an interim analysis significance level of 0.081 (overall one-sided significa

167 roportional hazards regression models with a significance level of 0.1 were used to build up univaria

168 vidual servers based on TM-score at a t-test significance level of 0.1%.

169 ent differences were assessed with a 2-sided significance level of 0.10.

170 gnificance level of 0.081 (overall one-sided significance level of 0.20, power of 0.80, and O'Brien-F

171 emissions above 200 megaelectron volts at a significance level of 17sigma from the globular cluster

172 14 of 443 experimentally determined sites (a significance level of 18 standard deviations).

173 tein or DNA sequences in the database at the significance level of 1e-6.

174 tal arms) with 81% power while maintaining a significance level of 2.5% in a two-sided test for each

175 th higher liver fat levels at the exome-wide significance level of 3.6 x 10(-7): two in PNPLA3, an es

176 ociated with schizophrenia at the suggestive significance level of 5 x 10(-5).

177 Nine loci reached the genome-wide significance level of 5 x 10(-8) including six already k

178 extracted fifty SNPs associated with UNa at significance level of 5 x 10(-8), but further removed th

179 circulating phylloquinone at the genome-wide significance level of 5 x 10(-8).

180 ect a putative mutant allele at a genomewide significance level of 5% can usually be achieved in prac

181 A significance level of 5% was applied to demonstrate the

182 A significance level of 5% was used.

183 efficacy end point at week 16 at the 2-sided significance level of 5%, the observed trends in anatomi

184 to final report was determined at a nominal significance level of 5%.

185 analysis of variance and chi(2) tests with a significance level of 5%.

186 orphometry were statistically processed at a significance level of 5%.

187 re meta-analyzed, and a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 7.7 x 10(-4) was used to account f

188 ivariate regression analysis were applied at significance level of 95% (P </= 0.05) to compare study

189 vents and number of positions as well as the significance level of a given data set.

190 9p23, and 16q24.1, exceeding the statistical significance level of a LOD score >2.0.

191 Analyses included a significance level of alpha = .10 with no adjustments fo

192 and partial remission, tested at a one-sided significance level of alpha = .10.

193 0.73) using one-sided binomial tests with a significance level of alpha=0.025.

194 The significance level of enrichment is assessed by the perm

195 independent variables, those that reached a significance level of less than .05 in univariate analys

196 A Bonferroni-corrected significance level of less than 0.0016 was considered st

197 To adjust for multiple comparisons, a significance level of P < .01 was chosen.

198 0.075 for liver enzyme concentrations, at a significance level of P < .05.

199 ssociated with 1-year overall mortality at a significance level of P < .10 constructed a multivariate

200 power calculation used a 1-sided test with a significance level of P < .10.

201 er to detect 50% prolongation at a one-sided significance level of P < .20.

202 cohort and both the NC and ACA cohorts at a significance level of P < 0.01.

203 atients and controls were generated, using a significance level of P < 0.05 in a general linear model

204 292 genes per wood trait using a statistical significance level of P < 0.05 to maximize discovery.

205 At a significance level of P < 0.05, CGM Cho, CGM and NAWM tN

206 henotype associations with an experimentwise significance level of P < 0.05.

207 (SNPs) that were associated with NAFLD at a significance level of P < 10(-5) was examined in adults

208 12 new susceptibility loci (at a genome-wide significance level of P < 5 x 10(-)(8)) and replicated a

209 ted to prostate cancer risk at a genome-wide significance level of P < 5 x 10(-8) with the most signi

210 Imposing a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of P < 5.69 x 10(-6), we identified 3

211 AL PARAMETRIC MAPPING software package and a significance level of P < or = 0.001, uncorrected for mu

212 oints, but they did not reach a prespecified significance level of P < or = 25.

213 18p11, and 20q13), with a nominal multipoint significance level of P< or =.01 or LOD > or =1.18.

214 7 (D17S1301), with evidence for linkage at a significance level of P<.005.

215 ies using study data confirmed a genome-wide significance level of P<0.05 (95% CI 0.005-0.0466).

216 We used a statistical significance level of p<0.05 for a between-group differe

217 Using the significance level of p<0.05, we found that 59 miRNAs we

218 fied for 64 nsSNPs, generating a genome-wide significance level of P=0.002.

219 lateral case, corresponding to a genome-wide significance level of P=0.034.

220 ualised relapse rate after 24 months, with a significance level of p=0.10.

221 core-based method for estimating genome-wide significance level of putative QTL effects suitable for

222 LOD score 3.6 is.00191, giving a genomewide significance level of slightly <.05.

223 hen based on D', and 11 cM when based on the significance level of the allelic association.

224 ce determination is applied to represent the significance level of the genes in a Bayesian inference

225 The significance level of the test was considered to be P <

226 rly all were much smaller than the customary significance level of.0001 for genomewide scans.

227 the sample sizes required for 80% power at a significance level of.001 and also used simulation metho

228 rcentage of activated voxels at single-voxel significance levels of 10(-2), 10(-3), and 10(-4) within

229 Results of the QTL analyses indicated that significance levels of detected QTL were greatly improve

230 s observed at three Y haplotype clades, with significance levels of P = 0.002, P = 0.020, and P = 0.0

231 The statistical significance levels of the correlations and the pattern

232 oducible determinations of the probabilistic significance levels of the deviations between theoretica

233 CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Levels of specific serum phospholipids dif

234 We recover 75%-85% (depending on significance level) of all regulatory sites from a stand

235 By quantifying the increase in significance level (or, correspondingly, the increase in

236 regions of decreased gray matter volume at a significance level p <= .05 corrected for family-wise er

237 )) were associated with LTL at a genome-wide significance level (P < 5 x 10(-8)).

238 84 known and 18 novel BP loci at genome-wide significance level (P < 5 x 10(-8)).

239 nts previously identified at the genome-wide significance level (P < 5 x 10-8): (1) BMI97 (97 loci),

240 , we confirmed eight loci at the genome-wide significance level (P < 5.0 x 10(-8)) and an additional

241 At the exome-wide significance level (P < 5.0 x 10(-8)), we confirmed asso

242 and patients was small but still bellow the significance level (P = .0137).

243 nteraction of sex with training year is near significance level (P = .06).

244 was the primary outcome, failed to reach the significance level (P = .06).

245 l, based on our predetermined two-sided 0.10 significance level (p = 0.09).

246 e association for rs7903146 reached the GWAS significance level (P = 3.6 x 10(-8)), with an odds rati

247 ith cognitive performance at the genome-wide significance level (P<5 x 10(-8)).

248 ican American populations at the genome-wide significance level (P<5.0 x 10(-8)), we also identified

249 bolite features can be filtered out by their significance level (p-value), fold change, mass-to-charg

250 interaction test) and replicated at nominal significance level (P=0.013) in SMC5.

251 on-binding receptor, reaches the genome-wide significance level (P=1.3 x 10(-8)) in the combined samp

252 and SYT6 loci also came close to genome-wide significance levels (P = 10(-6)).

253 917639) was associated with dose at moderate significance levels (P approximately 10(-4)).

254 Two-sided t tests (significance level, P = .05) were used to determine whet

255 susceptibility region was found (genome-wide significance level, P = 0.038), which is missed with con

256 tronic in CFDP1) was associated with cIMT at significance levels passing multiple testing correction

257 found for patient groups stratified by age (significance levels: PRISM III-12 = .1622; PRISM III-24

258 22; PRISM III-24 = .4137), and by diagnosis (significance levels: PRISM III-12 = .5992; PRISM III-24

259 ontrol type I error rates at the genome-wide significance level regardless of minor allele frequencie

260 negative status did not reach to statistical significance level (relative risk=1.23 with P=0.087) aft

261 d predictive utility-the approach learns the significance level relevant for a given data set.

262 66; one-sided P = 0.00096, which reached the significance level required for this analysis).

263 approach is the availability of theoretical significance-level results.

264 ociated with serum T levels at a genome-wide significance level (rs10822184: P = 1.12 x 10(-8)).

265 sociations of two loci reached a genome-wide significance level: rs12630354 near STT3B on chromosome

266 stemic factors associated with RPC VD with a significance level set at 0.05.

267 ng the Cox proportional hazards model with a significance level set at P <0.05.

268 n cases where asymptotic theory is doubtful, significance levels should be checked by simulations.

269 differentially expressed in dwarf mice at a significance level that excludes appearance of false pos

270 hough the amygdala finding did not survive a significance level that was Bonferroni corrected for mul

271 Permutation analysis, which adjusts the significance level to account for multiple comparisons i

272 ary safety endpoint) at 2 years with a 0.025 significance level to preserve nominal 5% alpha error.

273 hey differ in how to associate a statistical significance level to the corresponding statistic, leadi

274 We also assign significance levels to our results, adjusted for multipl

275 We associate significance levels to the proposed statistic by either

276 fficacy hypothesis was tested at a two-sided significance level (type I error) of 0.05 using an exact

277 s and automatically sets the experiment-wide significance level; (v) MECPM directly yields a phenotyp

278 k truncated product) may lose power when the significance level varies across SNPs.

279 als (CI) were presented, and the statistical significance level was p < 0.05.

280 were analyzed using Chi-square test and the significance level was set as p</=.05.

281 Significance level was set at .01 for pooled analysis.

282 The significance level was set at .05.

283 MD (P-allele = 0.0009, P-trend = 0.0008; the significance level was set at 0.05/25 = 0.002 for multip

284 The significance level was set at P < .05.

285 A significance level was set at p < 0.05.

286 For all comparisons, significance level was set at P<0.05.

287 In all, the significance level was set to p<0.05.

288 Two-sided 0.30 significance level was specified (80% power, 103 events)

289 Significance level was systematically varied to P < 0.00

290 stically significant differences at the 0.05 significance level were found between concentration valu

291 In (1), the resultant significance levels were approximately doubled, compared

292 mp)) and multiple-test study-wise (P(multi)) significance levels were calculated empirically through

293 Empirical significance levels were determined via gene-dropping si

294 In (2), significance levels were increased somewhat less, and, i

295 Thresholds for the 63%, 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels were obtained from 100 permutations.

296 stral anterior cingulate cortex, uncorrected significance level) were distinct from overestimation an

297 ndent of obliquity can be rejected at the 5% significance level, whereas the corresponding null hypot

298 Our tests provide a significance level, which is unavailable for the widely

299 sary to attain a specified power for a given significance level, which is useful in the planning of a

300 TR of GDF5 is associated, at the genome-wide significance level, with osteoarthritis susceptibility,