ライフサイエンスコーパス: standard error

1 /- 2.3 nM (n = 15 mice, weighted average +/- standard error).

2 Delta'(17)O of -1 +/- 5 parts per million (2 standard error).

3 was 21.39+/-2.93L/min (Least squares mean+/-standard error).

4 o the control by 28.2 +/- 2.8% (mean +/- one standard error).

5 ating characteristic curve of 0.96 +/- 0.05 (standard error).

6 tation, improved precision and reduced assay standard error.

7 e provide an analytical approximation of the standard error.

8 el linear models and reported cluster robust standard error.

9 imating equation logistic models with robust standard errors.

10 ting unadjusted or heteroscedasticity-robust standard errors.

11 g conditional Poisson regression with robust standard errors.

12 rtisol variability leading to underestimated standard errors.

13 , accounting for clustering using linearized standard errors.

14 included studies have different within-study standard errors.

15 hat these codes have been used in estimating standard errors.

16 ed t-tests employing the estimated means and standard errors.

17 rtainly involve variability not reflected by standard errors.

18 l mixed-effect regression models with robust standard errors.

19 genome-wide significance but with increased standard errors.

20 power; (b) decrease trait heterogeneity and standard error;

21 overall pain scores (effect estimate 0.004, standard error 0.028, 95% confidence interval -0.052, 0.

22 text]) of early TB progression to be 21.2% (standard error 0.08).

23 The kappa statistic was 0.65 (standard error +/-0.37, P < .001) between the 2 classifi

24 aphic domain) accounted for 29.2% (bootstrap standard error = 0.003) of variance in PhenoAge after ad

25 y 24 to 1 month over 10 years, respectively, standard error = 0.005 QALY), at increasing average cost

26 omarker of inflammation (p = 0.005, beta +/- standard error = 0.08 +/- 0.03).

27 lobal cognitive function (estimate = -0.212, standard error = 0.097; p = 0.031).

28 ion of NAFLD with e' velocity (beta = -0.36 [standard error = 0.15] cm/s; P = 0.02), E/e' ratio (beta

29 Cognard classification of DAVFs (kappa = 1, standard error = 0.35).

30 210)Po levels in lungs (coefficient = -1.19; standard error = 0.58; p = 0.042).

31 scale [ADAS11] over time [p = 0.03, beta +/- standard error = 0.7 +/- 0.3]; worse forgetting score on

32 g Test (RAVLT) over time [p = 0.02, beta +/- standard error = -0.2 +/- 0.06]).

33 ination value for fractal dimension of 0.96 (standard error =0.025) for the GCL + IPL complex was obt

34 ation, regardless of education (beta = 0.00 (standard error, 0.00) and hazard ratio = 0.81 (95% confi

35 error categories at 55 years of age to 9.5% (standard error, 0.01) for emmetropia and 15.3% (standard

36 th the experience of scarcity (beta = -0.07; standard error, 0.018).

37 discrimination with CMP (pAUC difference +/- standard error, 0.019+/-0.009, P = 0.035).

38 adult BMI in the 75th quantile (beta = 0.06 (standard error, 0.03) kg).

39 % (186/219) with a kappa statistic of 0.755 (standard error, 0.037; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6

40 (136/162), with a kappa statistic of 0.723 (standard error, 0.047; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6

41 cohort was excellent, with a slope of 0.97 (standard error, 0.04; P value [for difference from 1] =0

42 erating characteristic curve values of 0.88 (standard error, 0.05), 0.76 (standard error, 0.06), 0.68

43 latforms as "almost perfect" (kappa = 0.922; standard error, 0.051).

44 ndard error, 0.01) for emmetropia and 15.3% (standard error, 0.06) for high hyperopia to 33.7% (stand

45 values of 0.88 (standard error, 0.05), 0.76 (standard error, 0.06), 0.68 (standard error, 0.08), and

46 21); P = 0.142), nonatypical MDD (B = 0.007 (standard error, 0.06); P = 0.911), and no history of dep

47 d for advanced POAG (rs185815146 beta, 0.36; standard error, 0.065; P < 3x10(-8)).

48 rd error, 0.06) for high hyperopia to 33.7% (standard error, 0.08) for high myopia at 85 years of age

49 r, 0.05), 0.76 (standard error, 0.06), 0.68 (standard error, 0.08), and 0.55 (standard error, 0.09) f

50 .06), 0.68 (standard error, 0.08), and 0.55 (standard error, 0.09) for MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, PAM50

51 .1% (82/91) with a kappa statistic of 0.657 (standard error, 0.101; 95% CI, 0.458 to 0.855).

52 ce from 1] =0.53) and an intercept of 0.007 (standard error, 0.12; P value [for difference from 0] =0

53 Atypical MDD (B = 0.41 (standard error, 0.15); P = 0.007) was a stronger predict

54 dex than were dysthymic disorder (B = -0.31 (standard error, 0.21); P = 0.142), nonatypical MDD (B =

55 est 90th quantile of adult BMI (beta = 0.64 (standard error, 0.26) BMI units).

56 e total population (log-relative risk, 1.73; standard error, 0.56; P = .002) and in the surgery-only

57 n the surgery-only (log-relative risk, 1.97; standard error, 0.66; P = .003) and chemotherapy (log-re

58 al deformation (concavity(min); mean AUC +/- standard error, 0.985 +/- 0.002) and a new measure incor

59 gical degree of liver steatosis (beta, 0.15; standard error: 0.06; P = 0.0299) that was independent o

60 t negative in the advanced POAG group (mean [standard error] = -0.34 [0.05]), followed by the mild-mo

61 of decline in global cognition (estimate [+/-standard error], -0.02 +/- 0.01; P = .03) in models that

62 ular atrophy after untreated nAMD were 9.6% (standard error, 1.2%), 31.4% (standard error, 2.2%), 43.

63 ) and chemotherapy (log-relative risk, 2.93; standard error, 1.41; P = .03) groups, along with other

64 three-dimensional techniques ( RSE residual standard error = 12.18 for visual assessment).

65 ds and left amygdalar (simple slope, -34.62; standard error, 12.74; P = .008) volumes among young adu

66 ased dolutegravir clearance by 36% (relative standard error 13%) resulting in a 26% decrease in dolut

67 ed intensive care unit length of stay (mean (standard error) 14.8 (0.26) vs 3.2 (0.09) days, p < 0.00

68 beta values were 4 to 5 times lower and the standard error 2 to 3 times lower in multilevel models.

69 -range fibres (effect = 4.50, bootstrapping: standard error = 2.59, 95%CI: 0.16 to 10.29).

70 range fibres (effect = -6.23, bootstrapping: standard error = 2.64, 95%CI: -11.82 to -1.56) and more

71 in lungs of non-smokers (coefficient = 6.0; standard error = 2.9; p = 0.04).

72 AMD were 9.6% (standard error, 1.2%), 31.4% (standard error, 2.2%), 43.1% (standard error, 2.6%), and

73 .22; P = .008) and CA3 (simple slope, -6.42; standard error, 2.42; P = .009) hippocampal subfields an

74 ween 18 and 64 years of age comprised 92.8% (standard error, 2.6%) of HS patients.

75 1.2%), 31.4% (standard error, 2.2%), 43.1% (standard error, 2.6%), and 61.5% (standard error, 4.3%)

76 that a change in disease of 29.2% (relative standard error 20%) between two consecutive CT scans (i.

77 wed an annual ECD decline of 48 cells/mm(2) (standard error, 3.14) and 61 cells/mm(2) (standard error

78 ative risk of central involvement was 30.4% (standard error, 3.2%), 43.4% (standard error, 3.8%), and

79 ent was 30.4% (standard error, 3.2%), 43.4% (standard error, 3.8%), and 57.0% (standard error, 4.8%)

80 individuals to estimate incidence (relative standard error, 30%) and had >80% power to detect a 50%

81 HLHS/TGA group had smaller subplate (-13.3% [standard error = 4.3%], p < 0.01) and intermediate (-13.

82 %), 43.1% (standard error, 2.6%), and 61.5% (standard error, 4.3%) at 2, 5, 7, and 10 years, respecti

83 %), 43.4% (standard error, 3.8%), and 57.0% (standard error, 4.8%) at first appearance of atrophy, 2

84 igher CSF amyloid levels (p = 0.03, beta +/- standard error = 47.19 +/- 21.78).

85 overlap with early-onset asthma was 27.3 mL (standard error 5.0) per year, which did not differ signi

86 ed left dentate gyrus (simple slope, -14.20; standard error, 5.22; P = .008) and CA3 (simple slope, -

87 than the control diet (mean reduction of 34; standard error, 50), although this difference was not st

88 osis (residual standard error [ RSE residual standard error ] = 6.38 and 6.33 for quantitative EASL E

89 ) (standard error, 3.14) and 61 cells/mm(2) (standard error, 6.30) in the myopic (P < 0.001) and tori

90 ients with VMT or VMA were younger (mean +/- standard error, 75.5 +/- 0.6 vs. 79.7 +/- 0.24 years; P

91 g the low FODMAP diet (mean reduction of 67; standard error, 78) than the control diet (mean reductio

92 neurons than those without (estimate -2872, standard error = 829, P = 0.001).

93 -analysis models to pool estimates and their standard errors across microbiome studies.

94 ultivariable logistic regression with robust standard errors, adjusted for hospital-level clustering

95 by linear and Poisson regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for maternal prepregnancy BMI

96 by the small effect size in relation to high standard error and Berkeley's low baseline consumption.

97 tudies were converted to mean difference and standard error and interpolated using the inverse of var

98 etermined prevalence ratios using asymptotic standard errors and 95% confidence intervals.

99 cenarios, DRS matching yielded lower average standard errors and mean squared errors than did matchin

100 image features combined were 0.95 +/- 0.02 (standard error) and 0.88 +/- 0.03 on dataset B and datas

101 Unadjusted mean (standard error) annual change in GA area was 0.28 (0.02)

102 he low-risk group for resource use had mean (standard error) annual costs of $26772 ($536) and $26132

103 lated infections was 2.0% +/- 0.5% (mean +/- standard error) at 10 years.

104 Least squares mean diurnal IOP (+/- standard error) at month 12 was 16.2 +/- 0.23 mmHg for n

105 The success rates (+/- standard error) at the first, third, and fifth years of

106 and EFS between the control (EFS, 35% +/- 3 [standard error] at 4 years) and clofarabine treatments (

107 At 24 months, adjusted mean (standard error) change in GA lesion area from baseline w

108 Adjusted mean (standard error) changes in BCVA and LLVA (ETDRS letters)

109 ity, and year, with Taylor series linearized standard errors clustered by state and classroom.

110 nflated negative binomial models with robust standard errors clustered on female sex worker (FSW) wer

111 (12) +/- 1.62*10(12) average copy number +/- standard error) compared to other tested viruses, with D

112 using Poisson regression models with robust standard errors, controlling for clustering of participa

113 e three-state accuracy of 77% +/- 1% (+/-one standard error) corresponding to a 1.8 fold improvement

114 accuracy, covariate balance achieved, bias, standard error, coverage, and mean squared error.

115 rdinary least squares regression with robust standard errors (d.f. = 933); P = 0.015; 95% confidence

116 n accumulated climatic debt of 0.64 (+/-0.13 standard error) degrees C of warming was paid by a water

117 The 5-year event-free survival (with standard error) did not differ between groups: 76.7% (2.

118 vs CGT with PLA: model-based adjusted mean [standard error] difference, -2.06 [1.00]; 95% CI, -4.02

119 We obtained per-allele odds ratio (OR) and standard error estimates using age- and sex-adjusted log

120 and LEMMA accounts for this by using robust standard error estimates when testing for GxE effects.

121 Linear regressions with robust standard errors examined associations.

122 range were less or equal to the experimental standard error, except for one low-Zn soil.

123 We compared several different forms of the standard error for linear and logistic TSRI estimates in

124 d using Poisson regression model with robust standard errors for 30-day complications and cause-speci

125 The standard errors for calibration, cross-validation, predi

126 least-squares fitting, with exact parameter standard errors for linear least-squares with known data

127 The median logarithmic parameter standard errors for the four models were 1.070, 0.4537,

128 were 0.5% and 2% larger than the unadjusted standard errors for the linear and logistic TSRI estimat

129 chizophrenia and 25(OH)D to obtain betas and standard errors for the SNP-exposure and SNP-outcome ass

130 ing uncorrected or heteroscedasticity-robust standard errors for these estimates.

131 l values (LRV) up to 3.71 +/- 0.38 (mean +/- standard error) for TPA-RC and 2.25 +/- 1.00 for AgNP-RC

132 curately infers contamination rates with low standard errors: for example, less than 1.5% standard er

133 hich significantly decreased the calibration standard error from 0.50 to 0.03log10 (cells/mL).

134 probability of early menarche, estimates and standard errors from an automated optimization routine w

135 is typically much greater than the estimated standard errors from the least-squares fits used to obta

136 t in which the PPC and MCV were lower than 4 standard errors from the mean of healthy participants co

137 d 2-stage least squares (in the linear case) standard errors gave the best results in terms of covera

138 We show that TSRI estimators with modified standard errors have correct type I error under the null

139 standard errors: for example, less than 1.5% standard error in cases with less than 10% contamination

140 ms per subject was required to achieve a 0.3 standard error in the anxiety severity estimate and main

141 effect sizes of bivariate outcomes and their standard errors in a 2-dimensional space.

142 ation (ignored in a simple Cox model, robust standard errors in a variance-correction model, random e

143 ytime DeltaT by 3.0 +/- 0.3 kelvin (mean and standard error) in humid climates but decreasing DeltaT

144 s should report TSRI estimates with modified standard errors instead of reporting unadjusted or heter

145 Mean (standard error) lesion size changes from baseline, deter

146 Logarithm and standard error logarithm odds ratio (OR) were also used

147 coefficients of determination, the relative standard errors (<50%), and the correlation of the param

148 , LDL-C, and TG; the differences in mean +/- standard error (mg/dL) are -8.38 +/- 1.56, -3.7 +/- 0.9,

149 Among others, we consider standard errors modified from the approach of Newey (198

150 logy, being accurate and reproducible with a standard error of +/-2.4%, was applied to a range of org

151 n in the equatorial East Indian Ocean with a standard error of 0.0060 kelvin.

152 ration of 0.083 cell/mL was measured, with a standard error of 0.01 (C(95) = 0.065-0.102).

153 91 cell/mL was measured by cytometry, with a standard error of 0.03 (C(95) = 0.85-0.97).

154 icient of determination (R(2)) of 0.986, the standard error of 0.04, the root mean square error of 0.

155 ean difference in 3MSE scores of 0.75 with a standard error of 0.05 units (P = .04).

156 es that can be tuned down to 0.22 muL with a standard error of 6.5% and coefficient of variation of 1

157 s with and without RPD had a visual acuity+/-standard error of 77.9 +/- 1.4 letters and 81.3 +/- 0.4

158 igh regression coefficient (R(2)), and lower standard error of calibration (SEC) values.

159 The standard error of estimate over a typical range 0-50 ppb

160 Overall standard error of less than 15% and a coefficient of var

161 n adduction was greater at 38.5 +/- 1.7 mum (standard error of mean) than the temporal half at 4.1 +/

162 es of those holding an MD degree (21.4+/-1.6 standard error of mean) were not statistically higher th

163 aching 49 +/- 10 mum in 30-degree adduction (standard error of mean, P < .0001).

164 armacokinetics and a half-life of 24.2 days (standard error of measurement 0.2) with no evidence of a

165 clinically important difference (MCID) as 1 standard error of measurement from a well-characterized,

166 Its standard error of measurement is known; it has strong co

167 An A-IQOLS standard error of measurement of 0.27 implies that a wit

168 The QOLS standard error of measurement was 0.43.

169 howed a coefficient-of-correlation 0.982 and standard error of prediction (SEP) between 0.03% and 0.0

170 rylamide concentration of 5.4 mug kg(-1) and standard error of prediction (SEP) of 14.8 mug kg(-1).

171 coefficients of prediction (rPred)>0.91 and standard error of prediction (SEP) of 24mg/100g phenolic

172 ults (coefficient of determination (RSQ) and standard error of prediction (SEP), respectively) for th

173 faces in a test set with an r(2) of 0.82 and standard error of prediction of 13%.

174 concentration of olive oil lower than 5% (a standard error of prediction of 3.97% was obtained with

175 llected on an external validation set with a standard error of prediction of 5.6% using 7 factors.

176 ble total phenolic content was 0.89, and the standard error of prediction was 6.3mgg(-1).

177 measure over 1000 DeltaG degrees values with standard error of roughly 0.05 kcal/mol.

178 ans and the standard errors of the means and standard error of the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th and 90th pe

179 timates contain substantial variance with an standard error of the estimate of 0.44 mL/min per gram.

180 osition of right and left breasts, where the standard error of the estimations was determined.

181 assay reproducibility, expressed as relative standard error of the mean (n = 30), was 1.1%.

182 or each concentration, expressed as relative standard error of the mean (RSE%; n = 30), was 1.21%.

183 The mean+/-standard error of the mean (SEM) VAS pain scores immedia

184 -type sequence (wild-type mean 0.78 +/- 0.07 standard error of the mean [SEM] and variant mean 0.63 +

185 om effects analysis of variance and mean and standard error of the mean for the difference between se

186 ithin the dentate nucleus (mean SI ratio +/- standard error of the mean for two-group comparison: 1.0

187 A mean +/- standard error of the mean intracellular uptake of (4.19

188 2 Omega cm(2)+/-1.3 Omega cm(2) (average +/- standard error of the mean of 4 chips), comparable to ot

189 of image quantification bias (defined as the standard error of the mean values) was conducted by comp

190 of >=2, >=3, >=4, >=5, and >=6 months, mean (standard error of the mean) additional time treatment fr

191 gher in PSC samples (2.53 +/- 0.80, mean +/- standard error of the mean) compared to PBC samples (1.1

192 neovascular AMD were 90.8 +/- 2.9 pg/mL (+/- standard error of the mean), 88.2 +/- 2.6 pg/mL, and 79.

193 ator7PCB was estimated to 182 +/- 40 t (+/-1 standard error of the mean), with sediments (144 +/- 40

194 0.82(1) (the digit in parentheses shows the standard error of the mean).

195 t of DNA radiation damage (mean increase +/- standard error of the mean, 0.056 foci per cell +/- 0.00

196 ich lesions revealed that 50+/-7% (average+/-standard error of the mean, n=14 subjects) of total foam

197 values expressed as mean nmol/g protein +/- standard error of the mean, p = 0.040 by ANOVA).

198 from baseline with both krill oil (mean +/- standard error of the mean: -18.6+/-4.5 mOsmol/l; n = 18

199 tion of 54.7 degrees (21.8 msec +/- 2.8 [+/- standard error of the mean]) than at 0 degrees (10.0 mse

200 ium concentration, 0.28 ug . g(-1) +/- 0.04 [standard error of the mean]) that was comparable (P > .0

201 ch volunteer was imaged three times, and the standard error of the measurements at the region-of-inte

202 rther provide a consistent estimator for the standard error of the treatment effect estimated using o

203 d water) and 14 (pore water) and inter-study standard errors of approximately 2 mol (1)H per liter of

204 fficients (higher than 0.700) and acceptable standard errors of cross-validation were obtained.

205 l was the only model for which there were no standard errors of estimated parameters greater than a f

206 reliability (0.80 or greater) and determine standard errors of measurement.

207 The relative standard errors of prediction (RSEP) were calculated for

208 Standard errors of the estimated log odds ratios, includ

209 es) to estimate the population means and the standard errors of the means and standard error of the 1

210 ng/ml versus 1.51 +/- 0.44 ng/ml [means +/- standard errors of the means {SEM}; P = 0.0001).

211 ch allows to compute p values accounting for standard errors of the modeled singlets and combination

212 quantified, it accounted for an average (+/-standard error) of 0.13+/-0.02% of PM2.5.

213 Cumulative incidence estimates (+/- standard error) of GFNC (n=29), GF-with-compliance (n=46

214 36.7% +/- 5.8% and 15.0% +/- 1.53% (mean +/- standard error) of the total bites taken by P. paru and

215 ndicated by slopes (DeltaARAT/week, mean +/- standard errors) of 0.40 +/- 0.15, 0.31 +/- 0.16, and 0.

216 rence of 1.85+/-0.06 decibels (dB) (mean +/- standard error, P < 0.001) in healthy subjects and 1.46+

217 ealthy subjects and 1.46+/-0.05 dB (mean +/- standard error, P < 0.001) in patients with glaucoma.

218 with MMC and 56.2 +/- 7.9% with CM (mean +/- standard error, p = 0.112, log rank test); however, a si

219 SV CHD (mean DeltaR2*, 1.3 sec(-1) +/- 0.1 [standard error; P < .01], 1.9 sec(-1) +/- 0.2 [P < .01],

220 tion were more uniform in size distribution (standard error, percutaneous vs endobronchial: 0.13 vs 0

221 However, the large standard errors present in the other models are signific

222 ALs averaged 26.3 +/- 0.3 mm (standard error [range 21.5-33.4 mm]).

223 antitative SERS measurements with a relative standard error (RSE) below 3% for aqueous solutions of 1

224 h pathologically measured necrosis (residual standard error [ RSE residual standard error ] = 6.38 an

225 LT-FH was 63% (standard error (s.e.) 6%) more powerful than GWAS and 36

226 oticism and depressive symptoms (r g = 0.82, standard error (s.e.) = 0.03), major depressive disorder

227 oticism and depressive symptoms (r g = 0.82, standard error (s.e.) = 0.03), major depressive disorder

228 e estimate that these SNPs account for 0.12 (standard error (s.e.) = 0.05) of variance in risk ( appr

229 ely 17 million imputed variants explain 56% (standard error (s.e.) = 2.3%) of variance for height and

230 ificantly lower survival (0.012 fewer years [standard error (SE) 0.007]), fewer quality-adjusted life

231 creased 0.04 Standard Deviation Score (SDS) [Standard Error (SE) 0.007], 0.05 SDS (SE 0.008) and 0.14

232 ed Mean Difference (SMD) plotted against the standard error (SE) are susceptible to distortion, leadi

233 mum allowable repeatability component of the standard error (SE) for the potency assay is derived usi

234 The variability, as measured by the standard error (SE), of a potency assay consists of seve

235 he gene encoding Asb1 (beta-coefficient=0.56 standard error (SE)=0.10, p (Bonferroni)=0.005), a prote

236 idence intervals (CIs) or beta estimates and standard errors (SE) for the obesity status and BMI anal

237 However, computing the standard errors (SE) of the measures and their correlati

238 ration as standardized beta-coefficients and standard errors (SE).

239 r current smoker are associated with 0.118% (standard error [SE] 0.0259%, p < 0.001) and 0.108% (SE 0

240 rapid cognitive decline (estimate = -0.042, standard error [SE] = 0.012, p < 0.001), and after contr

241 ween the MS PRS and global FA (beta = 0.098, standard error [SE] = 0.030, p = 1.08 x 10(-3) ).

242 -lateralized in both FTLD-TDP (beta = -0.15, standard error [SE] = 0.05, p = 0.007) and FTLD-Tau (bet

243 the rs173539 locus (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25, standard error [SE] = 0.06, p = 6.0 x 10(-4) ) with no h

244 st for fluconazole by disk diffusion (0.902, standard error [SE] = 0.076) and Etest (1.00, SE = 0.218

245 % increases in Tregs were 0.101 x 106 IU/m2 (standard error [SE] = 0.078, 95% CI = -0.052, 0.254) and

246 : standardized factor loading [beta] = 0.30, standard error [SE] = 0.09, p < 0.001), and associations

247 is a person who injects drugs (PWID; 0.62%; standard error [SE] = 0.38%) exceeds 16,757 times the ri

248 gingival crevicular fluid hsCRP (-5.3 ng/mL, standard error [SE] = 2.4, p = .03) and IL-1beta (-20.1

249 /- 0.07 standard deviation scores [SDSs] +/- standard error [SE] versus 1.29 +/- 0.001, P = 0.03), be

250 Least squares mean (standard error [SE]) changes from baseline were 12.3 (SE

251 145]), the least squares (LS) mean changes (standard error [SE]) in ACQ-5 and SGRQ total scores were

252 aluable for growth, the rate was 0.43 mm/yr (standard error [SE], +/-0.03 mm/year).

253 Of 92 089 (standard error [SE], 1905) patients with S. aureus bacte

254 cant reduction in decisional conflict, 21.8 (standard error [SE], 2.5) versus 12.7 (SE, 2.0; p = 0.00

255 104 (n = 66), mean VA letter score was 73.5 (standard error [SE], 2.8), 73.1 (SE, 3.4), 65.3 (SE, 3.5

256 ulative probabilities of failure were 31.3% (standard error [SE], 4.0%) (AGV) and 32.3% (4.2%) (BGI)

257 ociated with longer life expectancy of 0.78 (standard error [SE]: 0.05), 0.55 (SE: 0.06), and 1.03 (S

258 ity in the PDT group increased from 21.7 dB (standard error [SE]: 0.9) to 23.4 dB (SE: 0.8) at evalua

259 and diastolic HBP were associated with 5.07 (standard error [SE]: 1.48) and 3.92 (SE: 2.14) g/m(2) hi

260 was low: any antiplatelet therapy in 35.7% (standard error [SE]: 2.7%), statin in 33.1% (SE: 2.4%),

261 with a cumulative 5-year incidence of 22.8% (standard error [SE]: 7.1%) and 8.8% (SE: 3.8%), respecti

262 tracted or estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and standard errors (SEs) for survival from trial reports an

263 were used to estimate adjusted growth rates, standard errors (SEs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs

264 lized estimating equation models with robust standard errors showed associations for ICE-income and I

265 o deshrink both the estimated effect and the standard error so that the Wald test of ORR is brought b

266 regression models for panel data with robust standard errors tested time-dependent associations betwe

267 st-squares (OLS) regression using Newey-West standard errors to accommodate for serial autocorrelatio

268 ations using regression modeling with robust standard errors to account for clustering at the family

269 plied to pool comparable estimates and their standard errors to evaluate the overall effects and hete

270 s, and equated to a loss of 8.2 +/- 4.2 (one standard error) tonnes of carbon per hectare per year fr

271 The corrected mean (standard error) total costs in 2012 and 2013 were $30462

272 nthly monitoring) per patient, respectively (standard error = US$3.7).

273 ted at 0.96 from RapidMiner and the residual standard error value obtained from ACD/ChromGenius was 5

274 The 3-year PFS and overall survival and standard error values were 87.8% +/- 4.04% and 92.4% +/-

275 it, furthermore, root mean squared error and standard error values were obtained 0.46 and 0.22 respec

276 alone (area under the curve, 0.97 +/- 0.02 [standard error] vs 0.93 +/- 0.03; P < .006 and .021, res

277 e untreated BCCAO rats (mean, 94.5% +/- 2.3 [standard error] vs 86.6% +/- 1.0; P < .05).

278 Among 316,840 participants, the mean age +/- standard error was 46.9 +/- 0.1 years, 52% were women, 7

279 Regression analysis with robust standard error was used to assess the potential associat

280 Multiple logistic regression using robust standard errors was used to compute the odds ratios of e

281 Poisson regression with cluster robust standard errors was used to determine characteristics as

282 Multivariate Poisson regression with robust standard errors was used to estimate risk ratios.

283 Poisson regression with robust standard errors was used to estimate the association bet

284 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (+/- standard error) was 10.8 +/- 0.7% in the dexamethasone a

285 iurnal IOP at week 6 (least squares mean +/- standard error) was 17.6 +/- 0.4 mm Hg and 20.7 +/- 0.4

286 The ISI (mean+/-standard error) was lower for recipients achieving insul

287 In the real-data examples, the Newey standard errors were 0.5% and 2% larger than the unadjus

288 led for child- and county-level factors, and standard errors were clustered at the state level.

289 Bootstrapped standard errors were computed to account for uncertainty

290 compare various devices, despite which large standard errors were found for both intercepts and slope

291 Poisson regression models with robust standard errors were used to estimate adjusted prevalenc

292 log link, Poisson distributions, and robust standard errors were used to estimate adjusted risk rati

293 riable log-Poisson regression with empirical standard errors were used to estimate the continuous and

294 ated with higher SI concurrently; estimates (standard error) were 0.18 (0.02, p < 0.0001), 0.64 (0.02

295 f carbon per square metre per year; mean +/- standard error) were driven by thermokarst erosion and d

296 ed lower levels of subsequent SI; estimates (standard errors) were -0.08 (0.03, p = 0.023), -0.50 (0.

297 ckground-subtracted SO2 (mean, 5.4% +/- 3.5 [standard error]) when compared with lymph nodes without

298 provided by existing methods may have large standard errors, which calls for the development of reli

299 egy achieves a considerable reduction in the standard error while reserving the accuracy.

300 ates produced by GCTA will be biased and the standard errors will likely be inaccurate.