ライフサイエンスコーパス: t test

1 n the two systems (P value = 0.88; Student's t test).

2 s significantly increased (P = 0.037, paired t test).

3 0.13, WT: 0.65 +/- 0.10, P = 0.017, unpaired t test).

4 0.04, WT: 1.15 +/- 0.02, P = 0.033, unpaired t test).

5 ved from the mothers (P < 0.0001 by a paired t test).

6 .5%+/-4.0% and 83.2%+/-4.2%, both P < 0.001, t test).

7 .02, respectively, as determined by a paired t test).

8 ongoing cCR (P < 0.001, independent-samples t test).

9 esonance spectroscopy (R = 0.813, p < 0.001, t test).

10 between the two groups (p < 0.05, Student's t test).

11 3 versus 6.87 IU/mL, respectively (P < .001, t test).

12 tal lobe seen in controls (p < 0.001, paired t-test).

13 ement with a confidence level of 95% (paired t-test).

14 us: pons ratio compared to PDRBD- (P = 0.07, t-test).

15 nterpretation of group differences (unpaired t tests).

16 red with controls (p < 0.05 for each, paired t-tests).

17 e influence of BMI were evaluated via paired t test.

18 analysis was performed by using the Student t test.

19 aluated and assessed by using Student paired t test.

20 FICS were compared by means of paired-sample t test.

21 calculated and compared by using the paired t test.

22 icance of sex was assessed using the Student t test.

23 of variance, the Mann-Whitney U test, or the t test.

24 with Prism 7 software and student's unpaired t test.

25 subjects were compared by using the Student t test.

26 etabolite levels were compared using Welch's t test.

27 ignant renal lesions by using the two-sample t test.

28 ation group were tested via paired Student's t test.

29 uous variables were evaluated with a Student t test.

30 inal treatment response by using the Student t test.

31 ampling; P values were calculated by using a t test.

32 nction, and data were compared with a paired t test.

33 e was determined by using the paired Student t test.

34 Groups were compared using the Student t test.

35 was tested using a paired two-tailed Student t test.

36 ed between trials using a paired, two-tailed t test.

37 nificance was tested with a one-sided paired t test.

38 low using a signed-rank or two-tailed paired t test.

39 ificant targets were selected via two sample t-test.

40 on group-level parameters by performing HBI t-test.

41 stical analysis was performed using unpaired t-test.

42 alysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Student's t-test.

43 significant differences in term of Student's t-test.

44 KE during exercise were identified by using t tests.

45 arisons were made using McNemar's and paired t tests.

46 rug CPTs separately using paired, two-tailed t tests.

47 eatment suspension were assessed with paired t tests.

48 intervention study was evaluated by 2-sample t tests.

49 ble groups were determined by using unpaired t tests.

50 in young adulthood through the use of paired t tests.

51 were compared between visits by using paired t tests.

52 using Spearman correlation coefficients and t tests.

53 erences were evaluated using paired 2-tailed t tests.

54 ared between treatment groups using 2-sample t tests.

55 s who underwent GA and CS was evaluated with t tests.

56 els (95-25%) were compared using statistical t tests.

57 ion fields were compared with chi-square and t tests.

58 e compartments were assessed using two-sided t tests.

59 before and after the SEE program with paired t tests.

60 ion scheme were compared using matched-pairs t tests.

61 sts; continuous measures were compared using t-tests.

62 ch as principle component analysis (PCA) and t-tests.

63 es in sleep duration with Welch's two-sample t-tests.

64 of variance with post hoc two-tailed paired t-tests.

65 ion scheme were compared using matched-pairs t-tests.

66 for age and sex, were compared using matched t-tests.

67 nd between groups with Wilcoxon Rank Sum and t-tests.

68 als were calculated using independent sample t-tests.

69 Hutterite children (P < .0001, nonparametric t test), a difference that remained even after accountin

70 t tests, analysis of variance and receiver operating cha

71 The unpaired t test and chi(2) analysis were used to determine signif

72 about mental health between groups using the t test and chi-squared analyses.

73 Student t test and Cochran-Armitage trend test was used for anal

74 ne and month 12 were compared using a paired t test and correlated with Pearson analysis.

75 sociation of features with outcomes by using t test and Fisher exact test.

76 s in accuracy were assessed using two-sample t test and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test.

77 Statistical analysis included the paired t test and odds radio calculations.

78 Data were analyzed with the Student t test and Pearson correlation.

79 es analysis of variance with post hoc paired t test and Skillings-Mack test with post hoc Wilcoxon si

80 ermined and analyzed by using paired Student t test and Spearman correlation.

81 Chi-square test, independent t test and Spearman's rho correlation to assess the asso

82 The unequal variance t test and the F test were used to compare mean dose and

83 ed) was used to compare proportions, Student t test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare m

84 3D tractograms were analyzed by using paired t tests and analysis of variance.

85 Data were analyzed using t tests and ANOVA.

86 groups were compared via independent samples t tests and chi-square tests of factor scores, syndrome

87 Statistical tests included t tests and F tests with a type I error threshold (alpha

88 up changes were assessed with paired-samples t tests and multivariable regression models.

89 f outcomes was performed by using one-sample t tests and other exploratory statistics.

90 g and interpreting VFDs, including Student's t tests and rank-sum tests, as well as competing risk re

91 correlated with symptomatic status by using t tests and the Fisher exact test.ResultsA total of 44 p

92 echnical features that incumbent tests (e.g. t-test and linear regression) do not consider, which can

93 statistical analysis methods, including the t-test and partial least squares discriminant analysis.

94 e by employing unpaired two-tailed Student's t-test and the p-value of < 0.05 was deemed as statistic

95 Wilcoxon rank sum tests, student's t-tests and (multivariate) linear regression models were

96 Two-sided t-tests and regression analysis were performed to compar

97 pared between healthy and glaucomatous eyes (t-test) and between glaucomatous eyes with early, modera

98 orientation dispersion (P < 0.001 by paired t-test) and lower fractional anisotropy (P < 0.001 by re

99 the intervention study (q = 0.004, Student's t-test) and the cross-sectional study (q = 0.033, linear

100 ter and was significant at 3 years (P = .04; t test), and significantly fewer patients developed chro

101 assessed by the Pearson correlation, paired t test, and Bland-Altman (bias) analyses.

102 tinuous variables were compared with Student t test, and categorical variables were compared with the

103 ; differences were analyzed using chi2 test, t test, and Cochran-Armitage test for time trends.

104 The Wilcoxon signed rank test, paired t test, and Friedman analysis of variance were conducted

105 performed with the chi(2) test, the Student t test, and logistic regression.

106 al methods used were Cox regression, Student t test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

107 differences between M1 and M2 determined by t test, and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to

108 The mean values were compared using a single t test, and the medians were compared by the nonparametr

109 Z scores were compared with paired two-sided t tests, and distributions were compared with effect siz

110 The chi2 test, paired t tests, and generalized linear mixed models were used t

111 ohen kappa coefficient, Mann-Whitney U test, t tests, and intraclass correlation) were performed, whe

112 tical testing included analysis of variance, t tests, and permutation tests.

113 Analyses were performed using Chi-square, t-test, and logistic regression.

114 ods including Fisher's Exact Test, Student's t-test, ANOVA, non-parametric tests, linear regression,

115 fidence level when results were evaluated by t-test application.

116 cteristics were compared using Chi-square or t tests, as appropriate, by veteran status and patient r

117 nalyzed using an unpaired two-sample Welch's t-test assuming unequal variance and Z test of compariso

118 value, and slope of enhancement in a paired t test at the 95% significance level.

119 nce method showed no significant difference (t-test at 95% confidence).

120 -imputation could significantly outperform a t-test-based decision method.

121 e were no significant differences (p > 0.05, t-test) between end-expiration and end-inspiration measu

122 patients were performed with paired Student t test, between groups with unpaired Student t test or M

123 Independent t tests, binary and multivariate analyses, chi(2) and od

124 Statistical testing completed using t test, Chi Square, and Cox Proportional Hazards regress

125 ined by using the Mann-Whitney test, Student t test, chi(2) test, and Pearson correlation coefficient

126 udied by using univariable analyses (Student t test, chi(2) test, or Fisher exact test, as appropriat

127 Statistical analysis was performed with the t test, chi(2) test, Pearson correlation coefficient, an

128 We used t tests, chi(2) tests, and Fisher's exact tests to compa

129 te the SEE program were tested with 2-sample t tests, chi-square tests, and Fisher exact tests.

130 A between group t test comparison at Period 1 (Time 1 - Time 2), demonst

131 ects of FA were evaluated by 2-tailed paired t test comparison of mean 5-minute preinjection and 5-mi

132 One-way analysis of variance, paired t tests, concordance and Bland-Altman tests, and Pearson

133 Student paired t-test confirmed a statistically significant difference

134 s among lesion groups were carried out using t test contrasts, and differences of each contrast level

135 t test, correlation analyses, and intraclass correlation

136 ison of means was performed by using Student t test, correlation was determined by using Pearson test

137 Statistical analysis included paired-sample t test, Cox proportional hazard models, Akaike informati

138 Independent samples t tests determined whether patient expectancy differed b

139 ently significant clones ranked with student t-test discriminating CF antigens from healthy controls

140 We then applied t-tests employing the estimated means and standard error

141 Paired-samples t tests evaluated quality of life changes.

142 nce was tested by means of a paired Students t-test evaluating a reduction in post-amphetamine [(11)C

143 Students t-test, Fischer exact test, and multivariable regression

144 sus steady state (days 70-182) used a paired t test for continuous endpoints or Kappa statistics for

145 i(2) test for categorical data and a Student t test for continuous variables, with a Fisher exact tes

146 cal significance was determined using paired t testing for longitudinal imaging and 2-way ANOVA for t

147 variables, and readmissions were compared by t tests for continuous variables and Fisher exact test f

148 curves for diagnostic performance and paired t tests for continuous variables.

149 IOP variations from baseline with a Student t-test for a paired sample.

150 are test for ordinal variables and Student's t-test for continuous variables.

151 y mass index for group comparison and paired t-test for FEP-Sibling pairs.

152 ween both groups were analysed using Student t-test for parametric data and Mann-Whitney U test for n

153 rapeutic agent, naproxen (24/30), passed the t-test for the control-normalized FRA, which included 8/

154 The regression t-test for weighted linear mixed-effects regression (LME

155 ts" in each comparison was obtained and then t-tested for statistical significance.

156 hepatitis group and the NALD group, we used t-tests for continuous or ordinal variables and chi-squa

157 istical analyses included Independent Sample t-tests for gene expression data, and supervised multi-v

158 d beta values for each CpG site were tested (t test) for differential methylation.

159 = 0.02 [analysis of variance] and P = 0.002 [t test] for NSAID vs. placebo groups; P = 0.02 for stero

160 Independent Student's t tests in all regions of interest were statistically si

161 re significantly lower (P < 0.001, Student's t test) in mice that consumed diets amended with remedia

162 We found significant (p < 0.05, Welch's t-test) increases in LT density within cardiomyocytes pr

163 Paired t-tests indicated a significant decrease of muscle displ

164 symptomatic than in asymptomatic (p < 0.001, t test) individuals with UCDs.

165 The modified t-test is derived based on asymptotic theory for hypothe

166 ared with the baseline score by using paired t tests (level of significance, P < .007).

167 Pearson chi(2), Student t test, logistic regression, and kappa statistics were a

168 Data were analyzed using the Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test.

169 re compared with ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, t-test, Mann-Whitney test and Bonferroni's adjustment of

170 specific effects comparing with conventional t-test method.

171 Toward this end, several moderated t-test methods have been developed to reduce this variab

172 er, upon undergoing HDX in the drift tube, a t test of means (alpha = 0.05) showed that discriminatio

173 (that could not stand or turn themselves), a t-test of proportions evaluated whether lift use during

174 ferences between both methods using a paired t-test of the results on a 95% confidence level.

175 circulating miRNAs was assessed using paired t-tests of baseline and post-training expression levels.

176 Paired analysis from Student t test on MRI parameters and clinical parameters was per

177 Student t tests, one-way analysis of variance, Pearson correlati

178 Descriptive statistics, t-tests, one-way analysis of variance, and Pearson or Sp

179 on diagnostic performance by using a Student t test or a one-way analysis of variance.

180 t test, between groups with unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test, and linear regression was

181 Results were compared with Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

182 The paired t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for pre- an

183 itative data were compared using the Student t test or Wilcoxon test.

184 her exact tests for categorical factors, and t tests or Kruskal-Wallis tests for continuous measures.

185 ompared between conditions using an unpaired t-test or ANOVA, as appropriate.

186 Student's t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test were used as appropr

187 pproached by either the one-sample Student's t-test or Wilcoxon signed rank test.

188 ansformed baseline TFV-DP was compared using t-tests or analyses of variance; generalized estimating

189 rson correlation coefficient (r), two-sample t test, or analysis of variance was used to assess univa

190 were analyzed by using analysis of variance, t test, or chi(2) test.

191 kers of ascites and PHLF using Fisher exact, t test, or Wilcoxon rank sum test for univariate and log

192 nce was significant in 5 of the 8 countries (t test p < 0.05).

193 of 16.9 mum and 22 mum, respectively (paired t-test p = 0.001 and 0.0003).

194 mean change 0.97 +/- 1.77; two-tailed paired t-test P = 0.003) and the CMTESv2-R (mean change 1.21 +/

195 mean change 2.24 +/- 3.09; two-tailed paired t-test P = 0.009) and over 2 years (mean change 4.00 +/-

196 mean change 1.21 +/- 2.52; two-tailed paired t-test P = 0.009) increase significantly with respective

197 mean change 4.00 +/- 3.79; two-tailed paired t-test P = 0.031) with respective standardized response

198 mean change 0.84 +/- 2.42; two-tailed paired t-test P = 0.039).

199 -free healthy controls (Bonferroni-corrected t-test P = 1.5 x 10-5 and 6.3 x 10-45, respectively).

200 ty of this finding (ANOVA P = 0.02; pairwise t-tests P = 0.03 and P = 0.003, respectively).

201 A chi(2) test, t test (P < .001 after Bonferroni correction indicated a

202 ficities were compared by using a two-tailed t test (P < .05) and sensitivities were compared by usin

203 pus decreased significantly using two-tailed t-test (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01 respectively) compared to

204 nificantly higher in cases than in controls (t test, P < .0001).

205 llosum) of participants with ALS (two-sample t test, P < .005; age and sex as covariates).

206 score (25.38 vs 17.24, respectively, paired t test, P < .01).

207 foreign-born versus 31.9% of US-born women (t test, P < .05).

208 born (27.3%) than for US-born (40.9%) women (t test, P < .05).

209 Significantly higher (t test, P < 0.01) EFs (mug kg(-1) dry fuel, gas + partic

210 whereas VB was lower (Mann-Whitney U test or t test, P = .003, P = .036, and P = .019, respectively).

211 ompared with the preoperative values (paired t test, P = .05 and P = .02, respectively).

212 difference of 0.31 +/- 0.55 mm(2) (2-tailed t test, P = .65).

213 ant difference between arms 1 and 2 (Student t test, P = 0.02).

214 two test sets (91.3% versus 83.8%; two-sided t-test, p < 0.001 and 96.5% versus 90.3%; p = 0.006) and

215 e difference between groups was significant (t-test, p = < 0.001).

216 n the primary open (- 1.90%) glaucoma group (t-test, p = < 0.001).

217 ients with TLE than controls (p<0.05, paired t-test), particularly to neocortical regions including i

218 were examined retrospectively using Student t test, Pearson chi(2) test, and logistic regression.

219 erived on a global and per-sector basis with t test performed for statistical significance.

220 ing characteristic curve, two-tailed Student t tests, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa value, Kapl

221 In particular, the PB-transformed t-test produces notably better results than the weighted

222 Two-sample t-tests, regression and mediation analyses were used to

223 t test results showed that, apart from soil enzyme activ

224 athway analyses show that the PB-transformed t-test reveals more biologically relevant findings in re

225 ession analysis by methods such as student's t-test, SAM, and Empirical Bayes often searches for stat

226 Paired t testing showed no significant differences between the

227 Post hoc t tests showed reduced fractional anisotropy in the left

228 ANOVA and post hoc t-test showed significant increases in velocity and flow

229 The t-test showed that CLas-infected D. citri were deficient

230 The paired sample t-test showed that there was no statistically significan

231 d 120 min after injection (P < 0.001, paired t test; signal-to-noise ratio at 60 min after injection,

232 plement activation pathways were enriched in t-test significant proteins and oxidative regulators, co

233 A two-tailed independent sample t test statistic was used to evaluate the relationship b

234 ke was correlated with the lesion site using t-test statistics.

235 reliability); sensitivity using independent t tests stratified by Karnofsky performance status; and

236 The chi(2) test, the t test, the Mann-Whitney test, and logistic regression m

237 We used Student's t test to assess the primary outcome for statistical sig

238 Statistical analysis included a 2-sample t test to compare continuous variables, chi-square testi

239 We used independent t tests to analyze the influence of prenatal 25(OH)D lev

240 We used paired t tests to assess whether HRs and SEs from published AD

241 We performed t tests to compare DeltaA and DeltaV, analysis of varian

242 ients with and without sICH using chi(2) and t tests to identify independent predictors of sICH with

243 We used t-tests to evaluate whether the differences between the

244 s conversion type (i.e. Z = |X 1 - X 2|) and t-test, to detect interactions in simulation and real-wo

245 MPTGA) method, and the conventional modified t-test, to study the virus-specific effects on mouse lun

246 variables, we conducted independent samples t-tests (two-tailed) on pre-post change scores.

247 istically significant differences (student's t-test, two-tailed unequal variance p-value < 0.05) betw

248 Specifically, we develop a pseudo t-test version of Relief-based algorithms for case-contr

249 stical test a researcher plans to use (e.g., t-test versus regression).

250 cohorts were measured using the independent t test, Wald chi(2), and binomial regression analysis.

251 were measured, and the corresponding sample t test was performed using SPSS (IBM SPSS version 22).

252 ured by using the Fisher exact test, and the t test was used for continuous variables.

253 Student t test was used for the comparison of the FDs.

254 determined for each patient, and the paired-t test was used to analyse the data.

255 The paired t test was used to assess significance of differences.

256 An unpaired, two-tailed Student t test was used to compare groups; Spearman correlation

257 A paired t test was used to determine significant differences bet

258 Student t test was used to evaluate sex differences in cRNFL thi

259 Student t test was used to test for differences in mean attenuat

260 The independent samples t-test was employed to evaluate the statistical differen

261 The paired sample t-test was used to assess the presence of fixed bias and

262 Student's t-test was used to compare average values and Fisher's e

263 The t-test was used to compare parenchymal densities and ren

264 A variance weighted t-test was used to identify differential expression.

265 Student's t-test was used to test significance of association betw

266 Mann-Whitney U test and independent Student t test were used for nonparametric and parametric data,

267 Two-way analysis of variance and Student t test were used for statistical analyses, with a signif

268 egression, Bland-Altman analysis, and paired t testing were performed.

269 Fisher exact, Pearson chi(2), and Student t tests were applied as indicated.

270 s that contribute to nonadherence and paired t tests were conducted for the preimplementation and pos

271 Two-tailed t tests were used and P values less than .05 were consid

272 Two-sided t tests were used for comparisons between treatment grou

273 chi(2) or two-sample t tests were used for group comparisons.ResultsA total o

274 Analysis of covariance and paired-sample t tests were used for statistical analysis to compare PE

275 Paired-samples and independent-samples t tests were used to analyze pre and post course changes

276 Two-sample t tests were used to analyze VA data.

277 Two-sample t tests were used to assess the difference in artifact s

278 Student t tests were used to compare the OCTA biomarkers between

279 Two-sided Welch t tests were used to evaluate mean differences between d

280 n-of-interest-based analysis, and one-sample t tests were used to examine if the SI ratio differences

281 Paired t tests were used to identify differences in outcome mea

282 Linear regression models and the t-test were employed to compare significant differences

283 Repeated measures ANCOVA and paired t-test were performed to assess changes in MMP and TIMP.

284 e these findings, paired two-sided student's t-tests were performed.

285 Paired t-tests were used for statistical analyses.

286 alysis, Bland-Altman plot, and paired sample t-tests were used to analyze the accuracy of the VFALBIA

287 Student t-tests were used to analyze those clinical parameters.

288 Fishers-exact and independent t-tests were used to compare HIV-1-infected individuals

289 honey was significantly increased (proved by t-test), whereas the honey seems to be affected signific

290 to 0.22 [SD 0.38] [P < .001, paired samples t test]), which was maintained at 1 year.

291 l analysis was performed by using one-tailed t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, one-way analysis of va

292 Analyses used 2-sided t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, Spearman correlation c

293 Data were analyzed using chi-square tests, t tests, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Spearman correlations,

294 itivities were compared by using a one-sided t test with a noninferiority margin of 5% (P < .05).

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

296 s in the CHAMPION trial were computed by the t test with equal variance.

297 s in ADC maturation ages were assessed using t tests with Bonferroni correction.

298 we performed responsiveness testing (paired t tests) with 75 patients with HF receiving intervention

299 d FRA provided 21/30 metabolites passing the t-test, with 5/21 undiscovered by control-normalized FRA

300 al analyses included the independent samples t test, x(2) test, Fisher exact test, and Cohen k.