ライフサイエンスコーパス: univariate analysis

1 [31 of 73] vs 57.8% [52 of 90]; P = .053 by univariate analysis).

2 hat were significant at the 0.2 level in the univariate analysis.

3 herapy interventions that was not evident by univariate analysis.

4 different between both outcome groups in the univariate analysis.

5 their impact on biomarkers was identified by univariate analysis.

6 were predictors of successful downstaging on univariate analysis.

7 ssociated with a lower CMV infection rate on univariate analysis.

8 cally significant variables as determined by univariate analysis.

9 eatures predicted unfavourable survival in a univariate analysis.

10 Student t and chi tests were used for univariate analysis.

11 pervised learning method and by conventional univariate analysis.

12 performed by using parameters with P < .2 in univariate analysis.

13 were associated with fistula formation in a univariate analysis.

14 results predicted postoperative delirium on univariate analysis.

15 s with ESRD (73.9% versus 71.8%, P<0.001) on univariate analysis.

16 were associated with higher ABSITE scores on univariate analysis.

17 ) were associated with excellent outcomes in univariate analysis.

18 ginal multivariate phenotypic traits for the univariate analysis.

19 nization were significant predictors only by univariate analysis.

20 icantly associated with future events in the univariate analysis.

21 HR of CD49d for OS was 2.5 (2.3 for TFS) in univariate analysis.

22 associated with different LSF categories at univariate analysis.

23 sociated with longer hospitalization only on univariate analysis.

24 associated with reduced graft survival in a univariate analysis.

25 score is associated with shorter survival in univariate analysis.

26 roups of patients were compared using paired univariate analysis.

27 of postoperative double AC formation in the univariate analysis.

28 line predictors of more rapid progression on univariate analysis.

29 f biomarkers, and was in accordance with the univariate analysis.

30 hed a significance level of less than .05 in univariate analysis.

31 factors independently associated with CR by univariate analysis.

32 was associated with a low mortality rate on univariate analysis (0.7% vs 1.2%, P = 0.05), a shorter

33 ession model, the 2 covariates identified on univariate analysis (1 geometric and 1 stress) were foun

34 ars did not differ between the groups in the univariate analysis (31.2% [95% CI 26.8-35.5] with intra

35 roved survival to hospital discharge on both univariate analysis (52% vs 33%, p = 0.054) and after co

36 Of 2,781 CF patients, 2,100 were used for univariate analysis, 764 for Kaplan-Meier survival funct

37 ositive or HER2-positive disease, however on univariate analysis a high RUNX1 protein was significant

38 In univariate analysis, age >60 years, radiation dose, bila

39 In univariate analysis, age, Acute Physiology and Chronic H

40 On univariate analysis, all PET parameters, including numbe

41 In development, a third of models used univariate analysis alone to identify statistically sign

42 At univariate analysis, an anterior parietal adhesion, a fe

43 Univariate analysis and binary logistic regression analy

44 Afterwards, univariate analysis and clinical associations were condu

45 differences between groups were assessed by univariate analysis and confirmed using a multivariate m

46 We used univariate analysis and Cox proportional hazards models

47 ultivariate model, factors with p < 0.200 on univariate analysis and factors derived from the previou

48 Univariate analysis and LEfSE showed a lower abundance o

49 We then did univariate analysis and multivariate analysis to investi

50 Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were used

51 , MetS, and periodontitis was tested through univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression

52 Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression

53 he influence of risk variables was tested by univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression

54 Outcomes were compared in these cohorts via univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression

55 PCR approached significance at univariate analysis and was not significant at multivari

56 d complete data on all factors identified in univariate analysis and were included in multivariate an

57 antly associated with both PFS and OS in the univariate analysis and were still statistically signifi

58 endence between the risk factors (P < 0.2 in univariate analysis) and SCH.

59 portance in projection) and the results of a univariate analysis (ANOVA), allowed the identification

60 On univariate analysis, ascites (P = .02), liver disease (P

61 Initial univariate analysis assessed potential associations betw

62 On univariate analysis at 5 years, a lower CCECD was associ

63 In univariate analysis, being married (OR = 1.57, 95%CI = 1

64 At univariate analysis, BMI (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confiden

65 On univariate analysis body mass index (r = 0.40, P = .005)

66 On the basis of univariate analysis, body mass index, liver iron deposit

67 By univariate analysis, both PLN and LNR were significantly

68 On univariate analysis, bulky disease (>10 cm), extranodal

69 OP requiring treatment after keratoplasty in univariate analysis but not in multivariate analysis.

70 Baseline HOMA-IR was associated with SVR in univariate analysis, but not after adjustment for other

71 R = 1.66 [95% CI: 1.05-2.61]; p = 0.0291) at univariate analysis, but not at the multivariate analysi

72 greater odds of showing advanced glaucoma in univariate analysis, but not in multivariate analyses.

73 ) correlated with better seizure outcomes on univariate analysis, but only epilepsy duration remained

74 correlated with higher clinical LE rates on univariate analysis, but only excising more than 22 lymp

75 ne use was negatively associated with SVR in univariate analysis, but this association was not signif

76 = 1.72; 95% CI 1.28-2.32; p < 0.001) in the univariate analysis, but with no significance in the mul

77 In univariate analysis, cases and controls were significant

78 By univariate analysis, cervical dystonia patients, compare

79 On univariate analysis, clearance <1.0 or <1.5 mm, pT stage

80 In univariate analysis, clustering was significantly associ

81 Univariate analysis compared outcomes overall and at ind

82 Univariate analysis compared patient and operative chara

83 horter in the transcutaneous biopsy group on univariate analysis compared to the other groups; howeve

84 In univariate analysis, compared to controlled HT, the RH g

85 Univariate analysis confirmed incomplete adaptive coding

86 By univariate analysis, cotrimoxazole and antiretroviral th

87 Univariate analysis demonstrated a survival benefit for

88 Univariate analysis demonstrated differences between con

89 Univariate analysis demonstrated differences in QRS axis

90 Univariate analysis demonstrated that eyes with TTF at p

91 A brain-wide mass univariate analysis demonstrated the significant correla

92 ighty-one HTx recipients were included, with univariate analysis demonstrating peak hazards of mortal

93 Univariate analysis did not show a statistically signifi

94 In contrast, univariate analysis did not show changes of activation i

95 In univariate analysis donor type (mother) and GVHD prophyl

96 Results In univariate analysis, duodenal invasion and/or EPNI on pr

97 On univariate analysis, early recurrence was associated wit

98 On univariate analysis elevated serum bilirubin (p = 0.046)

99 In univariate analysis, elevated MTV and TLG were significa

100 At univariate analysis, exercise ejection fraction, exercis

101 In univariate analysis, EZ "normalized" reflectivity was fo

102 In univariate analysis, FibroScan values were slightly corr

103 RSI analysis was conducted using a univariate analysis, fitting unique plastic bands to the

104 can predict poor cancer specific survival on univariate analysis for locally advanced and metastatic

105 On univariate analysis for NHL, radiotherapy predicted infe

106 nomic, and clinical factors were analyzed by univariate analysis for their association with 30-day mo

107 ses compared with patients without CP in the univariate analysis for untreated patients (hazard ratio

108 For all biopsies, univariate analysis found that failure was strongly asso

109 At univariate analysis, FTV2 and RCB class had the stronges

110 At univariate analysis, FTV2, FTV4, and DeltaFTV4 had signi

111 In univariate analysis, group 1 isolates were more likely t

112 On univariate analysis, habitual fruit intake was lower in

113 In univariate analysis, having stage 5 ROP (vs. stage 4 ROP

114 as not significantly associated with tSCC in univariate analysis (hazard ratio = 1.48; 95% CI, .95-2.

115 val in univariable and multivariable models (univariate analysis, hazard ratio [HR] for a one-fold in

116 ith an increased significant LVEF drop risk (univariate analysis: hazard ratio, 4.52; P < .001 and ha

117 owed a 58% reduction in risk of death in Cox univariate analysis (hazards ratio-HR = 0.42 confidence

118 for all variables showing the association in univariate analysis, HCM itself remained a robust predic

119 In the univariate analysis, HGAIN was associated with CT, UU, M

120 On univariate analysis, high TRG and lymph node metastases

121 In univariate analysis, higher AF genetic susceptibility tr

122 In a univariate analysis, higher age (p = 0.0018), male gende

123 In univariate analysis, history of hepatic encephalopathy (

124 r rates of seizure recurrence (p = 0.004) in univariate analysis; however, its predictive value did n

125 Univariate analysis identified 3 statistically significa

126 Univariate analysis identified a history of dyslipidaemi

127 Univariate analysis identified age (odds ratio [OR], 1.0

128 Univariate analysis identified age, International Stagin

129 Univariate analysis identified as risk factors: electrop

130 Univariate analysis identified factors associated with I

131 Univariate analysis identified female donor to male reci

132 Univariate analysis identified higher ISCM size (p=0.024

133 Univariate analysis identified history of eye disease or

134 Univariate analysis identified pre-extracorporeal membra

135 Univariate analysis identified preoperative factors asso

136 Univariate analysis identified serum bilirubin, alkaline

137 In univariate analysis impaired pulmonary function was sign

138 st and powerful alternatives to the standard univariate analysis in genome-wide association studies.

139 Univariate analysis including Mann-Whitney U test and Sp

140 On univariate analysis increasing age at enrolment, previou

141 On univariate analysis, increasing left atrial access time

142 On univariate analysis, increasing PP quartile was associat

143 Univariate analysis indicated viral load at admission, a

144 Univariate analysis indicates that both abiotic and biot

145 associated with different LSF categories at univariate analysis; infiltrative morphologic structure,

146 At univariate analysis, %LAA-950insp and %LAA-910exp values

147 In univariate analysis, late TBN (P = 0.017) and acid inges

148 At univariate analysis, leakage was more common in patients

149 r risk of distant metastases at follow-up in univariate analysis (Log-rank P = 0.0084) but not in mul

150 Application of a univariate analysis (log-rank) and a multivariate Cox pr

151 In univariate analysis, log-creatinine, sex, age, race, and

152 On univariate analysis, lower vitamin D was associated with

153 In univariate analysis, male sex, previous endocarditis, in

154 In univariate analysis, maternal factors associated with NA

155 At univariate analysis, mean pixel intensity with spatial s

156 In univariate analysis, means of parameters like total leuc

157 = 0.07), patients with PNI had worse DFS at univariate analysis (median DFS: 20 vs 15 months, P < 0.

158 On univariate analysis, men with adverse pathology at radic

159 tide polymorphisms (SNPs) individually using univariate analysis methods.

160 In univariate analysis, mobile follow-up was equally cost-e

161 After univariate analysis, multivariate logistic and linear re

162 After univariate analysis, multivariate population-averaged li

163 By univariate analysis, neither increasing maximum carbopla

164 In univariate analysis, neither the changes in the size nor

165 In the univariate analysis, neonates given O-SH-GA in the TV gr

166 In univariate analysis, no patient or tumor feature was ass

167 In univariate analysis, none of the clinical variables, 2 P

168 In univariate analysis, none of the clinical variables, 2 P

169 s significantly associated with mortality in univariate analysis (odds ratio = 1.08 per mmol/L glucos

170 nificantly associated with mortality both in univariate analysis (odds ratio = 1.09 per 0.1 stress hy

171 associated with noninfectious uveitis in the univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.42-4.51

172 isk (odds ratio) > 1.2 and p </= 0.25 in the univariate analysis of all participants.

173 Univariate analysis of factors associated with the ICU p

174 A univariate analysis of HP prognostic biomarkers revealed

175 A univariate analysis of male and female carriers of the T

176 However, a stratified univariate analysis of MSS for different thickness subgr

177 The univariate analysis of OCT parameters demonstrated signi

178 After conducting univariate analysis of risk factors, statistically signi

179 Univariate analysis of severe POM and multiple secondary

180 Univariate analysis of this 107 DEP gene signature in pr

181 Univariate analysis of uncontrolled DCD-specific risk fa

182 Univariate analysis of unique individuals comparing all

183 In univariate analysis of unpaired images, color images wer

184 ong animal- and plant-based samples, one-way univariate analysis of variance followed by pair-wise co

185 On univariate analysis, older age, female sex, postgraduate

186 In a univariate analysis, older age, higher pre-procedure pai

187 (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04-2.24; P = 0.0297) on univariate analysis only.

188 CI, 0.28-0.71; p = 0.0007 and interleukin-6 univariate analysis only: odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36

189 en compared with premenopausal status in the univariate analysis (OR = 1.314, P = 0.043), and such re

190 with susceptibility to secondary DHF in the univariate analysis (OR = 1.60, 95% CI, 1.05-2.46), wher

191 ery were significant predictors of events in univariate analysis (P < .001 for all).

192 and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire at univariate analysis (P < .001 for each).

193 ively, and the difference was significant in univariate analysis (P = .004) and in multivariate analy

194 ted with more perioperative complications on univariate analysis (P = .05), but multivariate regressi

195 ted with poor disease free survival (DFS) in univariate analysis (p = 0.056).

196 FR-1 (chi(2)=45.5) were highly predictive in univariate analysis (P<0.0001) and in multivariable anal

197 of systemic disease, was also significant on univariate analysis (P=.05).

198 was found to be statistically significant on univariate analysis (P=0.034), with white patients havin

199 In a univariate analysis, pancreatic cysts were more prevalen

200 Compared to univariate analysis, partial least squares improves typi

201 In univariate analysis, patients in the high PaO2 group had

202 In univariate analysis, patients with reactivation were mor

203 n differences in levels of activation (i.e., univariate analysis), patterns of activity (i.e., multiv

204 On univariate analysis, pre-HCT AIC, mismatched donor, alem

205 At univariate analysis, predictors of shorter LTPFS were tu

206 At univariate analysis, predictors of shorter OS were tumor

207 According to univariate analysis, predictors of survival in AL amyloi

208 On univariate analysis, presentation age, foveal retinoblas

209 In univariate analysis, prior suboptimal response or TKI re

210 In univariate analysis, rate of recurrence was reduced when

211 < .001) and those with BRCA wild-type HGSOC (univariate analysis: reader 1, HR = 2.42, P < .001; read

212 On univariate analysis, receipt of HAI-FUDR (floxuridine) w

213 On univariate analysis recipient age, sex, model for end st

214 However, in univariate analysis, recipients receiving grafts from se

215 Univariate analysis revealed age and race as significant

216 Univariate analysis revealed robust category-selective r

217 Univariate analysis revealed shorter hospital stay (11 +

218 The univariate analysis revealed significant correlations be

219 Univariate analysis revealed significant MS peaks in the

220 A univariate analysis revealed that age <40 years (n = 89;

221 Univariate analysis revealed that increased VCDR (P = 0.

222 Univariate analysis revealed that TLR 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9

223 Univariate analysis revealed the following risk factors

224 Univariate analysis revealed the mechanism not to be ass

225 ivariate adjustment compared to studies with univariate analysis (RR 2.15 [1.27-3.64] vs. 1.15 [0.88-

226 of intention in both univariate and adjusted univariate analysis (salience/coherence beta = 0.59, 95%

227 In univariate analysis, SDMA was significantly associated w

228 In patients with pancreatic cancer, univariate analysis showed a negative impact on one-year

229 Univariate analysis showed an increased risk of both car

230 Univariate analysis showed diabetes mellitus (P = .00002

231 205 listings (27 393 pre-PAS; 24 439 T2DM), univariate analysis showed reduced percentages for SPK p

232 Univariate analysis showed statistically significant inc

233 Univariate analysis showed strong association of absolut

234 Univariate analysis showed that [TIMP-2][IGFBP7]>2.0 was

235 Univariate analysis showed that age at transplantation;

236 Univariate analysis showed that fractionated total body

237 Univariate analysis showed that higher ART grades were s

238 Univariate analysis showed that male sex, Caucasian race

239 In the TIME trial, univariate analysis showed that MIE reduced pulmonary co

240 Univariate analysis showed that patients with </= mild p

241 Univariate analysis showed that reward associations modu

242 Univariate analysis shows that statistically significant

243 On the basis of the results of univariate analysis, significant predictors of diverticu

244 Univariate analysis suggested history of substance abuse

245 Univariate analysis suggested these children tended to b

246 On univariate analysis, the 72% cutoff for DeltaSUV1-3 was

247 In univariate analysis, the baseline factors that were sign

248 In our primary univariate analysis, the continuous recurrence score (me

249 On univariate analysis, the factors age, WHO grade, O6-meth

250 In univariate analysis, the hazard ratio for VT recurrence

251 For the univariate analysis, the hazard ratios associated with e

252 s predictors of PFS and OS by using log-rank univariate analysis, the multivariate Cox proportional h

253 On univariate analysis, the need for mechanical ventilation

254 Conclusions In univariate analysis, the number of coronary arteries dis

255 On univariate analysis, the parameters associated with HCC

256 On univariate analysis, the rate of endophthalmitis was not

257 In univariate analysis, the recurrence risk declined with h

258 In univariate analysis, the starting dose of capecitabine (

259 In the univariate analysis, the sunitinib group had longer over

260 Based on univariate analysis, there was less primary nonadherence

261 In univariate analysis, there was no difference in rim area

262 On univariate analysis, there were no tumor or dosimetric t

263 We used univariate analysis to identify factors associated with

264 PEEP did not have a large enough effect in univariate analysis to warrant inclusion in the multivar

265 At univariate analysis, tumor size, minimal margin size, an

266 In univariate analysis, UMI and RMI were strongly associate

267 mine, two methodologies have been developed; univariate analysis using CN emission band and multivari

268 Prognostic factors were assessed by univariate analysis using Cox regression model.

269 chnique (P = 0.008) were risk factors in the univariate analysis using Cox regression models, whereas

270 ensitivity troponin-T predicted mortality in univariate analysis (Wald = 8.4; p = 0.004), but not whe

271 tive incidence of grade III-IV acute GVHD on univariate analysis was 8%, 12%, and 17% in the haploide

272 In addition, univariate analysis was conducted to predict reduction o

273 OS, and relapse-free survival (RFS) seen in univariate analysis was even greater in the multivariate

274 Univariate analysis was performed between the 2 groups o

275 Univariate analysis was performed by using chi(2) tests.

276 Univariate analysis was performed to compare pseudophaki

277 Univariate analysis was performed using log-rank time-to

278 significant prognostic factors identified by univariate analysis was performed using step-up and step

279 Univariate analysis was performed with chi(2), Fisher ex

280 Univariate analysis was undertaken based on age, vaccina

281 Univariate analysis was undertaken, comparing risk facto

282 Univariate analysis was used to compare baseline charact

283 Univariate analysis was used to determine the associatio

284 Univariate analysis was used to identify covariates for

285 orresponding 1-year rates of chronic GVHD on univariate analysis were 13%, 51%, and 33%, respectively

286 nificant overall survival prognosticators on univariate analysis were albumin, bilirubin, ascites, tu

287 Oral factors associated with death in the univariate analysis were decreased frequency of dental v

288 iables reaching the statistical threshold in univariate analysis were entered into a multivariable Co

289 ning set, variables found significant in the univariate analysis were fed into a multivariate regress

290 ning set, variables found significant in the univariate analysis were fed into a multivariate regress

291 ssion, covariates with a P value < 0.20 from univariate analysis were included in multivariate models

292 Variables found to be important in univariate analysis were multivariate model candidates.

293 se (regression coefficient: 0.7; P = .04) on univariate analysis, whereas age (<70 years old) was the

294 f values were found for SUVmax or SUVmean at univariate analysis, whereas MTV60 was confirmed as an i

295 icting melanoma specific survival (MSS) in a univariate analysis, which was also consistent with AJCC

296 On univariate analysis, White children had higher mortality

297 ous coronary intervention were associated in univariate analysis with occurrence of heart failure.

298 Univariate analysis (with results reported as effect on

299 On univariate analysis, young age, no statin use, history o

300 In the univariate analysis, younger age, higher levels of gamma