ライフサイエンスコーパス: ANCOVA

1 ANCOVA and logistic regression were used to explore base

2 ANCOVA indicated no significant mean +/- SE increase in

3 ANCOVA indicated significant differences between the gro

4 ANCOVA performed on the fraction of infarction (infarct

5 ANCOVA showed no effect of the HP or HNP diet (P > 0.05

6 ANCOVA was applied to gauge how well the total tumor vol

7 ANCOVA was conducted with sex and APOE as independent va

8 ANCOVA was used to adjust for confounders.

9 ANCOVA was used to examine the effect of categorized alc

10 ANCOVA was used to examine the effect of sustained virol

11 ANCOVA-determined associations between quintiles of vita

12 ed associated with brain atrophy (P<or=.001, ANCOVA).

13 I animals co-varied significantly (P < 0.03, ANCOVA) with the amplitude of heat hyperalgesia determin

14 is recognition task were tested with a 2 x 2 ANCOVA factorial design (+FH/-FH and +APOE4/-APOE4).

15 faces were tested further in separate 2 x 2 ANCOVAs.

16 ed after clinical characteristic adjustment (ANCOVA F value=1.1, P=.35).

17 wn latent groups and p = 1.02 x 10(-4) in an ANCOVA with an adjustment for hidden substructures).

18 With the use of an ANCOVA, in which baseline 25(OH)D was accounted for, vit

19 dpoint on the BRIEF-A were analyzed using an ANCOVA model (terms: baseline score, treatment, and inve

20 and healthy subjects were assessed using an ANCOVA model.

21 s efficacy parameters were analysed using an ANCOVA model; binary outcomes were analysed using a logi

22 Analysis was by intention to treat, with an ANCOVA model adjusted for site, age, sex, and baseline s

23 We tested our MRI hypotheses with an ANCOVA model that included intracranial volume and facto

24 alyzed with random-effects meta-analyses and ANCOVA.

25 Cox regression and ANCOVA were used for the analyses.

26 MT were analyzed by using Cox regression and ANCOVA, respectively.

27 nd analysis of variance or covariance (ANOVA/ANCOVA) are among the choices of algorithms for differen

28 udy by partial least squares (PLS) and apply ANCOVA technique with the PLS-identified signatures of t

29 change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24 by ANCOVA in the full analysis set.

30 en treatment groups in PROs were analysed by ANCOVA among patients with baseline and at least one oth

31 and at the 4-y examinations were analyzed by ANCOVA.

32 ment on inflammatory markers was assessed by ANCOVA after adjustment for presenting syndrome, country

33 g in multiple brain regions were compared by ANCOVA, adjusted for age.

34 tion for estimated leg oxygen consumption by ANCOVA.

35 The primary efficacy analysis was done by ANCOVA, with treatment, age group, and pooled centre as

36 e treatment effect of BM-MNC as estimated by ANCOVA was 1.25 (95% confidence interval, -1.83 to 4.32;

37 er 12 weeks; P:=0.02 between the 2 groups by ANCOVA).

38 patients than in the comparison subjects by ANCOVA.

39 =0.0001 at 4 weeks and p=0.007 at 8 weeks by ANCOVA for overall treatment effect, adjusted for baseli

40 t population with an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group.

41 A One-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to evaluate the mean difference in

42 Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to determine if clinician-estimated age

43 ysis of variance and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were employed.

44 ariance (ANOVA), and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to assess within and between treatment

45 ontrol brains, using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with age as covariate.

46 1.56 x 10(-4) in an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with an adjustment for unknown latent groups and

47 ow that, in general, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) yields greater power than other statistical meth

48 five-level, one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), followed by post hoc t tests within regions dis

49 cts were compared by analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).

50 reduction [P<0.0001, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)] in residual tumor volume [0.26; 95% confidence

51 nitive score or age [analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)F (2, 18) = 8.44, P = 0.003].

52 or change in the steepest corneal curvature (ANCOVA, P = 0.72).

53 The slopes were not significantly different (ANCOVA, F(4,142) = 0.21, P = 0.93).

54 y post hoc t tests within regions displaying ANCOVA group differences and correlation of such functio

55 mblyopic eye across all spatial frequencies (ANCOVA; P < 0.0001 for each peak).

56 +/-4.8 mm Hg, CI -2.2 to 17.0 mm Hg) groups (ANCOVA P=0.0015).

57 at days 28 and 42 between the study groups (ANCOVA, P > 0.05).

58 In 29 symmetrical individuals, ANCOVA and Bonferroni tests compared vertical dimensions

59 oups with respect to change in axial length (ANCOVA, P = 0.37) or change in the steepest corneal curv

60 A, 14.8% (9.6% to 20.1%); P=0.444 by matched ANCOVA adjusted for pretreatment tHcy.

61 Multivariate and repeated measures ANCOVA tested differences among phenotypes by genotype a

62 We used a mixed-model, repeated measures ANCOVA to assess differences in mean scores between grou

63 Repeated-measures ANCOVA and Superimposition by Translation and Rotation M

64 near regression models and repeated-measures ANCOVA models incorporating potential confounders, such

65 Data were analyzed using a mixed model ANCOVA with a between factor of treatment assignment, a

66 Repeated-measures mixed-models ANCOVA was used to compare Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS)

67 Multivariate analysis of covariance models (ANCOVA) was constructed in a stepwise fashion.

68 Data were analysed by use of ANCOVA models.

69 The use of ANCOVA, however, revealed a clear separation between the

70 in MG-ADL total score measured by worst-rank ANCOVA.

71 or outcome on the Action Research Arm Test (ANCOVA statistical P=0.77, and effect size partial eta2=

72 Chi-square tests, ANCOVA, and multiple regression analyses were conducted.

73 The ANCOVA suggested that both ADC and (18)F-FDG in the whol

74 The ANCOVA was repeated for different types of alcoholic bev

75 rmance, failing to reach significance in the ANCOVA analysis.

76 Therefore, ANCOVA should be used in preference to change score or p

77 No independent effect of imager type (ANCOVA F value=1.4, P=.24) or spin-echo method (P=.67, W

78 performance-based skills assessment (UPSA) (ANCOVA) to measure functionality, MADRS (MMRM) to assess

79 Mixed-effects models that used ANCOVA were generated to estimate weight-for-age z score

80 Analysis was per protocol and we used ANCOVA to analyse pharmacodynamic endpoint data.

81 Data were analyzed by using ANCOVA and mixed linear models with sex and baseline val

82 Analyses were primarily performed by using ANCOVA F tests and Tukey-Kramer-corrected pairwise compa

83 Groups were compared by using ANCOVA, adjusting for inflammation, baseline serum conce

84 an inhibitor of Na-K-2Cl cotransport, using ANCOVA with a 2 x 2 factorial study design.

85 Efficacy was evaluated using ANCOVA for the change from baseline to week 8 in the dig

86 n groups with voxel-based morphometry, using ANCOVA (covariates, age and gender; family-wise error co

87 rt Association class (P<0.001) (all P values ANCOVA, perhexiline versus placebo).

88 week 12 differed across the 4 arms by 1-way ANCOVA (P = 0.02); by pair-wise comparisons, only rhGH (

89 e tolerance test differed across arms (1-way ANCOVA P = 0.004), increasing in the rhGH arm relative t

90 Data were analyzed by 3-way ANCOVA with genotype, sex, and diet as the main factors.

91 s revealed abnormalities (five-level one-way ANCOVA, family-wise error correction p < .05): A) fronto

92 jects had greater microfluctuations (one-way ANCOVA, P < 0.001), and a small percentage of the total

93 n were not different between groups (one-way ANCOVA, P = 0.143).

94 ix or Neutral Protamine Hagedorn, NPH) while ANCOVAs compared haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) and weight