ライフサイエンスコーパス: Mann-Whitney U test

1 elopment of nosocomial infections (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test).

2 .38, 4.7 letters) in the MTX arm (P = .0435, Mann-Whitney U test).

3 eplication remained asymptomatic (P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

4 nged in asthmatics than controls (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

5 nd bilateral dural sinus stenosis [p=0.837], Mann-Whitney U test).

6 e multimodal group (5 vs. 7 days; P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

7 ian decrease 3%, range -13-16%; P = 0.029 by Mann-Whitney U test).

8 omplicated malaria (P, >0.1 for all enzymes; Mann-Whitney U test).

9 group compared with the CMV group (p <.005; Mann-Whitney U test).

10 and reduced or absent p27 levels (P = 0.02, Mann-Whitney U test).

11 o 91 copies for 31 subjects without (P=0.02, Mann-Whitney U test).

12 .1% CI difference medians 1.9-4.7, p<0.0001. Mann-Whitney U test).

13 n=4) vesus controls (8.2+/-1.3, n=5, P<0.02, Mann-Whitney U test).

14 ly longer than that in group 2 (P<0.05 using Mann-Whitney U test).

15 ptor motif, gp130 (0.833 mg ml-1) (P < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test).

16 dopamine, respectively, p < .05 for both by Mann-Whitney U test).

17 ,256 vs. $11,234 + $12,146) costs (p < 0.01, Mann-Whitney U test).

18 nimals than in immunized animals (P = 0.014, Mann-Whitney U test).

19 istically significant difference (P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

20 between groups were significant (P = 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

21 minutes (SD, 18.5), respectively (P < 0.001; Mann-Whitney U test).

22 ces in activation volumes by tumor location (Mann-Whitney U test).

23 0.20 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.19-0.21 mg/L; P < .001; Mann-Whitney U test).

24 that of patients given the placebo (P = .02, Mann-Whitney U test).

25 re frequent in lesion tissue (all P < 0.005, Mann-Whitney U-test).

26 MSA subjects (0.9; 0.3-2.4 mU/l; P < 0.005, Mann-Whitney U-test).

27 ere 12.28 and 23.14, respectively (P < 0.01, Mann-Whitney U-test).

28 13] to 641 (IQR 507-694) (-31.5%, P = 0.001, Mann-Whitney U-test).

29 Statistical analysis was by ANOVA or Mann Whitney U test.

30 Differences in dose were assessed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

31 UCCA was compared between groups with the Mann-Whitney U test.

32 amyloidosis groups were compared by using a Mann-Whitney U test.

33 ing a Spearman correlation coefficient and a Mann-Whitney U test.

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

35 cancer and positive control groups using the Mann-Whitney U test.

36 uated using a two-tailed Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U test.

37 lesion sizes were compared with the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test.

38 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test.

39 ent between cancer and healthy groups by the Mann-Whitney U test.

40 ficant differences were determined using the Mann-Whitney U test.

41 ificance was computed by using the t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

42 Data were tested statistically by Mann-Whitney U test.

43 ared using the independent samples t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

44 m factors among groups were sought using the Mann-Whitney U test.

45 ltiple logistic regression analyses, and the Mann-Whitney U test.

46 ed semiquantitatively and analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

47 le nonparametric data were assessed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

48 tered treatment plans were assessed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

49 was evaluated with the independent t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

50 with that in control mice with a two-tailed Mann-Whitney U test.

51 d by chi2 test and continuous variables with Mann-Whitney U test.

52 mpared with those of normal subjects, by the Mann-Whitney U test.

53 (interquartile range) and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

54 neral phases of bone were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

55 frequency of motor seizures were done with a Mann-Whitney U test.

56 wise post hoc tests were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test.

57 m admission to CT were compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

58 etween responders and nonresponders with the Mann-Whitney U test.

59 ion analysis (Pearson's coefficient) and the Mann-Whitney U test.

60 pletely responding lesions were evaluated by Mann-Whitney U test.

61 control subjects were assessed by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

62 met inhibitor after RF ablation by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

63 exact test, two-sample unpaired t test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

64 was performed with paired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

65 tor expression included the median, IQR, and Mann-Whitney U test.

66 h cross tabulation, Pearson chi(2) test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

67 Relationships were assessed by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

68 tatistical difference was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

69 re assessed with the Wilcoxon signed rank or Mann-Whitney U test.

70 ps were tested using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test.

71 nerve (AC/C) strain ratio, analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

72 ed using two-sample t test and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test.

73 Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

74 s in the two groups were compared by using a Mann-Whitney U test.

75 ood-based markers was investigated using the Mann-Whitney U test.

76 to sets of unchanging control genes using a Mann-Whitney U-test.

77 chi(2) test and continuous variables by the Mann--Whitney U test.

78 nd carcinoma volumes were compared by use of Mann-Whitney U tests.

79 lysis was performed with the signed-rank and Mann-Whitney U tests.

80 scores in the two groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U tests.

81 analysis was performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.

82 to individual questions were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests.

83 ses included: 1) Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; 2) Mann-Whitney U test; 3) Pearson chi(2) test; 4) Kruskal-

84 ence test or the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test (alpha = 0.05).

85 Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (alpha = 0.05).

86 without an SSI, was tested using a nonpaired Mann-Whitney U test, an analysis of covariance, and a Pe

87 Mann Whitney U test analysis found the following changes

88 Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney U test, analysis of variance, and linear re

89 Univariate analysis was by Mann Whitney U Test and Multivariate analysis was by a s

90 Between-group differences were tested by Mann-Whitney U test and correlations by Spearman's rank.

91 Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher exact test were used to a

92 Group differences were assessed using Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test.

93 The Mann-Whitney U test and linear regression model were use

94 Statistical analysis was assessed by Mann-Whitney U test and Receiver operating characteristi

95 and nonresponders were compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristi

96 The Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlation were used t

97 Univariate analysis including Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's correlation was condu

98 Nonparametric statistics, including the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of v

99 signal intensity index were tested with the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis test.

100 after each agent were compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test and the McNemar test.

101 The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test and the paired-sample Wilcoxon signe

102 for the 2 patient groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U tests and effect likelihood-ratio test.

103 heir predictive value was investigated using Mann-Whitney U tests and receiver-operating-characterist

104 Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman correlation analysis.

105 d MAIT cells between health and asthma using Mann-Whitney U tests and the Jonckheere-Terpstra test (l

106 p compared with increases of 66% (P = 0.004, Mann-Whitney U test) and 21% (P = 0.07) for patients who

107 A comparative analysis between groups (Mann-Whitney U test) and a correlation analysis between

108 ion exposure (0.06 versus 0.34 mSv; P=0.037, Mann-Whitney U test) and lower median costs ($934 versus

109 results were larger (68 vs. 34 mm2; P=0.08, Mann-Whitney U test) and were more likely to have papill

110 sub-100 bp nuclear genomic cfDNA (p 10(-5), Mann-Whitney U Test), and an increased relative abundanc

111 harm and procedural flow disruption scores (Mann-Whitney U test), and number of preventable failures

112 analyses were performed by Student's t-test, Mann Whitney U test, and Pearson product moment test.

113 ith intraclass correlation coefficients, the Mann Whitney U test, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test.

114 Data were analysed using Pearson chi(2), the Mann-Whitney U test, and binary logistic regression.

115 Kruskal-Wallis H test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test were used to

116 The Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test were used to

117 For statistical analysis, Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Spearman's correlation coeffici

118 rank composite is typically analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test, and the results are summarized by t

119 al analysis, chi(2) test, Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Wilcoxon test were used.

120 ry cohorts using Wilcoxon signed rank tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Fisher exact tests.

121 Cohen's kappa statistic, regression models, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

122 stical analysis comprised paired t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, as well as Pearson r and Spearman

123 Data were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U test at P <0.05.

124 ndicated no significant difference (P >0.05, Mann-Whitney U test) between the S or F inserts in the a

125 ients (</=55 years) were compared by t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square, or Fisher's exact test.

126 cal analysis was performed with the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test, chi2 test, Wilcoxon matched-pairs s

127 A Mann-Whitney U test confirmed the proinflammatory respon

128 ts), (c) pairwise tests between tumor types (Mann-Whitney U test), (d) relationships between fast flu

129 compared by using unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test, depending on data distribution.

130 f clinical EAE (p = 0.0002 vs control by the Mann-Whitney U test) enough to completely prevent fatal

131 used to compare paired samples, such as the Mann-Whitney U test (equivalent to the Wilcoxon rank sum

132 een-group changes were investigated (ancova, Mann-Whitney U-test, Fisher exact test).

133 For statistic analyses Mann-Whitney U-test, Fisher's exact test and binary logi

134 coxon signed rank test for paired data and a Mann-Whitney U test for nonpaired data.

135 ruskal-Wallis test was used, followed by the Mann-Whitney U test for pairwise comparisons.

136 11-514 min] vs 30 min [5-90 min]; p<0.0001, Mann-Whitney U test); for each minute delay from onset o

137 roups were calculated by unpaired t test (or Mann-Whitney U test in nonparametric data).

138 there was a significant reduction (P <0.05, Mann-Whitney U test) in the amount of contamination for

139 Two-sided Mann-Whitney U test, independent samples t test, Fisher

140 y markers with QODD scores were tested using Mann-Whitney U tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, or Spearman'

141 atalase quantification.Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test and Cuzick's te

142 between groups was significant (P = 0.005 on Mann-Whitney U test; mean ranks 13.9 and 6.3 [of 21], fo

143 g for interobserver agreement, McNemar test, Mann-Whitney U test, multiple regression analysis, Spear

144 n adenocarcinoma (AC), whereas VB was lower (Mann-Whitney U test or t test, P = .003, P = .036, and P

145 The Mann-Whitney U test or the chi2 test was used for calcul

146 ysis was carried out using Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, or chi-square test (significance, p

147 were compared between both groups by t test, Mann-Whitney U test, or likelihood ratio chi-square test

148 were compared with analysis of variance, the Mann-Whitney U test, or the t test.

149 iated with Parkinson's disease age at onset (Mann-Whitney U test p=0.001).

150 2 +/- 35 versus 73 +/- 24 nmol L(-1) d(-1) , Mann-Whitney U-test p < 0.0001), and the South Atlantic

151 ue and 3 AM in Tokoli to 5 AM after 3 years (Mann-Whitney U test, P < .0001).

152 er than those reported in surgical journals (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001).

153 basic tasks demonstrated construct validity (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.05), and learning curves for

154 ntly greater in the BU than the BUmin group (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.05).

155 es than control variants (0.02 median score; Mann-Whitney U test, P < 1 x 10(-16)).

156 n = 4) than did group 2 (n = 96, median = 9, Mann-Whitney U test, p <.0001).

157 g infarct growth in the upper tertile range (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.04) but not in the middle ter

158 terquartile range: 30.5, 10.2 vs. 27.8, 8.8; Mann-Whitney U-test, P = 0.0006).

159 There were significant (Mann-Whitney U test; p < 0.02) decreases in total length

160 The day-10 (Mann-Whitney U test; P = .012) and day-14 (P = .025) neu

161 ficantly better than did the naive controls (Mann-Whitney U test; P = 0.038).

162 were analyzed using chi-square analysis and Mann-Whitney U-tests; P < 0.05 was used to define signif

163 Mann-Whitney U tests, receiver operating characteristic

164 were compared by using the paired t test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively.

165 Mann-Whitney U tests resulted in the following P values

166 Mann-Whitney U test revealed a statistically significant

167 Mann-Whitney U tests revealed that length of BE, size of

168 A Mann-Whitney U test showed that PGES was significantly l

169 Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA-on-ranks with post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests showed significant pairwise between

170 s of variance (ANOVA)-on-Ranks with post-hoc Mann-Whitney U-tests showed significant pairwise between

171 5, multiple regression analysis; P =.25-.75, Mann-Whitney U test; Spearman correlation coefficients b

172 categorical variables and the t test or the Mann-Whitney U test to compare continuous variables.

173 We used the Mann-Whitney U test to compare results between groups.

174 d Student's t test for continuous variables (Mann-Whitney U test used for nonnormally distributed var

175 alyzed by Kruskal-Wallis/Bonferroni-adjusted Mann-Whitney U test using statistical software.

176 An independent sample Mann Whitney U test was used to compare differences in A

177 The Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare the spatial e

178 The Mann-Whitney U test was carried out to test for signific

179 Mann-Whitney U test was performed to assess differences

180 Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison among groups

181 Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons in sex and

182 The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons of variable

183 llis test was used for significance, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for pairwise comparison of

184 The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis.

185 Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used for within-group comparison

186 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess the difference be

187 Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences in b

188 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the distribution

189 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the median mRNA

190 analysis of functional development, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the medians of 2

191 A two-sided Mann-Whitney U test was used to detect differences in AP

192 valuate the masticatory performance, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine quality of lif

193 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine interocular diff

194 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to test for differences bet

195 the data were not normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U-test was employed to assess the statistic

196 Fisher exact test, log-rank test, and Mann-Whitney U test were performed.

197 Two-sample t test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis t

198 Linear regression and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to assess the association

199 chi(2) test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare groups.

200 npaired Student t, chi(2), Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were applied to analyze the differe

201 is followed by Bonferroni-corrected post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze the data.

202 Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare subgroups of p

203 Independent sample t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used.

204 The chi-square test, Student's t-test, and Mann-Whitney U-test were used for statistical analysis.

205 he gene sets is performed by an extension of Mann-Whitney U test which is based on weighted rank sums

206 test, Wilcoxon's matched pairs test, and the Mann Whitney U Test with P < 0.05 considered significant

207 Analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U tests with post hoc correction were used

208 versus 23 +/- 1.4 in controls; P < 0.0001 by Mann-Whitney U test), with virtually no overlap between

209 For comparisons, we used the Mann-Whitney U test (Z test).

210 iability and differentiated VCD vs. healthy (Mann-Whitney U-test: z = -5.390, P < 0.001) and asthma (