ライフサイエンスコーパス: Pearson

1 Pearson and Spearman correlations were assessed.

2 Pearson and Spearman rank correlation coefficients of th

3 Pearson chi square and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were

4 Pearson chi(2) and Fisher tests were used to assess the

5 Pearson coefficients for correlation among the indices r

6 Pearson correlation analysis of the HBQ toxicity measure

7 Pearson correlation analysis on the average concentratio

8 Pearson correlation analysis resulted in network integra

9 Pearson correlation and analysis of variance with Tukey-

10 Pearson correlation and multiple linear regression were

11 Pearson correlation between SUVARG of the whole biopsy s

12 Pearson correlation coefficients (r), corrected for atte

13 Pearson correlation coefficients between observed and Go

14 Pearson correlation coefficients of perfusion values for

15 Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess rel

16 Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate t

17 Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate t

18 Pearson correlation coefficients with corresponding p-va

19 Pearson correlation was calculated for LBMADP, LBMMR-AC,

20 Pearson correlation, analysis of variance, and intraclas

21 Pearson correlations between relative signal changes and

22 Pearson correlations between tumor DWI and quantitative

23 Pearson correlations were used to compare the reference

24 Pearson correlations were used to investigate the effect

25 Pearson correlations, bias, and Cohen kappa were compute

26 Pearson R and linear correlation coefficients were calcu

27 Pearson's correlation coefficient (rho) is the most comm

28 Pearson's correlation, linear regression analysis for cl

29 Pearson's or Spearman's rank correlation coefficient wer

30 baseline was strong (r = 0.7436, p < 0.0001, Pearson's correlation coefficient).

31 s at the rate of -0.37% per month (P < 0.01, Pearson = -0.57).

32 rs at the rate of 0.41% per month (P < 0.01, Pearson = 0.71), while demethylation of primarily non-in

33 of consciousness-impairing seizures (p<0.01, Pearson's correlation) and was associated with impairmen

34 presence of lymph node metastases (P = .022; Pearson chi(2) test).

35 nd 87.8% in the nonstented group (P = 0.034, Pearson chi-square 1-tailed test).

36 with reduction in persephin and pentraxin 3 (Pearson correlation coefficients = 0.682 and 0.638, P =

37 rov-Smirnov test; 2) Mann-Whitney U test; 3) Pearson chi(2) test; 4) Kruskal-Wallis test; and 5) regr

38 leave-one out cross-validation r(2) of 0.46 (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.68), effectively pre

39 nd DSN, our predicted response reached a 0.6 Pearson correlation coefficient with observed responses

40 ding values for CAF were 83.7% versus 82.8% (Pearson's correlation: 0.94).

41 A Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.82 with an RMSE of

42 A Pearson correlation of 0.968 was obtained between serum

43 tions and sequence information, we achieve a Pearson's R(2) of 0.362 for predicting the results of ch

44 te-of-the-art empirical methods, achieving a Pearson correlation of 0.57 and an RMSE of 1.09 kcal/mol

45 he random forest training, which generates a Pearson correlation coefficient >0.8 between the predict

46 bins) of vascular connectome and HVPG had a Pearson correlation of 0.977 (root mean squared error, 1

47 onal cTACE during the same period by using a Pearson chi(2) test.

48 d dose and tumor reduction was found, with a Pearson correlation coefficient (R(2)) of 0.64 for tumor

49 s showed a strong linear association, with a Pearson correlation coefficient between 0.703 and 0.962.

50 ylation values were highly correlated with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9 in leave-one-tiss

51 DNA-RNA (R-loop) complex structures, with a Pearson correlation coefficient ranging from 0.775 to 0.

52 f islets and (111)In-exendin-3 accumulation (Pearson r = 0.98).

53 k correlation coefficient) and measured ADC (Pearson correlation coefficient) in six prostates ex viv

54 ions and use of observation-only admissions (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.01) or discharge to

55 Correlation analysis (Pearson correlation) was performed to analyse the associ

56 2) was used to perform correlation analysis (Pearson's coefficient) and the Mann-Whitney U test.

57 Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated.

58 T-tests, chi (2), ANOVA and Pearson Correlation tests were performed, with p < 0.05

59 egression for internal validation of BFV and Pearson correlation and Bland-Altman analysis for intero

60 Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparison and Pearson correlation were used for statistical evaluation

61 in the range of 0.10-13.0 was confirmed, and Pearson correlation was observed at 0.995 (n = 50; 95% c

62 assess MMI station internal consistency and Pearson's moment correlation co-efficient to explore ass

63 Yates corrected and Pearson chi(2) tests were used to evaluate categoric var

64 We used Spearman rank correlation and Pearson product moment correlation (r ) and descriptive

65 um test, Spearman rank order correlation and Pearson product moment correlation using SigmaStat softw

66 al comparisons between or within groups, and Pearson and Spearman rank correlation was used to compar

67 The Cohen kappa and Pearson correlation coefficient R were used to determine

68 h was evaluated using the designed model and Pearson correlation between storage times with quality o

69 cy (mean unsigned error of 1.76 kcal/mol and Pearson correlation of 0.48); however, the reparametriza

70 nt (mean unsigned error of 0.81 kcal/mol and Pearson correlation of 0.75).

71 was calculated using a Bland-Altman plot and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC).

72 ariable mixed effects linear regressions and Pearson correlations were performed using STATA14.

73 Spearman and Pearson tests on the correlations between intrinsic stab

74 Second, through Spearman and Pearson tests we comprehensively investigate how differe

75 Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Pearson correlation analyses were performed.

76 ta were analyzed with the Student t test and Pearson correlation.

77 g the Student t test, Fisher exact test, and Pearson correlation.

78 sts, concordance and Bland-Altman tests, and Pearson correlations were used to evaluate degeneration,

79 1-way analysis of variance, chi2 tests, and Pearson correlations.

80 al analysis of variance, post hoc Tukey, and Pearson correlation test.

81 n rank sum test for continuous variables and Pearson chi2 test or Fisher exact test for categorical v

82 ed statistically by analysis of variance and Pearson rank correlation test.

83 orrelated with annual temperature anomalies (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.882, p = 0.005).

84 tional and morphological parameters applying Pearson's correlation coefficient.

85 ds ratio estimates for incident IHD in ARIC (Pearson correlation [r]=0.62), indicating that the 2 IHD

86 elocity of the second palmar digital artery (Pearson coefficient: 0.621; p < 0.05).

87 of radiation on mutation rates estimated as Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient was ver

88 Traditional association methods such as Pearson chi-square test and Fisher Exact test are single

89 ed rank tests and rank sum tests, as well as Pearson correlation analysis.

90 t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, as well as Pearson r and Spearman rho for correlations.

91 rrelation with the spectrophotometric assay (Pearson's r 0.918-0.957) and was less influenced by haem

92 We assessed Pearson's correlation with a comprehensive measure for c

93 ich was correlated with hospital attendance (Pearson correlation coefficient [PCC] = 0.76).

94 .05) coinciding with loss of autoregulation (Pearson coefficient 0.19 --> 0.32, P < 0.05).

95 tion and quantification, yielding an average Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.90 for IRC and of

96 elated with the thickness of the fluid band (Pearson product moment correlation, 0.39).

97 ng positive linear correlation with the BCM (Pearson r = 0.82).

98 Malig BJ, Pearson DL, Chang YB, Broadwin R, Basu R, Green RS, Ostr

99 rted compliance, and audits were analyzed by Pearson correlation.

100 This was confirmed by Pearson's correlation matrices implying that lipid oxida

101 tinal vein occlusion (RVO) were evaluated by Pearson correlation and linear regression.

102 etween CRT findings and MPRI was examined by Pearson correlations, logistic regression, and sensitivi

103 Biometricians led by Pearson agreed and developed statistical genetic approac

104 Statistical analyses were performed by Pearson's chi-squared test for categorical variables and

105 ompartments information, with the ranking by Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) calculated from ge

106 with a two-sided Pvalue of .05 to calculate Pearson correlation coefficients and multiple regression

107 in rates were low overall (3.7% [95% Clopper Pearson confidence interval [CI]: 2.3%, 5.6%]) and did n

108 ral patency was evaluated by using a Clopper-Pearson exact binomial test.

109 se rates and their two-sided 90% CI (Clopper-Pearson method) were provided.

110 By using binomial distribution, Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for o

111 ence intervals (CIs) were estimated (Clopper-Pearson method).

112 eter maneuver was estimated with the Clopper-Pearson method.

113 ich 95% CIs were calculated with the Clopper-Pearson method.

114 e to changes in total protein concentration (Pearson r = -0.69; p < 0.0001).

115 variance (ANOVA), Holm-Bonferroni corrected Pearson correlations, multivariate regression modeling,

116 group, many indices were highly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient |r| >/= 0.80), making it

117 tures of each dataset are highly correlated (Pearson's correlation coefficient, r approximately 0.75-

118 e rate of disturbance was highly correlated (Pearson's r = 0.96) with mining activity.

119 ir residential address is highly correlated (Pearson's R of 0.9).

120 nd ACE levels were significantly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.205; P = .001, 2-side

121 grey matter atrophy are strongly correlated (Pearson's R = -0.69, P < 1 x 10(-7)), and significant gr

122 situ measurements were strongly correlated (Pearson's r = 0.61-0.74, all P < 0.01).

123 SA level 24 hours after PAE were correlated (Pearson r = 0.64, P = .014).

124 d with those derived from FD by correlation (Pearson), regression (Passing-Bablok), deviation (Bland-

125 ' FEV1 % values were tested for correlation (Pearson) to questionnaire-based estimates of health.

126 logical exposure was tested for correlation (Pearson) to the FEV1 % values.

127 fibroids had a strong negative correlation (Pearson's r=-0.68 or beyond) between collagen and methyl

128 detected had a strong positive correlation (Pearson) with fractional area change and cardiac output

129 Correlations (Pearson r) between imaging data and clinical scores (Exp

130 Correlations (Pearson r) were computed to evaluate associations betwee

131 etter than random, with modest correlations (Pearson's r < 0.28), consistent with complex trait genom

132 Significant correlations (Pearson's, alpha = 0.05) between congener-specific conce

133 X, Chen Z, Soria CS, He H, Wang G, Caruso D, Pearson C, Biswal S, Zuckerman B, Wills-Karp M, Wang X.

134 superior accuracy when using disparate data (Pearson correlation of 0.91).

135 y were closely correlated with cone density (Pearson r: 0.72 and 0.70, respectively, P < .01).

136 ely correlated with high population density (Pearson's r 0.52, 95% CI 0.34-0.66).

137 and 1.25% LCA were significantly dependent (Pearson chi(2), P = .006 and P = .026).

138 ed colonies show no significant differences (Pearson Coefficient) in terms of their biological featur

139 capacity of lung for carbon monoxide [Dlco], Pearson r = -0.45, P = .003), SGRQ score (Pearson r = 0.

140 Fe-tCDTA Pearson R, 0.99; P = .0003; Fe-DTPA Pearson R, 0.97; P = .003).

141 lated to the degree of J-ST point elevation (Pearson R, 0.81; P<0.001).

142 cipitation and temperature, with elevation (|Pearson r| > 0.986), so the effects of these climatic va

143 ompared to the basic RHIPE in the Euclidean, Pearson and Spearman correlations.

144 Fisher exact, Pearson chi(2), and Student t tests were applied as indi

145 cally validated ELISA resulting in excellent Pearson and intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.998

146 orbent assay (ELISA), resulting in excellent Pearson correlation and intraclass correlation coefficie

147 or discharge to a skilled nursing facility (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.05).

148 ssociations between (11)C-PiB and (18)F-FDG (Pearson's r = 0.16 +/- 0.09, P < 0.001) and (18)F-AV1451

149 -0.69, P < .001; percentage predicted FEV1, Pearson r = -0.67, P < .001; diffusing capacity of lung

150 ve findings and/or histopathologic findings (Pearson correlation coefficient [r] and Cohen kappa coef

151 gnificantly with global cerebral blood flow (Pearson r = 0.70, p < 0.01).

152 ar correlation with the alpha-cell fraction (Pearson r = -0.76).

153 1 second [FEV1]/forced vital capacity [FVC], Pearson r = -0.69, P < .001; percentage predicted FEV1,

154 gnificantly correlated with H2O2 generation (Pearson's r = 0.91), no correlation was observed between

155 and AMFM measurements was moderate for GGR (Pearson's correlation r = 0.60, P < 0.0001; mean differe

156 ETN63C8/MA-ETN61C1-HRP ELISA revealed a good Pearson's r (+0.974) but a poor intraclass correlation c

157 For (3), "genetic only" model has Pearson's correlation of 0.15 to predict progression in

158 -out data showed low levels of bias and high Pearson correlation coefficients for calcification (-0.0

159 oposed topological approach has a 84% higher Pearson correlation coefficient than the current state-o

160 and correlated negatively with ECFC homing (Pearson r = -0.6930, P = 0.0002).

161 (HRM) and showed high concordance with HRM (Pearson correlation is 0.92).

162 In Pearson correlation analysis of the development cohort,

163 Statistical methods including Pearson's correlation, linear regression, and relative i

164 correlated with biomarkers of inflammation (Pearson's r >/= 0.37) and predicted all-cause mortality

165 because the predictors are intercorrelated (Pearson's r > 0.5).

166 d strong, significant ROI-based intersubject Pearson correlations with R1,DED/R1,PiB and with (18)F-F

167 from Luanda, the later the date of invasion (Pearson's r 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.66).

168 In this issue of the JCI, Pearson et al. describe 25,270 MHC class I-associated pe

169 127, p < 0.001) and directly with %LTL<3 kb (Pearson's r = 0.085; p = 0.001).

170 uditory Verbal Learning Test-Total Learning (Pearson r = 0.33; P = .02), respectively.

171 : health, education, and standard of living (Pearson correlation of 0.84-0.86).

172 omen, age was inversely associated with LTL (Pearson's r = -0.127, p < 0.001) and directly with %LTL<

173 PET correlated significantly with net MATV (Pearson r = 0.65, P = 0.0001) and net TLA (r = 0.60, P =

174 dicted and actual tumor burden measurements (Pearson r = 0.5658, P < 0.0001).

175 MAF correlated with volumetric measurements (Pearson r = 0.59, p < 0.001), and this correlation impro

176 correlation with conventional ELISA method (Pearson's r = 0.987).

177 ificant correlation between the two methods (Pearson's correlation coefficient 0.978 (p < 0.001), R S

178 that it can accurately predict methylation (Pearson's correlation coefficient r = 0.79) for the majo

179 P < .001), and distance walked in 6 minutes (Pearson r = -0.47, P = .002).

180 o year with excess cardiovascular mortality (Pearson correlation coefficients >/=0.75, P </= .05 for

181 atios for the 2 programs was nonsignificant (Pearson product moment correlation, rho = 0.4465; P = .0

182 and in girls, a weak association was noted (Pearson's correlation coefficient, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20-0.

183 tion between age and BMI Z-scores was noted (Pearson's correlation coefficient, 0.50; 95% confidence

184 to obtain reliable statistical inference of Pearson's chi-square test for the [Formula: see text] co

185 Thereafter, several models based on Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated.

186 An approach based on Pearson's coefficient analysis was developed to collecti

187 thin-hospital correlation across operations (Pearson rho: intestinal-hysterectomy = 0.50, intestinal-

188 class correlation coefficients, 0.86-0.99 or Pearson product moment correlation coefficient = 0.96).

189 l consistency (Spearman's rank-order, rs, or Pearson's correlation coefficients, rp), and coefficient

190 essed by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test or Pearson chi(2) test prior to matching and by using condi

191 d in terms of temporary or chronic outcomes (Pearson's r 0.981 [0.973-0.987]).

192 the manual microscopy counts with an overall Pearson correlation of 0.96 across the three sample type

193 013, results were highly correlated overall (Pearson's r 0.992 [95% uncertainty interval 0.989-0.994]

194 compare different lung function parameters, Pearson correlation coefficient and Fisher z transformat

195 We calculated partial Pearson correlations between 617 metabolites and 55 food

196 We used partial Pearson correlations and linear regression to identify s

197 , P < 0.001) and (18)F-AV1451 and (11)C-PiB (Pearson's r = 0.18 +/- 0.09, P < 0.001).

198 rsely correlated with total amyloid plaques (Pearson r = -0.48; P < .01) and tangles (Pearson r = -0.

199 els after cART interruption in vaccinees (r [Pearson's correlation coefficient] = -0.69, P = 0.002, a

200 igen levels and tumor-to-liver volume ratio (Pearson correlation coefficients, 0.105 and 0.113, respe

201 ults were evaluated using linear regression, Pearson correlation, Cohen kappa measurement, coefficien

202 AL (r = 0.9651 and r = 0.9613, respectively, Pearson correlation).

203 ncipal component analysis weighting schemes (Pearson correlation coefficient, r=0.98).

204 with the Mattis Dementia Rating Scale score (Pearson r = 0.50; P = .03) and inversely correlated with

205 ], Pearson r = -0.45, P = .003), SGRQ score (Pearson r = 0.67, P < .001), and distance walked in 6 mi

206 elation was validated in the validation set (Pearson correlation values of 0.36 and 0.44; P < .01).

207 At the optimal setting, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to asse

208 ng general linear modeling, and side-to-side Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated.

209 the "burstiness" of approximately 20 Hz SM1 (Pearson r approximately 0.65) and peripheral fluctuation

210 a well for the cooling portion of the spray (Pearson correlation coefficient R >/= 0.994), but the su

211 s: mutual information, chi-square statistic, Pearson correlation, and one conservation metric: joint

212 SUV) + (2 x SD) correlated best with STBHP (Pearson rho = 0.68; P < 0.001; mean difference +/- SD, 1

213 ut not with the response to the 5/99 strain (Pearson's correlation,-0.06; P=0.43).

214 ed with the response to the 44/76-SL strain (Pearson's correlation,0.64; P<0.001) but not with the re

215 for precuneus, P < 0.0001) than with SUVRCB (Pearson r: from 0.51 for temporal lobe [P = 0.002] to 0.

216 VT correlated better with SUVRWM (Pearson r: from 0.63 for posterior cingulate to 0.89 for

217 Results were analyzed with cross tabulation, Pearson chi(2) test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

218 e and were compared by means of a one-tailed Pearson correlation test.

219 Two-tailed Pearson correlation analysis was performed to determine

220 es (Pearson r = -0.48; P < .01) and tangles (Pearson r = -0.55; P = .01) in the brain.

221 rved for gadopentetate dimeglumine (Fe-tCDTA Pearson R, 0.99; P = .0003; Fe-DTPA Pearson R, 0.97; P =

222 ith the Stroop Color-Word Interference Test (Pearson r = 0.58; P < .01) and the Auditory Verbal Learn

223 was performed with the t test, chi(2) test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and receiver operating

224 rmed by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analys

225 Wilcoxon tests, Pearson correlation coefficients, and linear regressions

226 Globally, we found that Pearson's correlation is greater than 0.6 between effect

227 The Pearson correlation (r) of zone diameters was strongest

228 The Pearson Correlation and Bland-Altman analysis were perfo

229 The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) between predicted

230 The Pearson correlation coefficient between experimental dat

231 The Pearson correlation coefficient between the two techniqu

232 The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.99 at the state le

233 The Pearson correlations between the ACQ and other asthma qu

234 The Pearson linear correlation coefficient was used to asses

235 The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was calcu

236 rformed by using nonparametric tests and the Pearson correlation coefficient.

237 nd moderate for voriconazole (0.60), and the Pearson correlation of MICs was strongest for fluconazol

238 second retention times of two blobs and the Pearson's correlation coefficient of the two mass spectr

239 ffinity prediction models by calculating the Pearson correlation between predicted and experimental b

240 Tracking was assessed with the use of the Pearson correlation coefficient, and multivariate linear

241 re log-transformed before calculation of the Pearson correlation coefficients.

242 cal significance was determined by using the Pearson chi(2) test and was expressed as odds ratios and

243 Upstaging rates were compared using the Pearson chi(2) test.

244 ematoma expansion were assessed by using the Pearson chi(2) test.

245 Correlation was determined using the Pearson coefficient (r) for SUV and size and the Spearma

246 tatistical analyses were performed using the Pearson correlation and Student's t test.

247 a male sex hormone, testosterone, using the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) analysis.

248 I) and other prognostic factors by using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r).

249 bserver's scores was calculated by using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r).

250 nd depth of target was assessed by using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

251 values were negatively correlated using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

252 ere studied in multiple tissues by using the Pearson correlation.

253 expression, which is mostly detected via the Pearson correlation coefficient, has played an important

254 hin each participant, were assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient r.

255 e test scores, and time to recovery with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

256 elow -950 HU (RA-950) were assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

257 test for mean, and the correlation with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

258 e test scores, and time to recovery with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

259 ons among parameters were evaluated with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

260 btained by both methods and compared through Pearson's correlation, linear Bayesian regression, and t

261 proximation improved with increasing time tl Pearson r exceeded 0.95 for a tl of 96 h or more in all

262 n time alignments, accurate mass tolerances, Pearson's correlation analysis, and peak height similari

263 aw score of the Sarcoidosis Assessment Tool (Pearson product moment correlation, 0.56 [0.01-0.85]).

264 Traditional Pearson correlation analysis treating the observed data

265 VT in the orbitofrontal cortex (uncorrected Pearson correlation r = 0.62; P = .005).

266 n between (18)F-AV1451 and (18)F-FDG uptake (Pearson's r = -0.49 +/- 0.07, P < 0.001) and less pronou

267 n HealthLNK in comparison with MESA, we used Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots.

268 Using Pearson's correlation coefficient, serum creatinine-to-s

269 Data were analysed using Pearson chi(2), the Mann-Whitney U test, and binary logi

270 and eosinophil counts were assessed by using Pearson correlation analysis.

271 aclass correlation coefficients and by using Pearson correlation analysis.

272 CTDI(vol) and D(eff) as variables, by using Pearson correlation coefficients and P values to determi

273 parameters were correlated with age by using Pearson correlation coefficients.

274 ween density estimates was assessed by using Pearson correlation, linear regression, and Bland-Altman

275 Data were analyzed by using Pearson correlation, linear regression, and nonlinear re

276 cross validation with ICA networks by using Pearson correlation.

277 arameter associations were assessed by using Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficient.

278 Data were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots

279 function measured by echocardiography using Pearson's correlation.

280 f their similarity of gene expression, using Pearson's correlation coefficient (CC).

281 Comparison of sCA and dCA parameters (using Pearson's r for continuous and Spearman's rho for ordina

282 (18)F-FDG uptake values, respectively, using Pearson correlations and regression analyses.

283 ences in proportions between subgroups using Pearson's chi(2) test.

284 died, 54-88% of the spatiotemporal variance (Pearson R(2) from cross-validation) was captured, with o

285 correlation with fibrosis measured ex vivo (Pearson r = 0.9038 and Spearman rho = 0.8107 [P = .0002

286 with the change in LV end-diastolic volume (Pearson's rho of 0.64, 0.59, and 0.66, respectively; P=0

287 The weighted Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for hospi

288 Pair-wise Pearson's and polychoric correlations were calculated an

289 oth reducing and scavenging activities, with Pearson's coefficient of 0.90 and 0.91, respectively.

290 Data were analysed with Pearson correlation (Excel, version 2010) and binary log

291 Categorical variables were analyzed with Pearson chi(2) tests or Fisher exact tests, while contin

292 rs, bacteria, and calcium were analyzed with Pearson correlation in a multiple regression model.

293 urveillance and VTE rates were assessed with Pearson correlation coefficients, and the postdischarge

294 binocular visual function were assessed with Pearson's correlations (r), as was the relationship betw

295 mitochondrial gene deletions consistent with Pearson marrow-pancreas syndrome (PS).

296 with normal distribution was evaluated with Pearson's correlation coefficient and Spearman's rho.

297 ical nerve conduction velocities (NCVs) with Pearson correlation analysis.

298 sion model corrected for overdispersion with Pearson chi(2) that included terms for treatment group,

299 9.9% after 6 months and 91.7% after 3 years (Pearson's correlation: 0.91).

300 l results and available measurements yielded Pearson correlation coefficients (R) >/= 0.8 at >/= 5 si