ライフサイエンスコーパス: Student t test

1 ere calculated for both groups and compared (Student t test).

2 Groups were compared (Student t test).

3 Group means were compared (unpaired Student t test).

4 n controls (17.4 +/- 11.8) (P = .004, paired Student t test).

5 -1) +/- 0.95) (P < .001, unpaired two-tailed Student t test).

6 on of RAGE by approximately 4-fold (P <0.05, Student t test).

7 ected controls (49.67% vs 35.09%; P < .01 by Student t test).

8 group (difference not significant, unpaired Student t test).

9 mpared between patients and controls (paired Student t test).

10 %) which was highly significant (P = 0.0001, Student t test).

11 Continuous variables were evaluated with a Student t test.

12 Statistical significance was analyzed with Student t test.

13 ime constants (tau) were compared by using a Student t test.

14 nation of power and time by using the paired Student t test.

15 th the final treatment response by using the Student t test.

16 B; eGFR </= 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) by using a student t test.

17 Group comparisons were performed with the Student t test.

18 Significance was calculated by using the Student t test.

19 compared by using the Mann-Whitney test and Student t test.

20 Data were compared with the Student t test.

21 althy control animals by using the two-sided Student t test.

22 -interest analysis with the two-sided paired Student t test.

23 Comparisons were performed by using the Student t test.

24 e analysis was performed by using the paired Student t test.

25 ts with DM and control subjects by using the Student t test.

26 image quality and were compared by using the Student t test.

27 d antibody levels were compared by using the Student t test.

28 nce by using a bootstrap method and a paired Student t test.

29 ere compared between patient groups with the Student t test.

30 publication were compared with the unpaired Student t test.

31 f the findings was analyzed with an unpaired Student t test.

32 roups by using the Fisher exact test and the Student t test.

33 were tested with analysis of variance or the Student t test.

34 to pretreatment HCV RNA levels by the paired Student t test.

35 gradients (PSGs) were evaluated by using the Student t test.

36 fferences were evaluated by using the paired Student t test.

37 rformed with both paired t test and unpaired Student t test.

38 um distances were compared by using a paired Student t test.

39 e significance of sex was assessed using the Student t test.

40 or each technique were compared by using the Student t test.

41 with analysis of variance and the two-tailed Student t test.

42 analyses were performed by using the paired Student t test.

43 tinuous variables were compared by using the Student t test.

44 Haenszel statistics, and a paired two-tailed Student t test.

45 at different dose levels were performed with Student t test.

46 The data were evaluated using Student t test.

47 Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test.

48 , and duration of sedation with a two-sample Student t test.

49 Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test.

50 e compared by repeated-measures analysis and Student t test.

51 e three observers were measured by using the Student t test.

52 nresponders was calculated with a two-tailed Student t test.

53 ents and control subjects were compared with Student t test.

54 ies and specificities were compared with the Student t test.

55 for each procedure and compared by using the Student t test.

56 the two respiratory phases by using a paired Student t test.

57 r pitching and nonpitching arms by using the Student t test.

58 ipediculate approaches by using a two-tailed Student t test.

59 chi square test, quantitative variables with Student t test.

60 tistical analysis was performed by ANOVA and Student t test.

61 son of the different classes was executed by Student t test.

62 SF-to-BM SUV ratios were compared using the Student t test.

63 were compared by using a two-tailed unpaired Student t test.

64 1 month after therapy by using a two-tailed Student t test.

65 control subjects were compared by using the Student t test.

66 antibiotic therapy rate was conducted using Student t test.

67 ed with one-way analysis of variance and the Student t test.

68 e detection rate was determined by using the Student t test.

69 recorded at 6 months were compared with the Student t test.

70 Metric variables were evaluated using the Student t test.

71 ter delivery was evaluated by using a paired Student t test.

72 e between groups was determined by using the Student t test.

73 involved an unpaired, uncorrected, two-sided Student t test.

74 regurgitation were analyzed using the paired Student t-test.

75 cal analyses were performed using a 2-tailed Student t-test.

76 tion and discriminant validity was tested by Student t tests.

77 Statistical analysis was performed by using Student t tests.

78 ose who did by using the chi(2) and unpaired Student t tests.

79 Clinical data were analyzed by using Student t tests.

80 cancer and PZ were compared by using paired Student t tests.

81 -way analysis of variance, Fisher exact, and Student t tests.

82 of variance (ANOVA) and paired and unpaired Student t tests.

83 es were performed with Wilcoxon rank sum and Student t tests.

84 correlation, Spearman rank correlation, and Student t tests.

85 ses were performed using unpaired and paired Student t tests.

86 from baseline, which was evaluated by paired Student t tests.

87 ed by using analysis of variance or unpaired Student t tests.

88 was performed with chi(2), Fisher exact, and Student t tests.

89 idence intervals and compared using pairwise Student t tests.

90 s using generalized estimating equations and Student t tests.

91 Changes in T2* were compared based on Student t tests.

92 h the probe was visible and when it was not (Student t test, alpha= 0.05).

93 The Fisher exact test and Student t test analysis were performed and relative risk

94 Statistical analysis utilized Student t test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), linear reg

95 Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test, analysis of variance, and Pearson correl

96 Student t test and analysis of variance for repeated mea

97 ables were compared by using the independent Student t test and analysis of variance.

98 and myocardial perfusion reserve index with Student t test and Bland-Altman analyses.

99 The Student t test and Bland-Altman method were used for dat

100 The Student t test and Bland-Altman plots were used to quant

101 Measurements were analyzed with the paired Student t test and Bland-Altman test, where appropriate.

102 ansmurality, and data were compared with the Student t test and Bland-Altman test.

103 for each procedure and compared by using the Student t test and calculating the CIs.

104 Data were analyzed using the Student t test and chi analyses where appropriate.

105 The Student t test and chi(2) test were used for statistical

106 patients who had no complications using the Student t test and chi-square analysis.

107 of MI and adjacent myocardium were compared (Student t test and correlation analysis).

108 Statistical analysis was conducted using the Student t test and correlation analysis.

109 tistical analysis was performed by using the Student t test and Fisher exact test.

110 Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test and Fisher exact test.

111 ed for sedation and discharge times by using Student t test and for adverse events by using Fisher ex

112 Unpaired Student t test and Friedman's repeated-measures ANOVA of

113 Student t test and least-squares linear regression analy

114 who underwent both modalities were compared (Student t test and linear regression analysis).

115 Statistical analyses included a Student t test and linear regression.

116 ferences in variables were analyzed with the Student t test and logistic regression.

117 Statistical analyses were performed with Student t test and multiple linear regression analysis.

118 bjected to statistical analysis, including a Student t test and multiple linear regression.

119 Data were analyzed with the Student t test and multiple regression analysis.

120 d myocardial fibrosis was evaluated with the Student t test and multivariable regression analysis.

121 tistical analysis was performed by using the Student t test and one-way analysis of variance for the

122 Statistical analysis was performed by Student t test and one-way ANOVA for repeated measures.

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

124 fferences were analyzed by means of a paired Student t test and repeated two-way analysis of variance

125 were determined and analyzed by using paired Student t test and Spearman correlation.

126 A Student t test and stratified statistical analyses were

127 ement differences were assessed by using the Student t test and the F test; P < .05 was considered to

128 A nonpaired Student t test and the Fisher exact test were used to an

129 The authors compared groups using the Student t test and the Mann-Whitney test, as appropriate

130 red, and statistically analyzed by using the Student t test and two-way analysis of variance.

131 (2-tailed) was used to compare proportions, Student t test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to c

132 Statistical analysis included paired Student t test and Wilcoxon signed rank test with Bonfer

133 Student t tests and analyses of variance were performed.

134 cement values, were compared by using paired Student t tests and Bland-Altman plots.

135 Student t tests and chi(2) tests were performed to compa

136 Two-tailed Student t tests and repeated-measures analysis of varian

137 Other statistical tests like student t-test and logistic regression were also done.

138 tumors were analyzed with parametric (paired Student t test) and nonparametric (Wilcoxon rank sum tes

139 score differences among cases and controls (Student t test) and the risk of developing MS comparing

140 tical tests used were the Fisher exact test, Student t test, and analysis of variance.

141 Continuous data were compared using Student t test, and categorical data using chi2.

142 Continuous variables were compared with Student t test, and categorical variables were compared

143 a were compared by using the Mann-Whitney or Student t test, and correlations were performed by using

144 rences in mean DeltaR2* were tested with the Student t test, and diagnostic accuracy was tested by ca

145 using Wilcoxon rank sum test and two-sample Student t test, and interobserver variability was tested

146 rmed by using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, Student t test, and kappa test of agreement.

147 ysis was performed with the chi(2) test, the Student t test, and logistic regression.

148 e compared by using the Pearson correlation, Student t test, and multiple regression.

149 intragroup comparisons were performed using Student t test, and P <0.05 was considered statistically

150 compared between animal cohorts by using the Student t test, and receiver operating characteristic (R

151 as performed by using the Fisher exact test, Student t test, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, depending

152 lysis of variance, chi(2), Fisher exact, and Student t tests, as well as logistic regression and rece

153 echo MR imaging was quantified and compared (Student t test) by means of enhancement ratios.

154 contrast material was assessed and compared (Student t test) by means of T1 measurements obtained bef

155 rmed using a 1-way analysis of variance, the Student t test, chi test, and Mann-Whitney test where ap

156 Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test, chi(2) analysis, and mixed-model analysi

157 repeated measures analysis of variance, the Student t test, chi(2) test, and correlation analysis.

158 Paired Student t test, chi(2) test, Pearson correlation coeffic

159 Student t test, chi(2), and multiple logistic regression

160 Student t test, chi2 test, and multivariate regression a

161 metabolite levels were evaluated with paired Student t tests, cluster-based analyses, and multivariab

162 Data were analyzed by paired Student t test comparing the effect of cell fractions in

163 Student t test demonstrated no difference in mean time t

164 20 frequently significant clones ranked with student t-test discriminating CF antigens from healthy c

165 Data were assessed by using the Student t test, exact binomial distribution, two-sample

166 Statistical analysis included Student t test, Fisher exact test, analysis of covarianc

167 coronal diameters of the thorax by using the Student t test, Fisher exact test, and Pearson correlati

168 Student t test, Fisher exact test, or linear regression

169 Statistical analyses were performed with the Student t test for continuous bivariate comparisons, the

170 square cross tabulations for categorical and Student t test for continuous data.

171 mal versus nonoptimal ACS care were made via Student t test for continuous variables and chi(2) test

172 Student t test for continuous variables and contingency

173 images were performed by using the unpaired Student t test for continuous variables and the chi(2) t

174 en groups were performed by using the paired Student t test for continuous variables and the McNemar

175 ith the 2 test for categorical variables and Student t test for continuous variables.

176 us section orientations were analyzed with a Student t test for independent groups and a repeated-mea

177 ualitative scores were compared by using the Student t test for independent samples, and SNR profiles

178 d by using the Wilcoxon singed-rank test and Student t test for matched pairs.

179 within groups were analyzed by means of the Student t test for paired data.

180 samples; for intraindividual comparison, the Student t test for paired samples was used.

181 ween the regimens were compared by using the Student t test for unpaired samples; for intraindividual

182 Comparisons were performed by using Student t tests for continuous variables.

183 ted and compared between the two studies via Student t tests for mean location, using a >5% cutoff fo

184 for each age group in 1-year intervals, and Student t tests for unpaired data were performed to comp

185 By using a one-tailed Student t test in the positive direction for Dav and in

186 nalysis was performed using chi(2) analysis, Student t test, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with the

187 Paired Student t test, linear regression analysis, and Pearson

188 Statistical analyses included the Student t test, linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis

189 The Student t test, log-rank, or Cox proportional hazards mo

190 t comparisons were analyzed using chi(2) and Student t tests, logistic regression (predictive), and g

191 Comparisons were made by using the Student t test, Mann-Whitney test for quantitative data,

192 For statistical analysis, Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Spearman's corr

193 Student t test, multiple linear regression analysis, and

194 thermal lesion volume was compared with the Student t test on images obtained immediately, 2 weeks,

195 Continuous data were compared by the Student t test or ANOVA, and categoric variables were co

196 alth at enrollment and delivery were made by student t test or Fisher's exact test.

197 us variables were compared by using unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test, depending on data

198 Follow-up analysis was performed with paired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

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

200 To compare the two groups, the Student t test or Wilcoxon test were used to evaluate di

201 isons between groups were performed by using Student t tests or analysis of variance.

202 Statistical analysis was performed by Student t test, or ANOVA followed by Bonferroni correcti

203 Neither the Student t test (P > .2 for all thresholds <0 HU) nor the

204 values over time were evaluated by using the Student t test (P<.05).

205 significantly elevated (unpaired two-tailed Student t test, P <.002) in those biopsy samples compose

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

207 Student t test, P<0.05 was taken as significant.

208 s were not statistically significant (paired Student t-test, P = 0.41).

209 ession in the severe malaria episode (paired Students t test, P < 0.05).

210 The Student t test, paired t test, and Kruskal-Wallis one-wa

211 ides were assessed by using Tukey-Kramer and Student t tests, respectively.

212 thout CAD were compared by using McNemar and Student t tests, respectively.

213 demographic comparisons with age were made (Student t test, Satterthwaite test), and proportion conf

214 Student t test statistics were applied to report signifi

215 The two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Student t test, test for linear regression, analysis of

216 ignificantly higher (with P-value <10(-9) in student t-test) than other state-of-the-art methods, inc

217 The Student t test, the Fisher exact test, and multivariate

218 The Student t test, the Mann-Whitney test, and the Levene te

219 istical significance was determined with the Student t test, the paired t test, a mixed random effect

220 According to the Student t-test, the average Zmax ratios for Cl-POE, Br-P

221 sis was performed with the paired two-tailed Student t test to compare opacification scores for both

222 Two-tailed P values were calculated for the Student t test to indicate the statistical significance

223 The Student t test was applied for independent samples (P <0

224 A Student t test was performed for each region to compare

225 Student t test was performed for statistical analysis.

226 The Student t test was performed for statistical evaluations

227 Paired Student t test was performed to compare the accuracy of

228 The Student t test was used for all continuous variables and

229 The paired Student t test was used for data analysis.

230 Student t test was used for statistical analysis, with P

231 The Student t test was used for statistical analysis.

232 Two-tailed Student t test was used for statistical analysis.

233 A two-sided paired Student t test was used for statistical analysis.

234 Student t test was used for the comparison of the FDs of

235 equence in a blinded fashion, and the paired Student t test was used to assess differences in technic

236 as determined with kappa statistics, and the Student t test was used to assess differences in the mea

237 Paired Student t test was used to assess the significance of di

238 Student t test was used to compare attenuation and SNR m

239 A paired Student t test was used to compare continuous variables

240 The Student t test was used to compare FA and ADC between ad

241 The standard unpaired Student t test was used to compare groups.

242 The Student t test was used to compare groups.

243 used to compare complication rates, and the Student t test was used to compare LOS.

244 The Student t test was used to compare mean lung attenuation

245 compare vascular flow visualization scores; Student t test was used to compare mean study times with

246 A paired Student t test was used to compare mean values in contro

247 ct test was used to compare proportions; the Student t test was used to compare means.

248 The unpaired Student t test was used to compare the average percentag

249 The two-tailed Student t test was used to compare the mean diameters of

250 A two-tailed Student t test was used to compare the T1 and T2 results

251 Two-tailed Student t test was used to compare values between groups

252 The Student t test was used to detect differences between co

253 Student t test was used to determine any demographic dif

254 The two-tailed Student t test was used to determine differences in the

255 A two-tailed Student t test was used to determine if significant diff

256 The Student t test was used to determine if there was a stat

257 Two-way Student t test was used to determine significant differe

258 A paired two-tailed Student t test was used to evaluate significance of post

259 A Student t test was used to examine differences in the in

260 Z test or Student t test was used, when appropriate, to calculate

261 ise group comparisons, an unequal two-tailed Student t test was used.

262 A paired Student t test was utilized to evaluate differences betw

263 Two-tailed Student t testing was used to determine differences in g

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

265 A 2-tailed Fisher exact test and paired Student t test were used for statistical analysis.

266 The Fisher exact test and Student t test were used to assess differences in these

267 The Fisher exact test and Student t test were used to compare clinical factors and

268 ne-way analysis of variance and the unpaired Student t test were used to test for significant differe

269 Chi-square and Student t test were used where appropriate.

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

271 Paired, one-tailed Student t tests were performed to assess for statistical

272 Student t tests were performed to assess significance be

273 Paired Student t tests were performed to compare results betwee

274 Analysis of variance and Student t tests were performed.

275 analysis of variance and paired and unpaired Student t tests were performed.

276 Mann-Whitney U and unpaired Student t tests were performed.

277 The chi2 and unpaired Student t tests were performed.

278 Analysis of variance, Scheffe, and paired Student t tests were used for data analysis.

279 ts, multiple regression analysis, and paired Student t tests were used for statistical analyses.

280 Student t tests were used for statistical comparisons.

281 Two-sided paired Student t tests were used for statistical evaluation.

282 chi(2) and Student t tests were used to assess frequency and mean d

283 Paired Student t tests were used to compare average SNRs and CN

284 chi(2) and Student t tests were used to compare biopsy time, and th

285 Paired Student t tests were used to compare the tumor region wi

286 Student t tests were used to determine differences in rC

287 Two-way analysis of variance and Student t tests were used to determine significant diffe

288 The Wilcoxon rank sum and Student t tests were used to evaluate differences.

289 Two-tailed Student t tests were used to evaluate the data.

290 Fisher exact and Student t tests were used to evaluate the statistical si

291 ed estimating equation regression model, and Student t tests were used to obtain limits of agreement

292 Student t tests were used to perform comparisons.

293 f three different feature selection schemas (Student t test, Wilcoxon rank sum test and genetic algor

294 Statistical analysis was performed with the Student t test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and kappa tes

295 hniques were compared by using paired tests (Student t test, Wilcoxon test, or McNemar test, accordin

296 hods were used: Fisher exact test, unmatched Student t test, Wilcoxon's matched pairs test, and the M

297 e compared by using analysis of variance and Student t test with Bonferroni correction.

298 wo-way analysis of variance, followed by the Student t test with post hoc Bonferroni correction.

299 failure were compared by means of two-tailed Student t test, with differences considered significant

300 ifferent bowel loops was compared by using a Student t test, with kappa statistics used to measure in