ライフサイエンスコーパス: Student

1 Student attendance at clinical and tutorial-based activi

2 Student attendance is thought to be an important factor

3 Student body racial and ethnic diversity within US medic

4 Student body URM proportions were not associated with wh

5 Student dormitory rooms tended to have higher levels of

6 Student food selection data were collected daily from Ja

7 Student nurses cite unsatisfactory placement experiences

8 Student nurses' clinical assessment was divided into 3 t

9 Student paired t tests based on a logarithmic scale were

10 Student paired t-test confirmed a statistically signific

11 Student perceptions of antimicrobial coursework and actu

12 Student responses also suggest the labs were helpful in

13 Student self-report of whether he or she ever used e-cig

14 Student t and chi tests were used for univariate analysi

15 Student t test for continuous variables and contingency

16 Student t test statistics were applied to report signifi

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

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

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

20 Student t test was used to determine any demographic dif

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

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

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

24 Student t tests were performed to assess significance be

25 Student t tests were used to determine differences in rC

26 Student t tests were used to perform comparisons.

27 Student use of profanity (52%; 22/42), frankly discrimin

28 Student's t tests demonstrate significant differences (p

29 Student's t tests for equality of means were used to ass

30 Student's t-test and Ranking-PCA analyses were performed

31 Student's t-test was applied to compare vascular enhance

32 Student's t-test was used to determine statistical signi

33 Student's t-test, moderated t-tests, non-parametric test

34 Student's t-tests, chi(2) analyses, and linear and logis

35 Student's two-sample t test for normally distributed var

36 /-455 (mean+/-se wt vs. TSP1(-/-)); P<0.001, Student's t test] and impaired neuronal differentiation

37 .4 muV; control, 6.2 +/- 0.3 muV; P = 0.004; Student's t-test).

38 men with BCRL, namely 24+/-19 mmHg (P=0.014, Student's unpaired t test), and correlated negatively wi

39 sing anti-Rho-SPION-Ran, eyedrops, P = 0.03, Student's t test), and gliosis in Muller cells (at 6 mo,

40 ed that changed at least 1.5 fold (p < 0.05, Student's t-test) in abundance between transgenic (tBN)

41 2 +/- 0.12, 0.82 +/- 0.11 and 0.84 +/- 0.10; Student's paired t-test, t = 2.79, P = 0.02; t = 2.80, P

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

43 - 1.61 days, Degrees of freedom (df) = 2960, Student's t (t) = 3.2 (P = .0014), and mean duration of

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

45 pplication of traditional methods, such as a Student's t-Test or a 2-way ANOVA, in these situations g

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

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

48 We used a Student's t test to observe any differences between the

49 server performance was determined by using a Student t distribution; P values less than .05 indicated

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

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

52 Continuous variables were evaluated with a Student t test.

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

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

55 re made with a combined fold change >/=2 and Student's t-test p-value < 0.05 to denote significance;

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

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

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

59 Repeated-measures ANOVAs and Student's two-tailed t-tests were used for statistical c

60 for violations of Cochran's assumptions) and Student's t test for continuous variables (Mann-Whitney

61 performed using the Pearson correlation and Student's t test.

62 s using generalized estimating equations and Student t tests.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

70 ed by principal component analysis (PCA) and Student's t-test (p<0.05).

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

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

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

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

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

76 Fisher exact test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Student's t-test.

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

78 Analysis of variance and Student t tests were performed.

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

80 significantly lower tooth deformation (ANOVA/Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc, p = 0.05).

81 d reliable than conventional methods such as Student's t-test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

82 nterpretations were recorded and analyzed at Student t and Fisher exact testing.

83 We extracted Global School-Based Student Health Surveys (GSHS) datasets from the Centers

84 ernational Society for Computational Biology Student Council (ISCB-SC) and its Regional Student Group

85 ernational Society for Computational Biology Student Council (ISCB-SC), Regional Student Groups (RSGs

86 The Venetia Burney Student Dust Counter, which measures grains with radii l

87 2 mm Hg) to followup (24.3 mm Hg) (P<0.05 by Student's t-test).

88 Data were analyzed by Student's t-test if values showed a normal distribution

89 d by toluidine blue staining and analyzed by Student's t-test.

90 test, and tumour number and area compared by Student's t-test in outwardly healthy mice at approximat

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

92 re compared between the 2 patient groups, by Student's t-test, chi-square analysis, and Mantel-Haensz

93 entially regulated miRNAs were identified by Student's t test and Bonferroni correction.

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

95 essed proteins (at least +/-1.5-fold change; Student's t test, P < 0.05) were identified by mass spec

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

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

98 Groups were compared (Student t test).

99 th distal neocortical areas contralaterally (Student's t-test, p<0.05).

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

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

102 mprehensive Assessment Test; and Exceptional Student Education placement owing to orthopedic, speech,

103 Four protein spots were 1.5-fold (Student's t-test, P < 0.05) differentially expressed in

104 DE concentrations were significantly higher (Student's paired comparisons t test, alpha = 0.05) in se

105 , which corresponds to a p-value < 10(-9) in Student's t-test.

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

107 collected by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), including the mathematics and

108 nal Society for Computational Biology (ISCB) Student Council Regional Student Groups (RSGs) activitie

109 on operator (LASSO) model and the well-known Student's t model, respectively.

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

111 actions with their schools' American Medical Student Association (AMSA) PharmFree Scorecard and avera

112 Workforce Committee, Subcommittee on Medical Student and Resident Recruitment.

113 in expression in monosomy 3 uveal melanomas (Student's t-test; P = 0.011).

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

115 ealth School Physical Activity and Nutrition Student Questionnaire measured physical activity behavio

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

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

118 alysis, data were analysed by chi(2) test or Student's t-test as appropriate.

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

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

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

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

123 Paired Student t tests were performed to compare results betwee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

133 stical significance was determined by paired Student's t tests between tooth-implant pairs.

134 nificantly increased following LPI by paired Student's t-tests (all P < 0.0001).

135 gle width parameters were compared by paired Student's t-tests.

136 Gene expression, paired Student's t test, and pathway analyses were performed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

149 idence intervals and compared using pairwise Student t tests.

150 berculosis at the University of Pennsylvania Student Health Service between 2009 and 2011.

151 They used data from the Project Student Teacher Achievement Ratio, a 4-year multicenter

152 (2-tailed) was used to compare proportions, Student t test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to c

153 onal Biology (ISCB) Student Council Regional Student Groups (RSGs) activities.

154 y Student Council (ISCB-SC) and its Regional Student Group (RSG) program, takes time and energy.

155 Biology Student Council (ISCB-SC), Regional Student Groups (RSGs) have helped organise workshops in

156 le reviews events undertaken by the Regional Student Groups (RSGs) in India and Argentina, the proble

157 of Nephrology Foundation for Kidney Research Student Scholar Grant Program, Centers for Disease Contr

158 visual acuity >/= 0.8 (n = 23) by one-sample Student's t-tests.

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

160 and 30.8+/-1.7%, respectively [mean+/-SEM]; Student's unpaired t-test df=10, t=-1.357, p=0.453); thi

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

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

163 robability distributions, such as the skewed Student [Formula: see text] used here, when making forec

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

172 1 month after therapy by using a two-tailed Student t test.

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

174 ween groups was assessed with the two-tailed Student's t test.

175 rent groups was evaluated using a two-tailed Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U test.

176 n, P = 0.0004; breast P < 0.0001, two-tailed Student's t-test).

177 of vascular risk factors using a two-tailed Student's t-test.

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

179 Chi-square test, Student's t test, and Cox regression were used for stati

180 cluded Fisher's exact test, chi-square test, Student's t-test, analysis of variance, and stepwise lin

181 The chi-square test, Student's t-test, and Mann-Whitney U-test were used for

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

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

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

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

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

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

188 The Student t test was used for statistical analysis.

189 The Student t test was used to compare groups.

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

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

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

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

194 The Student's t-test is the most valuable procedure when the

195 The Student-Newman-Keuls test has been applied to ascertain

196 tudies--the Human Microbiome Project and the Student Microbiome Project--we show that gut and mouth m

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

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

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

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

201 sed the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Student's t-test.

202 cannot be analyzed with methods such as the Student's t-test.

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

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

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

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

207 Statistical comparisons included the Student pairwise t test and the McNemar test in 2x2 cont

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

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

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

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

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

213 ompared between cases and controls using the Student t and chi(2) tests and analysis of variance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

226 Metric variables were evaluated using the Student t test.

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

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

229 Significance was calculated by using the Student t test.

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

231 Comparisons were performed by using the Student t test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

238 cant differences were evaluated by using the Student t, analysis of variance, Wilcoxon, and Tukey Hon

239 screening population were made by using the Student t, Pearson chi(2), and Fisher exact tests.

240 Data were analyzed by using the Student t, Wilcoxon matched pair, Mann-Whitney, Spearman

241 parisons between individual groups using the Student's t test with a Bonferroni correction.

242 ompared between CIN and PTX groups using the Student's t test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

255 Group comparisons were performed with the Student t test.

256 Data were compared with the Student t test.

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

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

259 d Blood Clotting Study (GABC) or the Trinity Student Study (TSS).

260 in was upregulated in the monosomy 3 tumors (Student's t-test, P = 0.003 and P = 0.005, respectively)

261 Unpaired Student t, chi(2), Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U test

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

263 ompared between the groups using an unpaired Student's t-test or an equivalent nonparametric test.

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

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

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

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

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

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

270 publication were compared with the unpaired Student t test.

271 Statistical analysis used Student's t test and multivariate linear regression.

272 nd changes with exercise were analysed using Student's unpaired t tests.

273 The data were analyzed using Student's t test for continuous data, chi square for cat

274 groups were statistically assessed by using Student t and chi(2) tests corrected for multiple compar

275 Statistical analyses were performed by using Student t and Pearson chi(2) tests.

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

277 Statistical analysis was performed by using Student t tests.

278 Clinical data were analyzed by using Student t tests.

279 nd control cohorts, were identified by using Student two-tailed paired and unpaired t test, respectiv

280 atment failure." Data were analyzed by using Student's t test.

281 cteristics between races were compared using Student t and chi(2) tests.

282 Univariate analysis was completed using Student's t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and analysis o

283 antibiotic therapy rate was conducted using Student t test.

284 AG eyes and control eyes were examined using Student's t-test.

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

286 sitive correlation ([0.18 correlation value] Student's t value [173 degrees of freedom] = 2.39; P = 0

287 itive correlation ([0.338 correlation value] Student's t value [173 degrees of freedom] = 4.69; P <0.

288 y (healthy group: [-0.23, correlation value] Student's t value [73 degrees of freedom] = 1.99; P = 0.

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

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

291 Statistical significance was analyzed with Student t test.

292 Data were analyzed with Student t, Wilcoxon, and McNemar tests.

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

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

295 Acute rejection was compared with Student's t test.

296 Statistical analysis was done with Student's t test, chi(2) test, logistic regression, and

297 each legume group and the control group with Student's t test.Of the 355 infants enrolled, 291 infant

298 in comparison to the OVX control group with Student's t-test, but not with ANOVA.

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

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