ライフサイエンスコーパス: U test

1 osocomial infections (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test).

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

3 ith undetectable VL (38.0 pg/mL) (P < .0001, U test).

4 atics than controls (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

5 mained asymptomatic (P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

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

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

8 3%, range -13-16%; P = 0.029 by Mann-Whitney U test).

9 laria (P, >0.1 for all enzymes; Mann-Whitney U test).

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

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

12 or 31 subjects without (P=0.02, Mann-Whitney U test).

13 ence medians 1.9-4.7, p<0.0001. Mann-Whitney U test).

14 (P = 0.0068, all Mann-Whitney nonparametric U test).

15 ntrols (8.2+/-1.3, n=5, P<0.02, Mann-Whitney U test).

16 n that in group 2 (P<0.05 using Mann-Whitney U test).

17 p130 (0.833 mg ml-1) (P < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test).

18 spectively, p < .05 for both by Mann-Whitney U test).

19 234 + $12,146) costs (p < 0.01, Mann-Whitney U test).

20 n immunized animals (P = 0.014, Mann-Whitney U test).

21 nificant difference (P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

22 ps were significant (P = 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

23 18.5), respectively (P < 0.001; Mann-Whitney U test).

24 tion volumes by tumor location (Mann-Whitney U test).

25 % CI, 0.19-0.21 mg/L; P < .001; Mann-Whitney U test).

26 nts given the placebo (P = .02, Mann-Whitney U test).

27 n lesion tissue (all P < 0.005, Mann-Whitney U-test).

28 (0.9; 0.3-2.4 mU/l; P < 0.005, Mann-Whitney U-test).

29 23.14, respectively (P < 0.01, Mann-Whitney U-test).

30 QR 507-694) (-31.5%, P = 0.001, Mann-Whitney U-test).

31 kers was investigated using the Mann-Whitney U test.

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

33 ompared between groups with the Mann-Whitney U test.

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

35 n correlation coefficient and a Mann-Whitney U test.

36 sitive control groups using the Mann-Whitney U test.

37 two-tailed Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U test.

38 compared with Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

39 were compared with the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test.

40 4 years were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test.

41 ancer and healthy groups by the Mann-Whitney U test.

42 ences were determined using the Mann-Whitney U test.

43 computed by using the t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

44 ta were tested statistically by Mann-Whitney U test.

45 e independent samples t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

46 ng groups were sought using the Mann-Whitney U test.

47 ic regression analyses, and the Mann-Whitney U test.

48 tatively and analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

49 ric data were assessed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

50 nt plans were assessed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

51 stical analysis was by ANOVA or Mann Whitney U test.

52 with the independent t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

53 control mice with a two-tailed Mann-Whitney U test.

54 t and continuous variables with Mann-Whitney U test.

55 hose of normal subjects, by the Mann-Whitney U test.

56 e range) and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

57 of bone were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

58 motor seizures were done with a Mann-Whitney U test.

59 tests were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test.

60 o CT were compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

61 ders and nonresponders with the Mann-Whitney U test.

62 (Pearson's coefficient) and the Mann-Whitney U test.

63 nding lesions were evaluated by Mann-Whitney U test.

64 ects were assessed by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

65 after RF ablation by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

66 nd continuous variables by the Mann--Whitney U test.

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

68 d with paired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

69 n included the median, IQR, and Mann-Whitney U test.

70 ation, Pearson chi(2) test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

71 hips were assessed by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

72 fference was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

73 ith the Wilcoxon signed rank or Mann-Whitney U test.

74 d using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test.

75 sample t test and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test.

76 strain ratio, analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

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

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

79 nchanging control genes using a Mann-Whitney U-test.

80 volumes were compared by use of Mann-Whitney U tests.

81 formed with the signed-rank and Mann-Whitney U tests.

82 ing multivariate analysis of variance, t, or U tests.

83 performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.

84 e two groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U tests.

85 l questions were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests.

86 scimol during NMR conditioning and/or during US testing.

87 1) Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; 2) Mann-Whitney U test; 3) Pearson chi(2) test; 4) Kruskal-Wallis test;

88 the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test (alpha = 0.05).

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

90 I, was tested using a nonpaired Mann-Whitney U test, an analysis of covariance, and a Pearson chi2 te

91 Mann Whitney U test analysis found the following changes at 6 months

92 Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney U test, analysis of variance, and linear regression.

93 roup differences were tested by Mann-Whitney U test and correlations by Spearman's rank.

94 Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher exact test were used to assess group d

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

96 The Mann-Whitney U test and linear regression model were used for statist

97 Univariate analysis was by Mann Whitney U Test and Multivariate analysis was by a stepwise appro

98 ders were compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristic analysis.

99 stical analysis was assessed by Mann-Whitney U test and Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curv

100 The Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlation were used to evaluate st

101 Univariate analysis including Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's correlation was conducted on selec

102 etric statistics, including the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, were

103 sity index were tested with the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis test.

104 gent were compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test and the McNemar test.

105 The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test and the paired-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test w

106 tient groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U tests and effect likelihood-ratio test.

107 ve value was investigated using Mann-Whitney U tests and receiver-operating-characteristic analysis.

108 analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman correlation analysis.

109 between health and asthma using Mann-Whitney U tests and the Jonckheere-Terpstra test (linear trend a

110 Agreement was better between two Doppler US tests and between two contrast-enhanced MR angiograph

111 th increases of 66% (P = 0.004, Mann-Whitney U test) and 21% (P = 0.07) for patients who received pla

112 rative analysis between groups (Mann-Whitney U test) and a correlation analysis between glycemia and

113 (0.06 versus 0.34 mSv; P=0.037, Mann-Whitney U test) and lower median costs ($934 versus $1275; P=0.0

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

115 uclear genomic cfDNA (p 10(-5), Mann-Whitney U Test), and an increased relative abundance of mitochon

116 cedural flow disruption scores (Mann-Whitney U test), and number of preventable failures (Fisher exac

117 lysed using Pearson chi(2), the Mann-Whitney U test, and binary logistic regression.

118 Kruskal-Wallis H test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test were used to compare the g

119 The Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test were used to look for stat

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

121 tical analysis, Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Spearman's correlation coefficient were used

122 e is typically analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test, and the results are summarized by the mean of ra

123 s correlation coefficients, the Mann Whitney U test, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test.

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

125 ing Wilcoxon signed rank tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Fisher exact tests.

126 a statistic, regression models, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

127 is comprised paired t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, as well as Pearson r and Spearman rho for corre

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

129 ignificant difference (P >0.05, Mann-Whitney U test) between the S or F inserts in the amount of cont

130 hat CRM was abolished by inactivation during US testing but intact following inactivation during NMR

131 years) were compared by t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square, or Fisher's exact test.

132 was performed with the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test, chi2 test, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank te

133 aired nontumorous tissues was performed on a US test cohort of 84 patients with incident colon adenoc

134 A Mann-Whitney U test confirmed the proinflammatory response in VTRS1-i

135 wise tests between tumor types (Mann-Whitney U test), (d) relationships between fast fluid-attenuated

136 sing unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test, depending on data distribution.

137 E (p = 0.0002 vs control by the Mann-Whitney U test) enough to completely prevent fatal EAE, whereas

138 are paired samples, such as the Mann-Whitney U test (equivalent to the Wilcoxon rank sum test), the W

139 nges were investigated (ancova, Mann-Whitney U-test, Fisher exact test).

140 For statistic analyses Mann-Whitney U-test, Fisher's exact test and binary logistic regressi

141 rank test for paired data and a Mann-Whitney U test for nonpaired data.

142 test was used, followed by the Mann-Whitney U test for pairwise comparisons.

143 vs 30 min [5-90 min]; p<0.0001, Mann-Whitney U test); for each minute delay from onset of CSE to arri

144 A comparison between median values (U-test) highlighted statistically significant difference

145 lculated by unpaired t test (or Mann-Whitney U test in nonparametric data).

146 significant reduction (P <0.05, Mann-Whitney U test) in the amount of contamination for both inserts

147 Two-sided Mann-Whitney U test, independent samples t test, Fisher exact test, m

148 h QODD scores were tested using Mann-Whitney U tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, or Spearman's rank-correl

149 ification.Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test and Cuzick's test followed b

150 s was significant (P = 0.005 on Mann-Whitney U test; mean ranks 13.9 and 6.3 [of 21], for juniors and

151 server agreement, McNemar test, Mann-Whitney U test, multiple regression analysis, Spearman correlati

152 tly higher median concentrations (p , 0.001, U test) of 8-OHdG in their mononuclear cells than their

153 oma (AC), whereas VB was lower (Mann-Whitney U test or t test, P = .003, P = .036, and P = .019, resp

154 The Mann-Whitney U test or the chi2 test was used for calculating the dif

155 ied out using Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, or chi-square test (significance, p < .05).

156 between both groups by t test, Mann-Whitney U test, or likelihood ratio chi-square test.

157 with analysis of variance, the Mann-Whitney U test, or the t test.

158 rkinson's disease age at onset (Mann-Whitney U test p=0.001).

159 us 73 +/- 24 nmol L(-1) d(-1) , Mann-Whitney U-test p < 0.0001), and the South Atlantic Bight (20 +/-

160 n Tokoli to 5 AM after 3 years (Mann-Whitney U test, P < .0001).

161 reported in surgical journals (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001).

162 emonstrated construct validity (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.05), and learning curves for novices plate

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

164 ol variants (0.02 median score; Mann-Whitney U test, P < 1 x 10(-16)).

165 id group 2 (n = 96, median = 9, Mann-Whitney U test, p <.0001).

166 wth in the upper tertile range (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.04) but not in the middle tertile (p = 0.9

167 ange: 30.5, 10.2 vs. 27.8, 8.8; Mann-Whitney U-test, P = 0.0006).

168 There were significant (Mann-Whitney U test; p < 0.02) decreases in total lengths of protein

169 The day-10 (Mann-Whitney U test; P = .012) and day-14 (P = .025) neutrophil count

170 er than did the naive controls (Mann-Whitney U test; P = 0.038).

171 d using chi-square analysis and Mann-Whitney U-tests; P < 0.05 was used to define significance.

172 s were compared within (t test) and between (U test) patients.

173 Mann-Whitney U tests, receiver operating characteristic analyses, Spe

174 by using the paired t test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively.

175 Mann-Whitney U tests resulted in the following P values for these pro

176 Mann-Whitney U test revealed a statistically significant association

177 Mann-Whitney U tests revealed that length of BE, size of hiatal herni

178 A Mann-Whitney U test showed that PGES was significantly longer in the

179 is ANOVA-on-ranks with post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests showed significant pairwise between-cluster diff

180 (ANOVA)-on-Ranks with post-hoc Mann-Whitney U-tests showed significant pairwise between-cluster diff

181 egression analysis; P =.25-.75, Mann-Whitney U test; Spearman correlation coefficients between -0.33

182 desaturase is active as a homodimer prompted us test the hypothesis that an archetypal integral membr

183 VOCs were selected by U test to build a Probabilistic Neural Network (PNN) mod

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

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

186 test for continuous variables (Mann-Whitney U test used for nonnormally distributed variables).

187 skal-Wallis/Bonferroni-adjusted Mann-Whitney U test using statistical software.

188 The Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare the spatial errors.

189 The Mann-Whitney U test was carried out to test for significance of diffe

190 Mann-Whitney U test was performed to assess differences in number of

191 Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison among groups and Wilcoxon

192 Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons in sex and age.

193 The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons of variables.

194 used for significance, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for pairwise comparison of the groups.

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

196 Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used for within-group comparisons of disease

197 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess the difference between groups.

198 An independent sample Mann Whitney U test was used to compare differences in ADCs, skewness

199 Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences in bacterial burd

200 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the distribution of grades at

201 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the median mRNA copy numbers

202 unctional development, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the medians of 2 groups and K

203 A two-sided Mann-Whitney U test was used to detect differences in APT-weighted (A

204 asticatory performance, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine quality of life (P <0.05).

205 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine interocular differences in oc

206 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to test for differences between paired p

207 e not normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U-test was employed to assess the statistical validity o

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

209 Two-sample t test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis to compare dif

210 Linear regression and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to assess the association between the k

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

212 nt t, chi(2), Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were applied to analyze the differences between

213 y Bonferroni-corrected post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze the data.

214 Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare subgroups of patients.

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

216 are test, Student's t-test, and Mann-Whitney U-test were used for statistical analysis.

217 is performed by an extension of Mann-Whitney U test which is based on weighted rank sums computed fro

218 n's matched pairs test, and the Mann Whitney U Test with P < 0.05 considered significant.

219 Analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U tests with post hoc correction were used to assess dif

220 All 14 PSMs passed the u-test with residuals between the gravimetric and the Ge

221 1.4 in controls; P < 0.0001 by Mann-Whitney U test), with virtually no overlap between groups.

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

223 differentiated VCD vs. healthy (Mann-Whitney U-test: z = -5.390, P < 0.001) and asthma (z = -5.730, P