1 s and change in ACE-R scores between visits (
analyses of variance).
2 h and groups were compared using mixed-model
analyses of variance.
3 amplitude data were submitted to split-plot
analyses of variance.
4 food groups were tested by using one-factor
analyses of variance.
5 6 months and 1 year using repeated-measures
analyses of variance.
6 cases and controls in the OHTS cohort using
analyses of variance.
7 th baseline visual acuity was assessed using
analyses of variance and correlation coefficients.
8 We used
analyses of variance and covariance to estimate the rela
9 Analyses of variance and covariance were performed to as
10 were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and
analyses of variance and covariance with ApoE4 status an
11 Analyses of variance and log-rank tests were used to eva
12 Using factorial
analyses of variance and multiple discriminant analyses,
13 Analyses of variance (
ANOVA) followed by Fisher protecte
14 Univariate
analyses of variance (
ANOVAs) revealed a significant eff
15 Multivariate
analyses of variance assessed differences and associatio
16 Analyses of variance failed to show an association betwe
17 Two-way
analyses of variance,
followed by Fisher's protected lea
18 roup comparisons were performed with one-way
analyses of variance including sex, medication use, and
19 Multivariate
analyses of variance indicated a distinct pattern of reg
20 Standard methods, such as t tests and
analyses of variance,
may be poor choices for data that
21 Analyses of variance of FA and BOLD PSC were used to det
22 Analyses of variance of the (tester- control) difference
23 ps using separate unadjusted cross-sectional
analyses of variance (
P > 0.15 for analyses at all time
24 Regional CBF was compared by using
analyses of variance;
permutation tests were used for vo
25 State Examination (MMSE) scores at baseline (
analyses of variance,
receiver operating characteristics
26 Permutational multivariate
analyses of variance revealed clear differentiation of a
27 Analyses of variance revealed main effects, but not an i
28 Analyses of variance revealed no significant group-by-ti
29 Analyses of variance revealed that PRT increased LBM and
30 These
analyses of variance showed a highly significant reducti
31 Groups were compared using
analyses of variance,
t tests, and correlation analyses.
32 An
analyses of variance was performed similar to that used
33 Principal component analyses and
analyses of variance were carried out with the aim of st
34 Two-way
analyses of variance were conducted to assess regional d
35 Multivariate mixed-model
analyses of variance were conducted to compare groups on
36 Multivariate
analyses of variance were conducted to explore differenc
37 nalysis of variance and follow-up univariate
analyses of variance were performed to compare those wom
38 Repeated measures
analyses of variance were performed to detect significan
39 Repeated measures
analyses of variance were performed to evaluate whether
40 Student t tests and
analyses of variance were performed.
41 Analyses of variance were used to assess levels of accep
42 Random-effects and repeated-measures
analyses of variance were used to assess operator differ
43 Univariate
analyses of variance were used to examine the relationsh
44 Multivariate
analyses of variance were used to investigate difference
45 Mixed model
analyses of variance were used to test the significance
46 erences in ED, DF, and MBS were assessed via
analyses of variance with Bonferroni and Tukey honest si
47 Data were analyzed using
analyses of variance with group as the between-subjects
48 One-way
analyses of variance with post hoc Tukey Honestly Signif
49 Repeated measures
analyses of variance yielded no significant differences