1 asured in all 17 segments and a normal range
was calculated for each.
2 Hazard ratios
were calculated for each 1-unit increase in log1.5(bioma
3 The average annual incidence of ALS and PDC
was calculated for each 5-year period from 1940 to 1999,
4 pdated, and incidences of early and late AMD
were calculated for each 5-year interval.
5 ion, tube feeding, and replacement infusions
were calculated for each 6-hr interval.
6 s specimens, and volume and sphericity index
were calculated for each ablation.
7 s, and APD60 and the diastolic interval (DI)
were calculated for each activation cycle throughout eac
8 (per 1000 person-years of follow-up [PYFU])
were calculated for each ADI within different CD4 strata
9 using whole-hospital cost to charge ratios,
were calculated for each admission.
10 uppression in the presence of a plant matrix
was calculated for each analyte.
11 er of 0.9 and an alpha of 0.05, 180 patients
were calculated for each arm.
12 Receiver operating characteristic curves
were calculated for each assay to determine optimal cuto
13 Time to onset of symptom relief
was calculated for each attack.
14 Moreover, cooperative free energies
were calculated for each binding step in both the closed
15 The positive predictive value of DSE
was calculated for each BP group.
16 Suicide rates per 100 000
were calculated for each branch.
17 ooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals
were calculated for each BRM.
18 d the mean percentage of expiratory collapse
was calculated for each bronchus.
19 Preoperatively 2 risk scores
were calculated for each case using the Muhtaseb and Buc
20 ens contact and angle open distance (AOD500)
were calculated for each case.
21 Statistical significance values
are calculated for each category.
22 Mean PSV, VICA/VCCA, and SDs
were calculated for each category.
23 Person-time and incidence rates
were calculated for each category.
24 btained and the proportional mortality ratio
was calculated for each cause of death.
25 stolic velocities (EDVs) and velocity ratios
were calculated for each CCA measurement.
26 rates within 30 days of the index operation
were calculated for each center.
27 ight-for-stature and BMI-for-age percentiles
were calculated for each child.
28 Mayo risk scores
were calculated for each clinic attendance and expected
29 ificity (% of true-negative throat cultures)
were calculated for each clinical feature.
30 Adjusted odds ratios (ORs)
were calculated for each cohort and in a combined analys
31 ric, physiochemical and topologic properties
are calculated for each complex, its domains, interfaces
32 sted mortality rates (RAMRs) after discharge
were calculated for each condition in each month at each
33 s, and effective resistance through the TCPC
were calculated for each condition.
34 Sensitivity and specificity
were calculated for each condition.
35 re identified, and the case to control ratio
was calculated for each consensus region.
36 d ratio (PLR) of malignancy and kappa values
were calculated for each criterion.
37 Postzygotic isolation
was calculated for each cross as the product of these fi
38 opulation-specific cutoffs for childhood BMI
were calculated for each CVD risk factor.
39 esion MTR : healthy nerve MTR (lesion ratio)
was calculated for each dataset.
40 ve summary receiver-operating characteristic
was calculated for each day and each biomarker, using a
41 A cumulative respiratory symptom score
was calculated for each day of measurement.
42 orresponding sensitivities and specificities
were calculated for each definition.
43 Sensitivity
was calculated for each detection method.
44 ihood ratios, with 95% confidence intervals,
were calculated for each diagnostic criteria.
45 edian and 90th percentile ED lengths of stay
were calculated for each disposition and admission/disch
46 Hazard ratios
were calculated for each doubling of biomarker concentra
47 The average infant-maternal plasma ratio
was calculated for each drug, and correlations of infant
48 MIC frequency, mode, and geometric mean
were calculated for each drug.
49 ndex (HHI), a measure of market competition,
was calculated for each DSA from 2003 to 2012.
50 Mean choroidal volume
was calculated for each Early Treatment Diabetic Retinop
51 For macular scans, mean CT
was calculated for each Early Treatment Diabetic Retinop
52 The number of collaterals per neuron can
be calculated for each environment and the relative role
53 Standardised mortality ratios (SMR)
were calculated for each epilepsy type, 10-year age band
54 attenuation, values of the Cramer-Rao bound
were calculated for each estimation task as a function o
55 The dose homogeneity index (DHI)
was calculated for each evaluable implant and was examin
56 Kaplan-Meier event rates
were calculated for each event and the composite outcome
57 Hepatic fECS and MMCM uptake
were calculated for each examination and correlated with
58 turbulence timing (TT), and turbulence onset
were calculated for each extrastimulus, and the linear r
59 The mean ocular perfusion pressure
was calculated for each eye at each of the 8 time points
60 The rate of RGC loss
was calculated for each eye using linear regression.
61 The rate of change of MD (MDR)
was calculated for each eye.
62 The NHT score
was calculated for each eye.
63 viations of PED area and volume measurements
were calculated for each eye.
64 center, a measure of hemodialysis adequacy,
was calculated for each facility, using measurements mad
65 y analyses were conducted, Cronbach's alphas
were calculated for each factor, and construct validity
66 vity, and the total number of teaching hours
was calculated for each faculty member.
67 ncies, the expected levels of heterozygosity
were calculated for each family.
68 average PFV (APFV) across orthogonal planes
was calculated for each fetus, and the relationship betw
69 normalized dose (in milligrays per 100 mAs)
was calculated for each fetus.
70 PPVs
were calculated for each finding and were stratified acc
71 The radioactivity level in each region
was calculated for each frame of a subject's PET scan.
72 Normalized expression indices
were calculated for each gene and intergenic region (IG)
73 Odds ratios
were calculated for each genotype separately and for pot
74 The following functional indices
were calculated for each gland: partitioned percentage (
75 The ratio of SUV-G to SUV-M (SUV-G/SUV-M)
was calculated for each graft.
76 R0 and SIG
were calculated for each grid cell in Canada south of 60
77 Recurrence and stoma free survival
was calculated for each group and independent risk facto
78 The rate of remission at week 12
was calculated for each group of patients without remiss
79 Implant survival rate
was calculated for each group, and potential risk was re
80 DS brain, the cholesterol/phospholipid ratio
was calculated for each group.
81 The rate of dissections
was calculated for each group.
82 zation and major or minor bleeding at 7 days
were calculated for each group and compared.
83 negative, appendectomy and perforation rates
were calculated for each group for preoperative evaluati
84 Indices of fractal dimension
were calculated for each group of sea lions using a unit
85 s in PD, CAL and REC from baseline to 1 year
were calculated for each group.
86 Lifetime medical costs
were calculated for each group.
87 antel-Haenszel statistic for survival curves
were calculated for each group.
88 ood ratios for positive and negative results
were calculated for each group; 95% confidence intervals
89 Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs)
were calculated for each gynecologic cancer site and for
90 From these structures, A and B
were calculated for each H[bond]C[bond]C[bond]H fragment
91 The annual-caseload of pancreatectomy
was calculated for each hospital facility.
92 Two summary scores
were calculated for each HRQoL scale: the average score
93 The dose-area product (DAP)
was calculated for each image and compared.
94 V), per-patient accuracy, and per-lesion PPV
were calculated for each image set.
95 global measure such as Shannon's entropy can
be calculated for each immunosignature.
96 inety-five percent confidence intervals (CI)
were calculated for each incidence rate, including age-,
97 ects model, relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs
were calculated for each increment of 10 mug/m(3) in pol
98 nd the average intimal-to-medial (I/M) ratio
was calculated for each incubation interval.
99 number of risk alleles an individual carries
was calculated for each individual in the prediction set
100 AM detection threshold
was calculated for each individual unit as a function of
101 Clinical risk factor burden
was calculated for each individual using a validated ris
102 l genotype score' (for the 23 polymorphisms)
was calculated for each individual within a hypothetical
103 ctions, the 3-year cumulative risks of CIN3+
were calculated for each individual high-risk HPV type.
104 urve areas, sensitivities, and specificities
were calculated for each instrument separately for each
105 iation of the logarithm of expression ratios
are calculated for each interval using the nearest neigh
106 Percentage retention
was calculated for each interval.
107 Regional cerebral perfusion pressure
was calculated for each intraparenchymal pressure measur
108 A methyl deviation index (MDI)
was calculated for each lesion relative to terminal duct
109 The magnetization transfer ratio
was calculated for each lesion.
110 ADCs) from DW imaging (b = 0, 600 sec/mm(2))
were calculated for each lesion and were compared betwee
111 nal enhancement ratio (a measure of washout)
were calculated for each lesion.
112 nhancement, and the signal enhancement ratio
were calculated for each lesion.
113 ers pertinent to the experimental conditions
was calculated for each line.
114 sode as well as average changes in thickness
were calculated for each macular field for each eye.
115 Resulting D scores
were calculated for each management decision.
116 by the mean left atrial blood pool intensity
was calculated for each mapping site.
117 The HEM/liv quotients
were calculated for each mass.
118 Sensitivity and 95% confidence intervals
were calculated for each modality.
119 r the receiver operator characteristic curve
was calculated for each model.
120 actual and predicted binocular sensitivities
were calculated for each model.
121 , area under the curve (AUC), and thresholds
were calculated for each model.
122 e (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV)
were calculated for each MR imaging sign.
123 negative predictive values for PE detection
were calculated for each MR technique on a per-embolus b
124 , the ratio of DeltaQ( not equal)/DeltaQ can
be calculated for each mutant.
125 atio of adducted to total BuChE nonapeptides
was calculated for each nerve agent-exposed serum sample
126 Two-hundred classical trajectories
are calculated for each of the milestones to collect loc
127 These parameters of water sorption
are calculated for each of the three regions of water bi
128 Mathematical moments
are calculated for each of these spectra to create a mul
129 act with neighboring protein atoms, and D(x)
is calculated for each of the points in a coarse-grained
130 receiver operating characteristic curve (Az)
was calculated for each of five lesion classification ta
131 The mean blood flow
was calculated for each of four 5-mm sections that cover
132 Median waiting time
was calculated for each of the 58 donor service areas (D
133 The frequency of each allele
was calculated for each of the age-at-onset, onset type,
134 The vibrational density of states
was calculated for each of the esterases.
135 et of vicinal and allylic coupling constants
was calculated for each of the four diastereomers whose
136 Sensitivity
was calculated for each of the variables.
137 The critical values of the cutoff
were calculated for each of 11 popular power-type potent
138 the chi-square, sensitivity, and specificity
were calculated for each of 240 possible definitions of
139 Area and ILI measures
were calculated for each of 5 patients for three or more
140 sure to the main groups of asthma medication
were calculated for each of the 10 signal anomalies comp
141 Retinal thicknesses
were calculated for each of the 9 Early Treatment Diabet
142 The number and rate of deaths by cause
were calculated for each of the component trials and the
143 Reactivity ratios, r1 and r2,
were calculated for each of the copolymer systems, givin
144 Sensitivity and specificity
were calculated for each of the readers, and the means w
145 ccessive transverse slices along the rostrum
were calculated for each of the species.
146 ckness (at the Anterior Sub-arachnoid space)
were calculated for each ONH.
147 ADC values
were calculated for each organ on each sequence using an
148 atios, according to HCC surveillance status,
were calculated for each outcome using the DerSimonian a
149 arson product moment correlation coefficient
was calculated for each pair of scoring tools.
150 Spectra and correlation functions
were calculated for each pair of records.
151 the receiver operating characteristic curve
were calculated for each parameter on the basis of its u
152 The number of BMI-increasing alleles
was calculated for each participant.
153 A score for predicted 25(OH)D level
was calculated for each participant.
154 Both diet scores
were calculated for each participant and categorized int
155 The aMed and DASH scores
were calculated for each participant by using dietary in
156 Language laterality indexes
were calculated for each participant.
157 orrected visual acuity of 6/60 or worse, and
was calculated for each participating hospital with resu
158 Final standard curves
were calculated for each pathogen by plotting the thresh
159 fusion pressure within limits of reactivity)
was calculated for each patient and compared across dich
160 The nuclear morphometry score
was calculated for each patient as follows: MV(f) = (0.0
161 A 12-point arrhythmia severity score
was calculated for each patient at baseline and on follo
162 A RIFLE score
was calculated for each patient based on percent change
163 The International Index
was calculated for each patient based on stage, lactate
164 Daily anticholinergic burden
was calculated for each patient based on the sum of the
165 eding risk between prasugrel and clopidogrel
was calculated for each patient to identify the proporti
166 A final combined ratio
was calculated for each patient, and posttrauma leukotri
167 A symptom score
was calculated for each patient.
168 The overall percentage change in enhancement
was calculated for each patient.
169 s measured and the mortality predictor score
was calculated for each patient.
170 The amount of residual fluid
was calculated for each patient.
171 and at weeks 4, 8, and 12, and a mean value
was calculated for each patient.
172 Css
was calculated for each patient; if it differed by more
173 d attenuation) and volumetric calcium scores
were calculated for each patient and lesion.
174 l ERG response amplitudes and implicit times
were calculated for each patient and presented as differ
175 ajor cardiovascular events by statin therapy
were calculated for each patient by subtracting the esti
176 tios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI)
were calculated for each patient cohort.
177 e (PSMA-TV) and total lesion PSMA (TL-PSMA),
were calculated for each patient using a 3-dimensional s
178 ed mean glucose and mean glucocorticoid dose
were calculated for each patient using all values collec
179 nal (18)F-FDG uptake and (11)C-PIB retention
were calculated for each patient, with cerebellar gray m
180 e predicted prestage 1 and 2 mortality risks
were calculated for each patient.
181 zed binocular 24-2 and 10-2 VF sensitivities
were calculated for each patient.
182 regulation over the entire monitoring period
were calculated for each patient.
183 TTR and log-transformed INR variability
were calculated for each patient.
184 Three dynamic indices
were calculated for each patient: the global index of my
185 A 95% prediction interval
was calculated for each peak pressure, and the upper lim
186 e score (scope score), a psychometric scale,
was calculated for each physician and ranged from 0 to 3
187 oxy-hemoglobin, deoxy-hemoglobin, and water
were calculated for each pixel of a spectral image stack
188 The half-life of Ins in PtdIns
was calculated for each point on the linear incorporatio
189 number average association constant (K(n)())
were calculated for each polymer in a series, using equa
190 factors for methanol and ethanol adsorption
were calculated for each pressure increment at which the
191 ences for emergent versus elective admission
were calculated for each procedure.
192 Mean group event scores
were calculated for each product.
193 Group differences
were calculated for each protocol and meta-analyzed.
194 Prescription totals
were calculated for each provider specialty.
195 Validation parameters
were calculated for each question, and receiver operatin
196 confidence intervals (Cls), and Ps for trend
were calculated for each quintile of plasma antioxidant
197 and population-attributable risk percentages
were calculated for each racial/ethnic group.
198 nal change realized at the transition state)
were calculated for each reaction series as the slope of
199 predictive value for characterization of PDP
was calculated for each reader with 95% confidence inter
200 ted, and the area under the ROC curve (A(z))
was calculated for each reader.
201 the receiver operating characteristic curve
was calculated for each reader.
202 Amplitudes and latencies
were calculated for each recording session.
203 lence of near and distance visual impairment
was calculated for each region.
204 zed incidence rates for 1990-2006 (combined)
were calculated for each region.
205 ios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)
were calculated for each risk factor.
206 e risk groups, and success rates at 6 months
were calculated for each risk group either without or wi
207 and c-statistics (to assess discrimination)
were calculated for each risk scheme.
208 variation (CV), and test-retest SD (TRT SD)
were calculated for each RNFL and ONH parameter.
209 at dose (THD) from activated tumor bioprobes
was calculated for each Rx group using (111)In-bioprobe
210 The autocorrelation score
was calculated for each sample and the proportion of sam
211 The cook value index
was calculated for each sample to evaluate the entity of
212 were grouped, and the degree of duplication
was calculated for each sample.
213 of allele loss, fractional allele loss (FAL)
was calculated for each sample.
214 osphorylation of 14C- and 18F-2-deoxyglucose
was calculated for each sample.
215 ratios (LR) and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR)
were calculated for each scale as a test for HAD or MND.
216 one-week period and interjudge reliabilities
were calculated for each scale; reliabilities of the two
217 The PERSI reference region
was calculated for each scan by fitting a bimodal gaussi
218 therapy per 1000 patient-days (DOT/1000PD),
were calculated for each SCH and compared with rates in
219 MBF and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR)
were calculated for each segment, and mean values in eac
220 (Pearson correlation coefficient [r] values)
were calculated for each sequence.
221 -fit ellipse) and nearest neighbor distances
were calculated for each session.
222 C-PP
was calculated for each sex by a multiple regression ana
223 s (rSMRs), and proportional mortality ratios
were calculated for each sex and ethnic group relative t
224 velocity after contrast agent administration
was calculated for each site interrogated.
225 ivation between active and passive movements
were calculated for each somatotopic location.
226 Pesticide concentration profiles
were calculated for each source and mountain site by nor
227 e, mineral mass, and modified Agatston score
were calculated for each specimen by using a number of s
228 spin label and 30 to 60 amide protons could
be calculated for each spin-labeled protein.
229 including both nominal and uncertainty data
is calculated for each stage of the algae-derived fuel l
230 Duration and intensity
were calculated for each statin type on the basis of day
231 f central to peripheral responses (Q values)
was calculated for each stimulus configuration.
232 Hedges' g
was calculated for each study and volume changes from ba
233 Hedges' g
was calculated for each study, and the overall weighted
234 Tube current-time product
was calculated for each study.
235 arks/total number of items assessed) x 100%]
was calculated for each study.
236 pe- and serogroup-specific odds ratios (ORs)
were calculated for each study and as a pooled estimate,
237 Sensitivities and specificities
were calculated for each study and pooled estimates were
238 average ambient PM2.5 and NOx concentrations
were calculated for each study participant's home addres
239 MMSE score differences between waves 2 and 3
were calculated for each study participant.
240 estimates of type 1 diabetes by maternal age
were calculated for each study, before and after adjustm
241 diabetes by category of interbirth interval
were calculated for each study.
242 landmarks, and eight clinical parameters had
been calculated for each subject.
243 A QT variability index (QTVI)
was calculated for each subject as the logarithm of the
244 The slope of FEV1
was calculated for each subject using simple linear regr
245 equal to standard deviation divided by mean)
was calculated for each subject, session, and anatomic l
246 A familial risk score
was calculated for each subject.
247 us risk groups, and the probability of a PTD
was calculated for each subject.
248 r correlation with the left precentral gyrus
was calculated for each subject.
249 malized images and the percentage ROI active
was calculated for each subject.
250 t radiographs, and ratios of MB/LA and TR/LA
were calculated for each subject and compared with FEF25
251 and ONFlow for these five measurement sites
were calculated for each subject and defined as ONVel5,
252 Full mouth median GCF PGE2 concentrations
were calculated for each subject at days 0, 14, 28, and
253 FMZ transport and binding maps
were calculated for each subject by using a physiologica
254 liability in street crossing decision-making
were calculated for each subject under each sensory cond
255 M-EE) based on the four calibration sessions
were calculated for each subject.
256 m questions about ocular surface discomfort)
were calculated for each subject.
257 Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)
were calculated for each subject/analyte combination.
258 fter American Board of Surgery certification
were calculated for each surgeon for each case.
259 ncremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)
were calculated for each surveillance strategy.
260 Correlations in liability
were calculated for each syndrome in the monozygotic and
261 Incidence of HZ events
was calculated for each systemic antipsoriatic medicatio
262 urves were obtained, and limits of detection
were calculated for each target in the buffer and clinic
263 ty, and diagnostic accuracy for MI detection
were calculated for each technique and clinical conditio
264 The total direct cost of testing
was calculated for each test type.
265 atistics, mean differences, and effect sizes
were calculated for each test component.
266 Charges
were calculated for each test.
267 Geometric means and distribution percentiles
were calculated for each TFA and their sum by age, sex,
268 A median rate ratio
was calculated for each therapy, which describes the lik
269 attributable risk of DM as a CVD risk factor
was calculated for each time period.
270 ted summary score for each functional domain
was calculated for each time period.
271 Target-to-background ratios
were calculated for each time point.
272 air step, voxel-by-voxel rate of change maps
were calculated for each tissue class (grey matter, whit
273 anisotropy (FA), an index of microstructure,
was calculated for each tract.
274 Standardized mean change scores
were calculated for each treatment arm, plotted against
275 fees) and mean postoperative length of stay
were calculated for each treatment group.
276 ORs for the 4 clinical end points
were calculated for each trial.
277 er coefficient, and fractional plasma volume
were calculated for each tumor and each CM by means of a
278 er the background somatic mutation frequency
were calculated for each tumor type by racial ethnicity.
279 Dose distributions (percentiles)
were calculated for each type of procedure in the RAD-IR
280 surgery by ophthalmologists and optometrists
were calculated for each United States state.
281 ls, the estimated probability of observation
was calculated for each urologist within each risk strat
282 lue, negative predictive value, and accuracy
were calculated for each US sign in the diagnosis of ful
283 and positive and negative predictive values
were calculated for each US variable.
284 The net yield (revenue minus expenditure)
was calculated for each vaccine.
285 Confidence intervals of 95%
were calculated for each value with the standard equatio
286 ular modeling, and the pK(a) value for Cys22
was calculated for each variant.
287 Distance-, fuel- and work-based PNEFs
were calculated for each vehicle.
288 Correlation coefficients between measures
were calculated for each visit.
289 If an optimal drift time
is calculated for each voltage and scanned simultaneousl
290 For validation, the upper limit of normal
was calculated for each volunteer and compared with the
291 ding potential (a measure of amyloid burden)
was calculated for each voxel using the Logan graphical
292 d and the magnetization transfer ratio (MTR)
was calculated for each voxel within the corpus callosum
293 m plutonium, americium, and uranium isotopes
were calculated for each worker with an internal dosimet
294 The incidence rate ratio (IRR)
was calculated for each year in the study period; the pr
295 Cumulative incidence rates
were calculated for each year by dividing the number of
296 Rates of MRSA
were calculated for each year by using all isolates and
297 nds in the number of habitus-limited reports
were calculated for each year, and linear regression ana
298 infection burden and patient health profile
were calculated for each year, and linear regression was
299 tumor resection and median relative survival
were calculated for each year.
300 Nationwide estimates of utilisation
were calculated for each year.