ライフサイエンスコーパス: categorical variables

1 Categorical variables were analyzed by the chi(2) test and co

2 Categorical variables were analyzed with Pearson chi(2) tests

3 Categorical variables were compared by using the exact condit

4 Categorical variables were compared using chi-square/Fischer'

5 Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square test

6 Categorical variables were evaluated by using the Fisher exac

7 ned variables, the final risk-assessment model contained 10 categorical variables including congestive heart failure, par

8 pared using t tests and chi-square tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively.

9 Continuous variables were compared with Student t test, and categorical variables were compared with the Fisher exact tes

10 (CTDI(vol), DLP, noise) were compared by using t tests, and categorical variables (image quality) were compared by using

11 e and associations with longitudinal change in cytokines as categorical variables were analyzed using multivariable analy

12 development of neurological and autonomic manifestations as categorical variables.

13 m proportional hazard coefficients associated with baseline categorical variables and quintiles of continuous variables.

14 We used chi(2) and Fisher's exact tests to compare categorical variables and the t test or the Mann-Whitney U te

15 riables using Pearson correlation coefficients and compared categorical variables using the Fisher exact test.

16 were stratified into cohorts in relation to the considered categorical variables and data were compared by using the Man

17 For categorical variables, the sensitivity and specificity of eac

18 t cards on referral decisions was assessed using chi(2) for categorical variables and t test for continuous variables.

19 erences were assessed using contingency table analysis (for categorical variables) and Student's t-tests for (continuous

20 Proportions were analyzed for categorical variables; means and SDs were analyzed for contin

21 ls with an abnormality in brain structure was extracted for categorical variables.

22 ession for continuous variables and logistic regression for categorical variables, and interrater and intrarater reliabil

23 t test for continuous variables and contingency tables for categorical variables were used.

24 groups were compared by means of the Fisher exact test for categorical variables and an unpaired t test for continuous v

25 h Kaplan-Meier curves and a corresponding log-rank test for categorical variables and Cox regression for continuous varia

26 l analyses were performed by Pearson's chi-squared test for categorical variables and student's t-test for quantitative v

27 essed by means of the Pearson chi2 or Fisher exact test for categorical variables and the two-sample t test for continuou

28 finding, performed Fisher exact test or chi-square test for categorical variables between the cohort that did and did not

29 tical analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test for categorical variables or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for numer

30 m test for nonnormally distributed, and Chi-square test for categorical variables were used in univariable comparisons.

31 Student t test for continuous variables and chi(2) test for categorical variables.

32 nt t test for continuous variables and the McNemar test for categorical variables.

33 ent t test for continuous variables and the chi(2) test for categorical variables.

34 us variables and Pearson chi2 test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables.

35 uous variables and either the Fisher exact or chi2 test for categorical variables.

36 A2 or A2B kidneys was performed with chi-square testing for categorical variables (Fisher's exact test used for violation

37 Fisher exact tests for categorical variables, t test for continuous variables, and K

38 e and female SCA cases using Pearson's chi-square tests for categorical variables, t tests for continuous variables, and

39 uous variables and the Pearson chi-square test was used for categorical variables.

40 The best predictive model had four categorical variables: hemodynamic support (ECMO, ventilator

41 hi-square analysis and log-rank tests were used to identify categorical variables associated with RD (eGFR <75% of normal

42 Differences in categorical variables were assessed using the chi(2) test.

43 Differences in categorical variables were examined by using Pearson chi(2) a

44 The adjusted incidence rate ratios of these nine categorical variables were scaled and summed to create the ri

45 Distribution of categorical variables and survival rates across cancer type w

46 None of the renal markers, modeled as either continuous or categorical variables, correlated with FMD.

47 les or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for numerical and ordered categorical variables.

48 aracteristics were compared by chi(2) or Fisher exact test (categorical variables) or Wilcoxon rank-sum (continuous varia

49 simplified prognostic scoring rule (ProVent 14 Score) using categorical variables was created in the development cohort a

50 le scores, followed by multivariable regression models with categorical variables based on quartiles of the distribution