ライフサイエンスコーパス: for the primary end point

1 only independent predictor (hazard ratio, 2.54 [1.06-6.10]) for the primary end point.

2 presence of pulmonary hypertension revealed similar results for the primary end point.

3 Of those, 30 were enrolled, and 29 were evaluable for the primary end point.

4 aggregation-based assays added significant predictive value for the primary end point.

5 not find a significant difference between treatment groups for the primary end point.

6 O-SES was noninferior to X-EES for the primary end point (0.10+/-0.32 versus 0.11+/-0.29 mm;

7 Seventy-eight and 77 patients, respectively, were evaluable for the primary end point, 1-month overall response regarding

8 risk, patients with PAD had larger absolute risk reductions for the primary end point (3.5% with PAD, 1.6% without PAD) a

9 otrexate-alone group or the placebo group met the criterion for the primary end point (40 of 63 [63%] vs. 26 of 65 [40%]

10 underwent randomization, and data from 1053 were available for the primary end-point analysis.

11 ed discrimination as assessed by C-statistics was only seen for the primary end point and all-cause mortality.

12 The noninferiority criterion for the primary end point and for the secondary end point of

13 line GLS and GCS and outcomes remained: P=0.014 and P=0.002 for the primary end point and P=0.049 and P=0.001 for the sec

14 Fisher's exact test was used for the primary end point, and extended Mantel-Haenszel chi(2

15 CEREBEL is inconclusive for the primary end point, and no difference was detected bet

16 For the primary end point, arterial TEE, we observed a transi

17 The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvast

18 Hs-cTnT as a risk factor for the primary end point (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myo

19 A post hoc analysis for the primary end point considering the SPRINT (Systolic Bl

20 Estimated HRs for the primary end point for patients with an LGE extent of

21 iated with increased risk of unfavorable events as follows: for the primary end point (hazard ratio=2.91; 95% confidence

22 The hazard ratio for the primary end point in the combination-therapy group ve

23 The hazard ratio for the primary end point in the combined trials was 0.88 (95

24 vel biodegradable polymer-based O-SES was found noninferior for the primary end point in-stent late lumen loss at 9 month

25 ition was reduced in all 12 patients who could be evaluated for the primary end point; in the intention-to-treat analysis

26 n dose, 46.8 Gy; range, 28.8 to 50.4 Gy) and were evaluable for the primary end point (median follow-up, 21.6 months).

27 re was better than medical treatment (97% vs 43%, P < .001) for the primary end point of "favorable aortic remodeling" (f

28 specified noninferiority margin of 1.3 for the hazard ratio for the primary end point of a composite of death from cardio

29 In Cox regression models for the primary end point of all inhibitors, recombinant fact

30 was followed for a mean of 2.7 and 1.2 years, respectively, for the primary end point of all-cause death.

31 Patients were followed for a mean of 5.6 +/- 2.6 years for the primary end point of all-cause mortality.

32 d not alter the hazard ratio favoring LCZ696 over enalapril for the primary end point of cardiovascular death or heart fa

33 For the primary end point of cardiovascular death, major coro

34 nivariate analysis (P<0.0001) and in multivariable analysis for the primary end point of death or cardiac hospitalization

35 For the primary end point of DFS, association with TIL scores

36 At hour 2, there was a strong trend for the primary end point of platelet reactivity (in P2Y12 re

37 analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed for the primary end point of proven IFI.

38 CI (UCB) of hazard ratio (HR) of T versus AC less than 1.30 for the primary end point of relapse-free survival (RFS).

39 a left ventricular ejection fraction <55% were followed up for the primary end point of sudden cardiac arrest or appropr

40 for noninferiority compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents for the primary end point of target lesion failure at 12 mont

41 s and has shown that ZES was noninferior to EES at 12-month for the primary end point of target lesion failure.

42 Records were reviewed for the primary end point: symptomatic cardiac events (sympto

43 oninferior and clinically equivalent to monthly ranibizumab for the primary end point (the 2q4, 0.5q4, and 2q8 regimens w

44 For the primary end point, the IT group at week 72 had a bett

45 For the primary end point, the number of new lesions was lowe

46 here was no significant difference between the 2 treatments for the primary end point (warfarin versus aspirin: RR, 0.94;

47 At 5 years, the criterion for the primary end point was met by 2 of 38 patients (5%) wh

48 At 3 years, the criterion for the primary end point was met by 5% of the patients in th

49 crease in c-index </=0.1), net reclassification improvement for the primary end points was 0.29 for BNP and 0.21 for sTNF

50 Time-to-event individual patient data for the primary end point were reconstructed.