ライフサイエンスコーパス: level of significance

1 articipants are presented with corresponding level of significance.

2 carried out in the analysis to determine the level of significance.

3 rhosis (P = 1.54 x 10(-48)) at a genome-wide level of significance.

4 serum DBP concentrations at the genome-wide level of significance.

5 cNemar's test, and Kaplan-Meier's test at 5% level of significance.

6 associated with handedness at a genome-wide level of significance.

7 (weight (kg)/height (m)(2)) at a genome-wide level of significance.

8 lymorphism analyzed and aggression at the 5% level of significance.

9 and unpaired t test, respectively, with a 5% level of significance.

10 A P value of <0.05 was accepted as the level of significance.

11 e the conduct of tests at the 0.005 or 0.001 level of significance.

12 suggestive discovery associations at a lower level of significance.

13 etween lupus and IL2/IL21 with a genome-wide level of significance.

14 V-1 RNA levels did not meet the prespecified level of significance.

15 median, although these did not reach the .05 level of significance.

16 of the mixed-models procedure with p < 0.05 level of significance.

17 of the effects were significant at the 0.05 level of significance.

18 However, covarying for age reduced the level of significance.

19 of significance tests at unjustifiably high levels of significance.

20 d, although these did not reach conventional levels of significance.

21 though none reached conventional genome-wide level of significance (10 x -8), we found strongly sugge

22 d one SNP associated at close to genome wide level of significance 556 kb upstream of the ARRDC3 locu

23 multiple genes, one needs only to adjust the level of significance according to the number of disease

24 that circumvents the need to correct for the level of significance according to the number of markers

25 ssociated with T2D risk but didn't reach the level of significance after Bonferroni correction [KCNJ1

26 was the only finding to meet chromosomewide levels of significance after correction for multiple tes

27 kal-Wallis test; and 5) regression analysis; level of significance alpha = 5%.

28 und 3 associations that met our prespecified level of significance (alpha=1.1x10(-7)).

29 ty analyses showed consistent results in the level of significance and slightly larger magnitude of A

30 n integrated strategy that combines the eQTL level of significance and the regulatory potential as me

31 g of samples based on SM concentration at 5% level of significance and thus SM could be detected in m

32 advantageous in terms of generating improved levels of significance and in providing more interpretab

33 icated regions have been large, with reduced levels of significance and modest effect sizes.

34 escitalopram or nortriptyline at suggestive levels of significance and with a high posterior likelih

35 tified no single variants reaching stringent levels of significance and, despite excellent power, pro

36 olesterol, or triglycerides at a genome-wide level of significance, and test their associations with

37 g in further power gains, especially at high levels of significance; and (3) covariates and weights b

38 empirically derived p values reached nominal levels of significance at eight marker locations.

39 vered 42 novel RA risk loci at a genome-wide level of significance, bringing the total to 101.

40 nd 12 (IBD2) and two regions with suggestive levels of significance (chromosomes 3p and 7q).

41 P < 0.001 for each comparison); however, the level of significance decreased some when poverty was in

42 % CI, 1.61-7.05), and 2 loci reached nominal levels of significance (deletions at 2q11.2: 6 [0.03%] v

43 ion, where the benefits/risks have different levels of significance, depending on the individual pati

44 the antioxidant capacity significantly (0.05 level of significance) depends on the content of the ext

45 periodontitis case definitions; however, the level of significance did show some variation.

46 t during the DA and just reached traditional levels of significance during the WCS.

47 At the 0.05 level of significance, evidence was found for deviation

48 = 3,187), 100% of CpGs gave at least nominal levels of significance, far more than expected by chance

49 stimation may operate at a differing unknown level of significance for each experiment.

50 to readmission hazard no longer reached the level of significance (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.87-

51 aralysis have all been apportioned differing levels of significance in various attempts at retrospect

52 ted SNPs, including those below conventional levels of significance, influenced the same biological p

53 of shared susceptibility genes at different levels of significance is presented.

54 At the same level of significance, LD was found among 8 of the 34 in

55 3 was linked to these phenotypes at a lower level of significance (LOD score = 1.8 and 0.95 for BMI

56 ntrapathway gene pairs, 8935 are linked at a level of significance of 0.01.

57 The level of significance of difference between scoring syst

58 mar test of discordant pairs was used with a level of significance of P < .05.

59 ut did not approach the Bonferroni-corrected level of significance of P < 0.002.

60 5 areas of possible linkage, with a nominal level of significance of P < or = 0.05.

61 robability was calculated to demonstrate the level of significance of perfusion changes.

62 match to the spectrum and the corresponding level of significance of the null hypothesis is determin

63 al tandem mass spectrum and to determine the level of significance of the null hypothesis.

64 ograft survival in the G group (P=0.09), the level of significance of which increased with adjustment

65 mpirical failures to detect (at conventional levels of significance) one such form of variation (as e

66 LA class II region surpassed the genome-wide level of significance (OR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.46-0.68).

67 ci were successfully replicated at a nominal level of significance (P < 0.05).

68 gregated with RRV genome segment 7 to a high level of significance (P = 10(-3)).

69 loci were enriched among cases with nominal levels of significance (P < 0.05); however, none would s

70 ve genomic regions associated at genome-wide levels of significance (p < 5 x 10-8).

71 he normal population and exceeded genomewide levels of significance (P=10-9).

72 the baseline score by using paired t tests (level of significance, P < .007).

73 significance, P = 0.0047) and width (t-test level of significance, P = 0.0001).

74 ignificantly greater for both height (t-test level of significance, P = 0.0047) and width (t-test lev

75 positions were associated at the genome-wide level of significance, P-values of potential relevance w

76 we mapped a QTL for CSF HVA at a genome-wide level of significance (peak logarithm of odds score >4)

77 large and complex architectures; and (6) the level of significance placed upon structural, functional

78 At a less stringent level of significance, predicted areas in bilateral medi

79 03 for LS and 0.04 for FN) did not reach the level of significance required for multiple testing (P =

80 ntified as GCA risk genes at the genome-wide level of significance (rs4252134, p = 1.23 x 10(-10), OR

81 A novel locus at genome-wide level of significance (rs73460075, OR = 0.56, P = 3.8 x

82 chi(2) test for categoric variables with the level of significance set at P < .05.

83 the number of pairs of studies in which the levels of significance (shown by p values) were discorda

84 es pairs, some 65 000 are linked at the 0.01 level of significance, some 12 standard deviations beyon

85 ups of omega for omega > 1, using a modified level of significance that incorporates the pretesting.

86 AS robustly identified 2 loci at genome-wide levels of significance that influence survival in patien

87 d to be associated with GGT at a genome-wide level of significance, the corresponding estimate sugges

88 % power for a one-sided alternative at a 10% level of significance to detect a reduction in the hazar

89 linear model analysis was used to determine level of significance to differentiate composition on na

90 ciated with scleroderma per se, although the level of significance was much lower (chi(2) = 8.7, P =

91 Moreover, a tendency above the level of significance was observed for the negative impa

92 The level of significance was set at 5 % (p < 0.05).

93 The level of significance was set at P <0.05.

94 Level of significance was set at P <0.05.

95 The level of significance was set at P <0.05.

96 Level of significance was set at p<0.05.

97 te correlation analysis were carried out and level of significance was taken at 5%.

98 The levels of significance were set at 6 of 17 (P = 0.042) f

99 inadequacy of permutation tests to estimate levels of significance when all phenotypic values are pe

100 We found nominal levels of significance with SNPs at 9 of the 27 previous

101 s to be associated with LTL at a genome-wide level of significance within cohorts of European ancestr

102 how that 1.6 false-positive linkages at this level of significance would be expected from the data.