ライフサイエンスコーパス: paired comparison

1 those without depression (P < 0.001 for each paired comparison).

2 ically significant (P<.006 for each group of paired comparisons).

3 of individual stimuli or using the method of paired comparisons.

4 ests were used to analyze the differences in paired comparisons.

5 uch as delayed nonmatching to sample, visual paired comparison, and its rodent analog, the spontaneou

6 Paired comparisons between operated and nonoperated fell

7 with both a 5-point Likert scale and with 8 paired-comparison conjoint tasks (the latter being analy

8 We analysed paired comparison data using probit regression analysis

9 Paired comparisons found significant differences between

10 , for clinical testing by topical, bilateral paired comparisons in 20 patients with atopic dermatitis

11 ed procedures for implementing the method of paired comparisons in the fitting of today's sophisticat

12 In a paired comparison including 1213 patients, 73% of the pa

13 tly different among FBP, IRIS, and SAFIRE in paired comparisons (median Agatston score [25th and 75th

14 This was a within-subject, paired comparison of MDI and CSII and CSII with 12 month

15 median absolute prediction error (1.2 D); a paired comparison of medians showed clinically similar r

16 (2) Paired comparison of qualitative differences in paper ve

17 For each patient, paired comparison of radiation doses before and after ri

18 Paired comparison of residence times for spleen and tumo

19 Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used for paired comparison of subepicardial and subendocardial MV

20 The paired comparison of the event-free costs showed that th

21 The paired comparison of the event-free plus angina-free cos

22 In paired comparisons of 100/cystatin C with iothalamate cl

23 lesional skin was assessed by double-blind, paired comparisons of active drug and placebo ointments

24 Corresponding reader-adjusted paired comparisons of false-positive scores revealed sig

25 uced RG2TK+ and wild-type RG2, were used for paired comparisons of probe accumulation in vitro and fo

26 In paired comparisons of static stimuli, depth amplitude wa

27 isons of probe accumulation in vitro and for paired comparisons of subcutaneous xenografts produced f

28 nce responses to anchor the results from the paired comparisons on the disability weight scale from 0

29 Among these paired comparisons, only eight (12%) of 67 FNA diagnoses

30 other task of recognition memory, the visual paired-comparison, or visual preferential looking task (

31 On paired comparison, phase sequences during monomorphic ve

32 , 9-month-olds, and adults, using the visual paired-comparison procedure.

33 f the primary end points was undertaken with paired comparison procedures by using paired t tests acr

34 of the primary end point was undertaken with paired comparison procedures.

35 necessary to fit many of them-the method of paired comparisons provides the clinician with the abili

36 Surveys used paired comparison questions for which respondents consid

37 Survey responses to paired comparison questions were insensitive to whether

38 The surveys used paired comparison questions, in which respondents consid

39 In paired comparisons, rejection incidence was superior in

40 Analysis of paired comparison responses indicated a high degree of c

41 additional analysis examined sensitivity of paired comparison responses to duration of hypothetical

42 We analysed paired comparison responses with probit regression analy

43 Paired comparisons show that these two synapses are not

44 ciple supporting this procedure, the various paired-comparison strategies and associated approaches,

45 rations were significantly higher (Student's paired comparisons t test, alpha = 0.05) in serum versus

46 A paired-comparison t-test was performed over the 8 biolog

47 ions of the fornix were tested on the visual paired comparison task (VPC), a test of recognition memo

48 We used the visual paired comparison task to test memory abilities in our g

49 cognition impairment when tested in a visual paired comparison task, the data suggest that not all ob

50 Performance on the visual paired-comparison task depends on the integrity of the h

51 s and suggest that performance on the visual paired-comparison task measures a form of declarative me

52 ages of 1.5, 6, and 18 months on the visual paired-comparison task using delays of 10, 30, 60, and 1

53 We found that performance on the visual paired-comparison task was predictive of subsequent reco

54 delayed nonmatching to sample and the visual paired-comparison task.

55 Over time, studies have found paired comparisons to be sensitive, valid, and reliable

56 encoding and retrieval processes, the visual paired comparison (VPC) task measures spontaneous eye mo

57 submitting the same adult monkeys to visual paired comparison (VPC) with mixed delays (10-120 sec),

58 The method of paired comparisons was introduced into the hearing aid l

59 f the codons tested (by the three assays) in paired comparisons were concordant.

60 cells compared with those in HK18 cells; the paired comparisons were made for basal levels before irr

61 When paired comparisons were made, the two tests were 88.7%,

62 Paired comparisons were performed in 16 patients only be

63 and the Kruskal-Wallis tests, respectively; paired comparisons were performed using Duncan's multipl

64 lerated versus constant-rate injection in 21 paired comparisons were, respectively, 30.8 seconds +/-

65 A total of 102 studies, including 130 paired comparisons, were included, representing 8 tonome

66 Paired comparison with monocyte eQTL demonstrates nuance