コーパス検索結果 (1語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 es derived from the mothers (P < 0.0001 by a paired t test).
2 29 [88] mum; P = .01, determined by use of a paired t test).
3 pulses s(-1)) (P < 0.05 for each comparison; paired t test).
4 d P = 0.02, respectively, as determined by a paired t test).
5 ly higher than mean serum levels (P </=0.02; paired t test).
6 gnificantly enhanced with OSEM-3D (P < .001, paired t test).
7 BA(A) currents by 70+/-8% (n=8, P< or =0.005 paired t test).
8 left ventricular (LV) surface area (P < .05, paired t test).
9 ent; 4, very poor) for six colonic segments (paired t test).
10 +/- 2.0 micromol/kg body wt per d; P < 0.05, paired t test).
11 in early group (0.56 cm3 +/- 0.39; P =.004, paired t test).
12 -fold higher in BCC than controls (P < 0.01, paired t test).
13 ystematically overestimated MGV (P = 0.0005, paired t test).
14 ly lower, 0.78 +/- 0.11 (P = 0.006; 2-tailed paired t test).
15 unit accuracy in seven regions of interest (paired t test).
16 3% less starch digested at 90 min, P < 0.05, paired t test).
17 d point (core cancer length) was calculated (paired t test).
18 o eyes (P = 0.69 and P = 0.43, respectively, paired t-test).
19 -R(-/-): P < 0.01; alpha2A-R(-/-): P < 0.05, paired t-test).
20 microm vs. 506.4 +/- 31.8 microm, P = 0.005, paired t-test).
21 (P = 0.0016 and P = 0.0022, respectively, by paired t-test).
22 for the comparison of the left areas by the paired t-test).
23 th reference values at 95% confidence level (paired t-test).
24 l normalization (12.7% vs. 6.2%, P < 0.0001, paired t-test).
25 -0.26) significantly decreased (P < .005 in paired t tests).
26 nt in dimensional measurements was compared (paired t tests).
27 old greater than in control sites (P < 0.01, paired t tests).
28 and P < 0.03 for static and dynamic balance; paired t tests).
29 lated and values were compared by means of a paired t test.
30 tested for statistical significance with the paired t test.
31 contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) by using the paired t test.
32 mparisons using Dunnett or Tukey methods and paired t test.
33 uble and single fields were compared using a paired t test.
34 tial function, and data were compared with a paired t test.
35 ntion and non-intervention hospitals using a paired t test.
36 Signal intensity was evaluated by using a paired t test.
37 after sonication were compared by using the paired t test.
38 The PET uptake was compared using a paired t test.
39 parisons within groups were performed with a paired t test.
40 cell viabilities were compared by using the paired t test.
41 NS were compared to prestimulus values using paired t test.
42 Comparisons were made by using a paired t test.
43 d with the DBM method and Student two-tailed paired t test.
44 tistical analysis was performed by using the paired t test.
45 Statistical comparisons were made using the paired t test.
46 .5 and 3.0 T were analyzed with a two-sample paired t test.
47 es multivariate analysis of variance and the paired t test.
48 e and lesions in patients were tested with a paired t test.
49 tained at the time of the procedure with the paired t test.
50 as geometric mean (95% CI), were compared by paired t test.
51 d statistical significance was tested with a paired t test.
52 ing examinations were performed by using the paired t test.
53 dalities were determined with the two-tailed paired t test.
54 oelectron volts) and phantom size by using a paired t test.
55 es of CL and IOL groups were compared with a paired t test.
56 Group comparisons were analyzed with a paired t test.
57 Significance testing was done with the paired t test.
58 Statistical analysis was performed with the paired t test.
59 isons were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney or paired t test.
60 en baseline and week 8 were calculated using paired t test.
61 ty of statistical testing, especially of the paired t-test.
62 igned rank test, and the JSW was compared by paired t-test.
63 nd post-laser IOP values were compared using paired t-test.
64 e groups were compared with McNemar test and paired t-test.
65 ere performed using analysis of variance and paired t tests.
66 was performed with Wilcoxon signed rank and paired t tests.
67 mean values in each phase were compared with paired t tests.
68 lustered on subjects was used, together with paired t tests.
69 d posttherapy studies were compared by using paired t tests.
70 Data were analyzed with multiple paired t tests.
71 re- and postdiet condition were tested using paired t tests.
72 f-interest (ROI) size were compared by using paired t tests.
73 and relative function were compared by using paired t tests.
74 stole) were quantified and compared by using paired t tests.
75 y repeated-measures analysis of variance and paired t tests.
76 d-measures analysis of variance, followed by paired t tests.
77 values in the ICS treatment period by using paired t tests.
78 Statistical comparisons used paired t tests.
79 ifferences in tube voltage, were tested with paired t tests.
80 and health outcome measures evaluated using paired t tests.
81 d volume measurement were also compared with paired t tests.
82 and after vertebroplasty were evaluated with paired t tests.
83 tictal epochs within epileptic patients with paired t tests.
84 nd mean values were compared with two-tailed paired t tests.
85 Statistical analyses included paired t tests.
86 Data were analyzed with paired t tests.
87 evaluated by using two-tailed nonpaired and paired t tests.
88 ast-to-noise differences were evaluated with paired t tests.
89 etween groups using analysis of variance and paired t-tests.
90 , with post hoc analysis employing ANOVA and paired t-tests.
91 ect longitudinal changes were assessed using paired t-tests.
92 post-test within subjects was analysed with paired t-tests.
93 repeated-measures analysis of variance, and paired t testing.
94 those after placebo administration by using paired t testing.
95 was determined with the Student t test, the paired t test, a mixed random effects model, one-way ana
96 n with paired comparison procedures by using paired t tests across individual time points supplemente
105 = 5 mm pockets at baseline and 1 year using paired t tests, analysis of variance, chi-square analysi
106 Data were analyzed by using a combination of paired t tests, analysis of variance, contingency tables
107 S </= 3 + 4 and GS >/= 4 + 3 tumors by using paired t tests, analysis of variance, receiver operating
112 nostic confidence were compared by using the paired t test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively.
113 d statistical analysis involving a voxelwise paired t test and one-way analysis of variance for metab
116 atistical analysis was performed by 2-tailed paired t test and with nonparametric tests where appropr
118 n FBP and ADMIRE were compared by using both paired t tests and analysis of variance tests at the 95%
123 of variance with multiple comparisons and/or paired t tests and regression analysis were used for ana
124 of variance with multiple comparisons and/or paired t tests and regression analysis, as appropriate.
126 Variables were expressed as mean +/- SD; paired t-test and chi(2) test were used as appropriate.
129 ere compared with those of fellow eyes using paired t-tests and with those of control eyes using inde
130 r (11)C-tariquidar (+27% +/- 15%, P = 0.014, paired t test) and (11)C-elacridar (+21% +/- 15%, P = 0.
131 4 versus 8017 +/- 1103 micromol/d; P < 0.03, paired t test) and NO(2)/NO(3) (18.1 +/- 1.1 versus 22.9
132 creased orientation dispersion (P < 0.001 by paired t-test) and lower fractional anisotropy (P < 0.00
133 ' normal-appearing cortical grey matter T2* (paired t-test) and with mean cortical T2* in controls (l
134 with DXA, did not differ from DXA (P = .15, paired t test), and was able to identify osteoporosis (a
135 ysis was performed with the chi(2) test, the paired t test, and analysis of variance with repeated me
136 sis, repeated-measures analysis of variance, paired t test, and Bland-Altman analysis were used; for
139 distributed variables were compared by using paired t tests, and categorical data were compared by us
140 ponders and nonresponders were analyzed with paired t tests, and OS was calculated with the Kaplan-Me
141 tabolism between on and off conditions using paired t tests, and Pearson linear correlations were use
143 r-observer reproducibility, unpaired t-test, paired t-test, and Bland-Altman analyses to determine li
146 glucose transporter, and hexokinase assays (paired t test), as well as pharmacologic assays against
147 ion and MR imaging were evaluated by using a paired t test, as were differences between lesion-to-ver
148 sis of variance and Bland-Altman analysis; a paired t test assessed change from baseline to after tre
151 ) significantly decreased by 3.5% (P = .012, paired t test) at 1 month and 4.2% (P = .007) at 3 month
153 ignificant difference tests, independent and paired t tests, Bland and Altman analyses, correlations,
163 anges during treatment were determined using paired t-tests corrected for multiple hypothesis testing
165 tireader multicase data and with the Student paired t test for analysis of observer-specific paired d
166 arison of CT fluoroscopy times, a two-tailed paired t test for comparison of age and tumor size, and
167 yses were performed by using a single-tailed paired t test for comparison of CT fluoroscopy times, a
168 (6-month) data were compared using Student's paired t test for parametric data and the Wilcoxon match
170 othelium, and the opposite pattern with VWF (paired t test for TM and EPCR, each P < .001; for VWF, P
171 as means +/- SD and were analyzed using the paired t test for univariate analysis and restricted/res
172 fferences in mound volume were detected with paired t tests in 14 patients with early and late sonogr
173 n change of FA for regions that survived the paired t tests in patients treated with chemotherapy.
174 n detectability than 2D (P < 0.025, 2-tailed paired t test) in patients of normal size (body mass ind
178 ction and autorefraction were compared using paired t-tests, intraclass correlations, and Bland-Altma
182 tistical analysis was performed by using the paired t test, linear regression, and Bland-Altman analy
183 d with microsphere MBF measurements by using paired t tests, linear correlation, and Bland-Altman ana
184 intracellular volume fraction (P = 0.015 by paired t-test), lower myelin-sensitive contrast (P = 0.0
186 ally by means of descriptive statistics, non-paired t-test, Mann-Whitney rank sum test, Spearman rank
187 e analyzed using descriptive statistics, the paired t test, McNemar test, and a general linear model.
188 tatistical analysis was conducted by using a paired t test, multilevel analysis, and analysis of cova
192 +/- 7.9%, P = 0.01; mean reduction +/- SEM, paired t-tests, n = 5 animals per group, four duplicate
193 ycan synthesis to 43% of controls (P < 0.02, paired t-test; n = 16) and produced a relative inhibitio
194 ially expressed genes, results from standard paired t-test of normalized data are compared with those
196 ve and operative groups were compared using: paired t test on a propensity score-matched subset and m
197 acid (DHA)-rich fish oil for 1 mo (P < 0.05, paired t test on final rod threshold); and movement skil
200 Within-group changes were analyzed with paired t tests or repeated measures analysis of variance
201 tion, the k1 and k2 significantly increased (paired t test P = 0.046 and P = 0.023, respectively).
203 NNA treatment (mean 42.9% [range 12.0-62.1]; paired t test p=0.0070), which was sustained for up to 2
207 cts with SCH (19.5 +/- 5.3 vs. 23.7 +/- 4.1, paired t test, p < .0001); however, no correlations were
211 compared with matched normal breast tissues (paired t test, P < 0.0001) and a general inverse correla
212 g the number of perforin(+) (84 +/- 3.6%; by paired t test, p < 0.001) and CD27(+) (from 28 to 67%; b
213 A and protein levels by quantitative RT-PCR (paired t test, P < 0.015), immunoblot, and immunohistoch
218 ased and ALCS depth increased significantly (paired t-test, P < 0.01); no change in RNFL thickness wa
222 ples (mean yield = 7.6 micro g/two brushes) (paired t test: p < 0.001), while DNA yields from cheek a
226 ose of the phenotypically wild-type retinas (paired t-test; P < 0.01 and P < 0.01, respectively).
229 in patients with TLE than controls (p<0.05, paired t-test), particularly to neocortical regions incl
230 left carotid arteries were analyzed by using paired t tests; possible sex differences, by using unpai
236 tients with HIVN, semiquantitative analysis (paired t test) showed statistically significant differen
237 acquired 120 min after injection (P < 0.001, paired t test; signal-to-noise ratio at 60 min after inj
239 , 0.82 +/- 0.11 and 0.84 +/- 0.10; Student's paired t-test, t = 2.79, P = 0.02; t = 2.80, P = 0.02; a
240 +/- 1.4 to 5.5 +/- 1.2 l min(-1) (P = 0.003, paired t test), tended to decrease stroke volume from 97
243 ges during the 12-month follow-up period and paired t tests to compare HSK-affected eyes with fellow
246 ogic test scores and whole-brain voxel-based paired t tests to study changes in WM fractional anisotr
248 sets for each group were then compared using paired t-tests to detect differences between the 2 popul
249 ally tested for intraindividual differences (paired t tests) to avoid effects resulting from variatio
251 (PECO) (P < 0.05, MANOVA, post hoc Student's paired t test vs. Stim) and fell to 9.27 +/- 4.4 ms mmHg
257 was used to compare image rating scores, the paired t test was used to compare CRs, and kappa statist
262 sures general linear model and the Student's paired t test were used to analyze changes in laboratory
273 naccuracies across sound-masking levels, and paired t tests were used to compare each sound-masking l
280 d using conditional logistic regression, and paired t tests were used to evaluate case-control differ
284 nt analyses, multiple linear regression, and paired t tests were used to select biomarkers of interes
288 Discriminant validity was described using paired t tests, whereas internal consistency was describ
289 27.2 +/- 13.1 mL/min per 1.73 m (P<0.001 on paired t test), which represents a 29.2% drop in the ser
290 tivity in mock-transfected myocytes (P<0.01, paired t test) while having only a slight stimulatory ef
291 ean difference 11.9 +/- 6.0 mum, P < 0.0001, paired t-test), while there was no significant differenc
293 ween cleaning methods were compared by using paired t tests with Bonferroni correction for 3 comparis
294 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.05; post hoc paired t test) with reduced penetration-aspiration score
295 +/- 15.2% (66.1 +/- 146 feet, p < 0.0001, by paired t test), with an intraclass correlation coefficie
297 McNemar test and procedural times by using a paired t test, with P < .05 indicating a significant dif
298 were compared in the two groups by means of paired t test, with subsequent histologic analysis to co
299 Statistical analysis was performed by using paired t tests, with P<.05 considered to indicate a sign
WebLSDに未収録の専門用語(用法)は "新規対訳" から投稿できます。