ライフサイエンスコーパス: random assignment

1 s progression free and alive at 1 year after random assignment).

2 bo-controlled treatment with nicotine patch (random assignment).

3 nt was progression-free survival (PFS) after random assignment.

4 progression-free survival (PFS) from date of random assignment.

5 ks and progression-free survival (PFS) after random assignment.

6 and body weight, as assessed 96 hours after random assignment.

7 sulin and insulin resistance up to 6 y after random assignment.

8 ostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing before random assignment.

9 ne loading dose, which was determined before random assignment.

10 survival for up to 5 years from the date of random assignment.

11 ombined median = 14.7 months; P = .61) after random assignment.

12 oint was overall survival (OS) measured from random assignment.

13 ding of key components of the RCT, including random assignment.

14 3 EP patients and 352 EC patients) underwent random assignment.

15 nical nodal status, age, or calendar year of random assignment.

16 ment of Cancer core QoL questionnaire before random assignment.

17 ent, at 6 months, and at 1 and 2 years after random assignment.

18 id not return to normal levels 2 years after random assignment.

19 valproex treatment and 6 weeks of placebo by random assignment.

20 initial premedication regimen was chosen by random assignment.

21 line assessments were completed, followed by random assignment.

22 rs or their congregations were not masked to random assignment.

23 Three infants died from sepsis after random assignment.

24 ainly in the first 6 months to 2 years after random assignment.

25 Analyses are from the time of random assignment.

26 rol treatment for individual patients before random assignment.

27 Treatment was determined through random assignment.

28 d dosing once a week for 5 weeks followed by random assignment (1:1:1) at week 6 to one of three unbl

29 Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 105) or usual care (co

30 After baseline measurements and random assignment, 35 nonmedicated healthy postmenopausa

31 Women were assessed before random assignment, 4 months later (immediately post-inte

32 Of those patients who died by 6 months post-random assignment, 40% had documented disease recurrence

33 Before random assignment, 933 participants (172 women) in the A

34 9) were randomly allocated (stratified block random assignment) according to age and body mass index

35 tion (CASP)-like sensitivity measurement the random assignment achieved 6%, FSSP-59% and the optimum

36 Stratified random assignment allocated patients 2:1:1 to SOC (contr

37 Results Random assignment allotted 165 patients to each arm; arm

38 st compared OS between arms as measured from random assignment (alpha = .0498).

39 eding phase I dose escalation and subsequent random assignment among the dose levels.

40 Primary end points, assessed before random assignment and 4 and 13 months later, included me

41 were assessed via patient self-report before random assignment and 7 to 28 days later.

42 f eight (80%) of the 10 clinical trials with random assignment and all eight (100%) of the studies wi

43 executive functions was administered before random assignment and at 12 and 24 weeks.

44 crine subscale (ES) were administered before random assignment and at predefined follow-up times.

45 ith the goal of minimizing the complexity of random assignment and data analyses of a platform trial.

46 linical condition of patients at the time of random assignment and the polarity of symptoms at follow

47 om assignment of patients who underwent both random assignments and who were assigned to ABMT/cis-RA

48 to random assignment, time from diagnosis to random assignment, and PSA velocity.

49 irmed lesions on any scan >/= 12 weeks after random assignment, and/or progression in nodes or viscer

50 ition severely limits matching compared with random assignment as an evaluation estimator.

51 ere assessed from the date of study entry or random assignment, as appropriate.

52 nine percent of parents failed to understand random assignment at both times.

53 blind, partial-crossover trial with a second random assignment at year 2 for those who initially rece

54 icle reports on results from baseline before random assignment, at 6 months, and at 1 and 2 years aft

55 self-reported outcomes were assessed before random assignment, at the end of chemotherapy, and at th

56 iefly to (a) practical problems implementing random assignment, (b) important uncontrolled sources of

57 The primary end point was OS 18 months post-random assignment based on an intent-to-treat analysis.

58 Patients were stratified before random assignment based on number of previous chemothera

59 Empowerment Questionnaire), assessed before random assignment (baseline, T0) and after 4 (T1), 6 (T2

60 Assessments were completed before random assignment, before cycle 4, and 3 to 6 weeks and

61 he QLQ-C30 and the PR25 were administered at random assignment, before cycle four (week 10) and cycle

62 454 (58% of eligible) patients consented to random assignment between CABG and PCI.

63 vival (OS) was significantly higher for each random assignment by a test of the log(-log(.)) transfor

64 sed the impact of treatment by choice versus random assignment by comparing the results in the regist

65 We did the random assignment by use of a minimisation method with a

66 Random assignment (by a validated computer-based system)

67 Block random assignment (by breast density and hormone therapy

68 r CDAI >200; clinical management group after random assignment: CDAI decrease of <100 points compared

69 vious week; clinical management group before random assignment: CDAI decrease of <70 points compared

70 The design involved a random-assignment, double-blind, placebo-controlled para

71 In a 6-week random-assignment, double-blind, placebo-controlled tria

72 Using random assignment, each respondent was presented one cas

73 Pain and analgesic use were measured at random assignment, every cycle for eight cycles, and 1 y

74 pecifically, we completed a meta-analysis of random-assignment experiments testing the effects of mat

75 groups (tight control group before and after random assignment: faecal calprotectin >/=250 mug/g, C-r

76 or the experimental arm and advised stopping random assignment for early PET-negative patients.

77 int was progression-free survival (PFS) from random assignment for maintenance placebo versus sunitin

78 A total of 580 tumors were evaluated before random assignment for stromal TILs and lymphocyte-predom

79 With random assignment, half the participants used the sonic

80 ligibility criteria were clinical trial with random assignment; health care quality improvement inter

81 During the sixth week after random assignment, hot flash scores were reduced by 55%

82 A post-random assignment hypothesis that was generated by multi

83 r genomic DNA analysis were collected before random assignment in 169 patients.

84 tisol and leptin levels were assessed before random assignment in 32 weight-recovered subjects with a

85 nrolled in year 2 (Y2), receiving vaccine by random assignment in both years.

86 ith adverse glycemic effects up to 6 y after random assignment in postmenopausal women.

87 We used the random assignment in the lottery to calculate the effect

88 men age 40 to 59 years who gave blood before random assignment in the Physicians' Health Study, a ran

89 Two patients (age 26 and 35 years at random assignment) in the control group had spontaneous

90 in CTC conversion, bone biomarkers, and post-random assignment incidence of SSEs but not PSA outcomes

91 Eligibility after surgery for good response random assignment included >/= two cycles of preoperativ

92 Random assignment into 2 groups: 40-mg triamcinolone ace

93 Random assignment into 4 groups: daily use of broad-spec

94 Before random assignment, investigators chose capecitabine (Cap

95 Before random assignment, investigators chose capecitabine, a t

96 e components of structured social relations, random assignment is not plausible even as a hypothetica

97 technique for statistical adjustment for non-random assignment is through the use of a two-stage anal

98 er the predetermined observation times after random assignment; it was 0.31% at 24 hours, 0.26% at 7

99 2,260 registered patients; 716 consented to random assignment (MAP, n = 359; MAP plus IFN-alpha-2b,

100 ), with a median follow-up of 39 months from random assignment, median PFS was not reached for lenali

101 ceived the same induction chemotherapy, with random assignment (N = 379) to consolidation with myeloa

102 Changes in understanding of random assignment occurred in 19% of parents, with 17% o

103 227 patients to acupuncture plus usual care (random assignment of 1:3 respectively) with minimization

104 this hypothesis directly, confirming that a random assignment of 27% from the total population produ

105 s The study was prematurely closed after the random assignment of 270 patients: 129 to chemotherapy p

106 (P = .81) with 2-year FFS rates from second random assignment of 77%, 79%, 74%, and 45% for R-CHOP,

107 With a median follow-up after random assignment of 78 months, 5-year OS and progressio

108 ping automated endothelial keratoplasty with random assignment of a donor cornea with a PT of 7 days

109 DSAEK with random assignment of a donor cornea with PT of 0 to 7 da

110 Random assignment of anemic participants to intervention

111 Random assignment of biological data to structure leads

112 standardized blood pressure techniques, and random assignment of children in intervention trials.

113 ims data from Oregon and exploited the quasi-random assignment of DACA eligibility among mothers with

114 rences approach, which serves to approximate random assignment of exposure across the population and

115 We exploit random assignment of independent observers to 156 of 3,1

116 in life, but previous studies have not used random assignment of infant diet with prospective follow

117 Random assignment of initial antidepressant prescription

118 , we leverage a natural experiment using the random assignment of judges with different propensities

119 itions were included: unclustered data and a random assignment of locations to clusters.

120 n these groups were of the same magnitude as random assignment of neighborhoods would have generated,

121 were fractured via mechanical testing, with random assignment of one femur from each pair to the sin

122 Random assignment of patients to treatment groups was no

123 The 5-year OS from the second random assignment of patients who underwent both random

124 luate the outcome of physician-guided versus random assignment of percutaneous transluminal coronary

125 n silico HCV-infected patients, generated by random assignment of realistic host and viral kinetic pa

126 Our method allowed random assignment of stimulus monkeys to ranks in an art

127 The dates of the random assignment of the first subject and the last subj

128 emporaneously controlled clinical trial with random assignment of the intervention; electronic distan

129 PFS) and overall survival (OS) 6 years after random assignment of the last patient were compared by u

130 e) until recurrence or up to 21 months after random assignment of the last patient.

131 A yes/no question was used with random assignment of the starting bids.

132 assigned treatment within the first year of random assignment of treatment (19% of the exemestane gr

133 nt difference in event-free survival despite random assignment of treatment to 2,848 patients, 1,001

134 of the observed covariates; however, unlike random assignment of treatments, the propensity score ma

135 a 1:1 ratio to either AHT for 5 years after random assignment or no AHT (control).

136 ion or further mastectomy within 6 months of random assignment, or a pathologically avoidable mastect

137 The study was a 3-week double-blind, random-assignment, parallel-group, placebo-controlled in

138 By random assignment, patients received either 200 mg DOXY

139 s with the following features were included: random assignment, placebo or other adequate control, pu

140 In multivariate analysis, IDA random assignment remained associated with a higher cure

141 Analysis partitioned at 2.5 years after random assignment showed that the on-treatment benefit o

142 an analysis that is timed from enrollment or random assignment, such as disease-free or overall survi

143 and all eight (100%) of the studies without random assignment suggested that psychotherapy reduces t

144 A follow-up experiment using random assignment suggests that priming underlies these

145 al Assessment of Cancer Therapy) from before random assignment (T1) to the 3-month follow-up (T3) wer

146 n at least 2 controlled clinical trials with random assignment that include a control condition of ps

147 Despite random assignment, the baseline score on the Mini-Mental

148 Before random assignment, the surgeon indicated whether the pat

149 etic resonance angiography within 30 days of random assignment, the TAMV was significantly higher in

150 Because most eligible patients refused random assignment, the trial was changed in 2001 to a co

151 very cycle for eight cycles, and 1 year from random assignment; the QLQ-C30 and the PR25 were adminis

152 variability was evaluated from 3 months into random assignment through the use of various measurement

153 the end of the intervention (4 months after random assignment, time 2) and one 2 months later (time

154 y, time from androgen deprivation therapy to random assignment, time from diagnosis to random assignm

155 y assigned to PCV (224 patients) or TMZ (sub-random assignment: TMZ-5 [200 mg/m(2) for 5 days, 112 pa

156 Random assignment to 0.625 mg/d of conjugated equine est

157 After random assignment to 1 of 3 groups, the adolescents list

158 ian follow-up of 11 years (IQR 10.09-11.53), random assignment to 1 year of trastuzumab significantly

159 Consortium Protocol 00-01 were eligible for random assignment to 1) dexamethasone or prednisone, adm

160 bleach-reprocessed cellulose dialyzers after random assignment to 12 wk of dialysis with new (single

161 Random assignment to 2 treatment groups receiving either

162 Defibrillation threshold testing and random assignment to a control group were not performed.

163 ttention to estimated event frequency and/or random assignment to a control group.

164 edicted cardiovascular mortality better than random assignment to active drug or placebo over 3 years

165 l-group, double-blind controlled trials with random assignment to adjunctive atypical antipsychotic o

166 Random assignment to aflibercept, 2.0 mg; bevacizumab, 1

167 ouble-blind, controlled clinical trials with random assignment to an antidepressant medication or pla

168 Random assignment to an intensive or standard SBP goal (

169 Over 12 years of follow-up, random assignment to aspirin was associated with a relat

170 Random assignment to begin inpatient rehabilitation on p

171 Random assignment to CGM (n = 79) or usual care (control

172 Random assignment to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisi

173 at baseline and at least at one point after random assignment to clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone,

174 Random assignment to continue 2 hours of daily patching

175 Random assignment to daily oral mirtazapine (30 mg) or p

176 overall survival (OS), defined as time from random assignment to death (any cause), and relapse-free

177 al, a secondary end point, was measured from random assignment to death as a result of any cause.

178 Random assignment to either a self-help program (n = 212

179 nse to citalopram, patients who consented to random assignment to either cognitive therapy or alterna

180 nical trial were followed for 9 months after random assignment to either vitrectomy or tap/biopsy.

181 Block random assignment to emotion arousal manipulation and ea

182 t possible, researchers must control for non-random assignment to experimental groups.

183 We review studies with random assignment to experimental manipulations of consc

184 r-free interval (BCFI), defined as time from random assignment to first occurrence of invasive locore

185 e first surgical treatment (test or control; random assignment to first treatment) performed as more

186 ) was designed to assess the effect of prior random assignment to hormone therapy (HT) (conjugated eq

187 Before random assignment to infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin

188 were followed for a mean of 3.2 years after random assignment to intensive lifestyle intervention, m

189 rence among patients who recurred found that random assignment to interferon treatment (P =.009) and

190 oint was local DFS, defined as the time from random assignment to local disease recurrence or death.

191 Random assignment to low-dose CT or chest radiography wi

192 Random assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mai

193 Random assignment to maintenance antidepressant pharmaco

194 Random assignment to medical therapy alone (602 patients

195 urve = 6) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)), with random assignment to one of the following three erlotini

196 ous: it had a large number of subjects, used random assignment to one of three instructions, included

197 Random assignment to one of three study groups: 12.5 mg

198 e- and double-vessel disease were treated by random assignment to percutaneous transluminal coronary

199 ree survival (FFS), defined as the time from random assignment to progression, relapse, or death, whi

200 fy a subgroup of patients who benefited from random assignment to prompt coronary revascularization.

201 improving (with resumption if worsening) and random assignment to prompt or deferred (>/=24 weeks) fo

202 rction, or stroke; we then evaluated whether random assignment to prompt revascularization reduced th

203 nts with abnormal troponin T concentrations, random assignment to prompt revascularization, as compar

204 point was radiographic PFS (rPFS; time from random assignment to radiologic progression or death) pe

205 Random assignment to ranibizumab every 4 weeks until no

206 Random assignment to receive a housing voucher to move i

207 larger decrease in the sCD14 level included random assignment to receive EVG/c/FTC/TDF, higher basel

208 and genotype data, lower body mass index and random assignment to receive lopinavir/ritonavir were as

209 relapse-free survival, defined as time from random assignment to relapse or death (any cause).

210 We used random assignment to study its impact across 200 village

211 d utility were longitudinally assessed, from random assignment to the follow-up visit at 8 +/- 2 mont

212 f a high-SFA (HS) diet and after 24 wk after random assignment to the HS diet or diets that contained

213 ere abstinent for a mean of 2 weeks prior to random assignment to the placebo or 20- or 80-mg/d dose

214 Six of seven patients removed from random assignment to treatment because of cardiac deteri

215 tudy limitations (small sample size, lack of random assignment to treatment groups, and differential

216 high, especially in the first 3 months after random assignment to treatment groups.

217 Random assignment to treatment was between ifosfamide 2.

218 logy Group Protocol POG 9404, which included random assignment to treatment with or without dexrazoxa

219 Women could elect to receive calcium plus random assignment to vitamin D or placebo.

220 Random assignment to weight loss compared with weight ma

221 ents who had bcl-2 PCR-detectable disease at random assignment, treatment significantly prolonged med

222 ects participated in a 12-month double-blind random-assignment trial comparing clozapine and haloperi

223 Previously, a double-blind, random-assignment trial of the novel antipsychotic olanz

224 combined modality therapy of chemoradiation, random assignment trials have demonstrated an improvemen

225 Those who responded (N=292) underwent random assignment, under double-blind conditions, to con

226 or intense pregnancy surveillance alone from random assignment until 36 weeks' gestation.

227 progression-free survival 1 (PFS1; time from random assignment until the first progression or death),

228 Progression-free survival 2 (PFS2; time from random assignment until the second progression or death)

229 were participants in a 15-site double-blind, random-assignment Veterans Administration trial comparin

230 All cause mortality within 30 days of random assignment was 13% on BSC and 7% on topotecan.

231 Median PFS from time of random assignment was 3.7 months with bevacizumab/placeb

232 Median overall survival from random assignment was 6.9 months for placebo and 9.0 mon

233 Three-year PFS after random assignment was 68% MR versus 33% OBS (hazard rati

234 Two-year FFS rate from second random assignment was 76% for MR compared with 61% for o

235 IDA random assignment was associated with higher CR rate, bu

236 Random assignment was balanced dynamically on the basis

237 Random assignment was centralized, computer-generated, a

238 Group Data and Safety Monitoring Committee, random assignment was discontinued after 3 years of enro

239 Random assignment was done at the NSABP Biostatistical C

240 Random assignment was done by use of a web-based automat

241 Random assignment was done via a central computer system

242 Random assignment was done via a central computer system

243 Random assignment was halted early based on the observed

244 ime the study was opened until the time that random assignment was halted, 56 patients received CC an

245 +/- 5% v 31% +/- 5%) from the time of second random assignment was higher for cis-RA than for no furt

246 Random assignment was performed with stratification for

247 Amenorrhea 12 months after random assignment was significantly different between tr

248 t a median follow-up of 8.1 months, PFS from random assignment was significantly improved in the beva

249 Random assignment was stratified by number of embolizati

250 Random assignment was stratified by stage, histology, an

251 Random assignment was stratified by stage, weight loss i

252 Random assignment was stratified by the number of prior

253 evelopment of a new SCC within 2 years after random assignment was the primary end point.

254 Random assignment was through a central interactive voic

255 t of removing the data of 209 patients whose random assignment was to stay with their baseline antips

256 Random assignment was to surgery alone (S) or to two cyc

257 Random assignment was unblinded.

258 er, response duration (measured from date of random assignment) was significantly longer after tremel

259 Median overall survival (OS) times from random assignment were 13.3 and 14.4 months with bevaciz

260 n = 82); the most common reasons for lack of random assignment were patient refusal and relapse.

261 Fasting triglycerides at initial random assignment were related to risk of coronary heart

262 Separate random assignments were performed for patients with cont

263 , and less time from initial diagnosis until random assignment, were associated with improved OS.

264 We did the random assignments with a computer-generated random perm