ライフサイエンスコーパス: rank sum test

1 d P = 0.02, respectively, using the Wilcoxon rank sum test).

2 ot in the upper pole) cryoablation (Wilcoxon rank sum test).

3 ween the 3 groups for each protein (Wilcoxon rank sum test).

4 omparisons were nonsignificant (Mann-Whitney rank sum test).

5 (77 +/- 7 versus 11 +/- 8%, P < or = 0.001, rank sum test).

6 ] vs. DOD [8.58 ng/mL]; P=.026, Mann-Whitney rank sum test).

7 e since quitting smoking (P = 0.03; Wilcoxon rank sum test).

8 vs. 0.455, respectively; P<.05, Mann-Whitney rank sum test).

9 mechanisms of injury (p = .027, Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test).

10 ival (OS; P = 0.019 and 0.013, respectively; rank sum test).

11 /dL) relative to controls (P = .18, Wilcoxon rank sum test).

12 TOF (median, 14.3 muIU/mL; P = .35, Wilcoxon rank sum test).

13 or tremor amplification, two-tailed Wilcoxon rank sum test).

14 95% CI, 16.2-24.6 IU/mL]; P < .001, Wilcoxon rank sum test).

15 P. inui infection (P = .010, by the Wilcoxon rank sum test).

16 years in 2006-2007 (P<0.001 by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

17 the log-rank test and P=0.04 by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

18 = 0.046) than in control subjects (Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

19 was in younger patients (P = 0.01, Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

20 the last menstrual cycle, (P=.031, Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

21 ong those assigned to the CPU (P<0.01 by the rank-sum test).

22 rtile range, 0.00%-0.08%) (P=0.005, Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

23 (2.5+/-0.3 vs. 3.4+/-0.8; P = 0.02, Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

24 s, compared with controls (P < .05; Wilcoxon rank-sum test).

25 ctions (P < 0.001, Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests).

26 ctions (P < 0.001; Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests).

27 onparametric tests (Wilcoxon signed-rank and rank-sum tests).

28 ed between treatment arms using the 2-sample rank sum test.

29 were compared by the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test.

30 atistical significance by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

31 ical indices were compared with Mann-Whitney Rank Sum test.

32 e groups were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

33 g by outcome was compared using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

34 d groups was performed by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

35 r significant differences using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

36 ailability of comparison films with Wilcoxon rank sum test.

37 son correlation coefficient and the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

38 ere made nonparametrically with the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

39 models and compared with use of the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

40 was undertaken using the t test of Wilcoxon rank sum test.

41 ed school days) were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test.

42 d using the Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test.

43 rom the preceding year by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

44 g the independent groups t test and Wilcoxon rank sum test.

45 ng alone were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

46 FR-negative) was assessed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

47 d by testing for gene set using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

48 ed with a two-tailed Mann-Whitney two-sample rank-sum test.

49 tribution or, alternatively, by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

50 on density were evaluated using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

51 m a point-by-point analysis using the Wilcox rank-sum test.

52 r randomization, as assessed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

53 between the two groups by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

54 regions were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

55 aseline, were compared by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

56 and normal groups were analyzed by Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

57 n of years in practice by the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test.

58 med using the Fisher exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

59 ility scores were compared with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

60 ods such as Student's t-test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

61 amplicon were assessed using Mann-Whitney's rank-sum test.

62 tistically by using t tests and Mann-Whitney rank sum tests.

63 the Wilcoxon paired signed rank and unpaired rank sum tests.

64 (NACDG) series were conducted using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

65 e analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

66 re compared between services, using Wilcoxon rank sum tests.

67 as calculated using analysis of variance and rank sum tests.

68 tween disease subgroups using Kruskal-Wallis rank sum tests.

69 s determined by using Mann-Whitney (Wilcoxon rank sum) test.

70 e-matched control subjects by using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

71 age quality) were compared by using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

72 statistically with Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum testing.

73 d showed no statistical difference, Wilcoxon rank-sum test = -1.99, p = .065.

74 In addition, using chi(2) and Wilcoxon rank sum tests, 120 novel candidate disease genes were i

75 rols (median, 91.5 mg/dL) (P = .01, Wilcoxon rank sum test), a phenomenon not observed in the materna

76 stical testing was performed with Wilcoxon's rank sum test and Fisher's exact test.

77 selection schemas (Student t test, Wilcoxon rank sum test and genetic algorithm) to reduce the high

78 The Wilcoxon rank sum test and linear mixed-effects model were used f

79 Wilcoxon rank sum test and rank analysis of variance were used to

80 of lobes was compared between sexes with the rank sum test and regressed against age.

81 ferences were assessed by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test and the signed rank test.

82 t-test for parametric data and the Wilcoxon rank sum test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test for non-

83 monoamines were analyzed by the Mann Whitney rank sum test and those differences in probability distr

84 ysis of data was performed by using Wilcoxon rank sum test and two-sample Student t test, and interob

85 Wilcoxon's rank sum tests and conditional multivariable regression

86 Wilcoxon rank sum tests and the multivariate Cox proportional haz

87 lection procedure that involved the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and HOPACH (Hierarchical Ordered Partition

88 Wilcoxon rank-sum test and Pearson correlation analyses were perf

89 mpared to non-IRIS controls using chi(2) and rank-sum tests and logistic regression.

90 Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and multivariate linear regression models

91 relations with pathologic response (Wilcoxon rank-sum test) and predictive power assessed (area under

92 inst tumor multiplicity (P < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank sum test), and 96% protection against tumor volume

93 of death [DOD] [28.06]; P=.015, Mann-Whitney rank sum test), and increased serum somatostatin levels

94 ), duration of smoking (P = 0.0009; Wilcoxon rank sum test), and negatively with the time since quitt

95 84, and 97% protection, P < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank sum test), and tumor volume (76, 94, and 96% protec

96 tric t-test, (2). Wilcoxon (or Mann-Whitney) rank sum test, and (3). a heuristic method based on high

97 d logistic and linear regression, Wilcoxon's rank sum test, and chi-square test.

98 nivariate analyses used chi2 test, Wilcoxson rank sum test, and chi2 test for trend.

99 alysis, linear regression analysis, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Kruskal-Wallis test were employed.

100 e linear regression analyses, Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test, and post hoc Dunn test with Holm correcti

101 uded the Wilcoxon signed rank test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Spearman correlation coefficient.

102 Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank sum tests, and the parametric survival model and ac

103 ed by using Wilcoxon signed rank or Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and true-negative and false-negative fin

104 with the Wilcoxon signed rank test, Wilcoxon rank sums test, and the Spearman rho correlation coeffic

105 s completed using Student's t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and analysis of variance, as appropriate.

106 log-rank statistics, nonparametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and Student's t test.

107 Metrics were compared by Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests, and receiver operating curves were plott

108 Overall, the rank sum test appears most conservative, which may be ad

109 erformed with Wilcoxon signed rank tests and rank sum tests, as well as Pearson correlation analysis.

110 comparing article page views by the Wilcoxon Rank sum test between articles randomized to social medi

111 GA (median, 13.1 muIU/mL; P = .048, Wilcoxon rank sum test) but not with TOF (median, 14.3 muIU/mL; P

112 , CT = 3 years, and TT = 2.7 years; Wilcoxon rank-sum test CC vs. CT, P = 4 x 10(-4) and CT vs. TT, P

113 Wilcoxon rank sum tests compared changes between arms.

114 Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test demonstrated significantly poorer performa

115 with pack-years smoked (P = 0.007; Wilcoxon rank sum test), duration of smoking (P = 0.0009; Wilcoxo

116 omparison of categorical values and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous values.

117 e analyzed using 2-sample t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and Pearson chi2

118 for intragroup differences and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for intergroup differences.

119 for normally distributed variables, Wilcoxon rank sum test for nonnormally distributed, and Chi-squar

120 parametric Kruskal-Wallis test with Wilcoxon rank sum tests for follow-up comparisons.

121 Arms were compared using rank sum tests for log ratio and TTG and a log-rank test

122 est for categoric variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables.

123 st for categorical variables or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for numerical and ordered categorical vari

124 s: Z-test, Kolmogorov Smirnov test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA), and

125 Statistical methods included the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Hodges-Lehmann estimator, Bland-Altman te

126 erentially regulated genes identified by the rank sum test in different sets are not consistent while

127 oint was assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized as the lo

128 nths, as assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized below the

129 al analyses were performed by using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests (in vitro), repeated-measures test, and D

130 n the HIV-2-infected women (P<.001, Wilcoxon rank sum test), irrespective of the length of time infec

131 on and Tibshirani's empirical Bayes Wilcoxon rank sum test is recommended when the background cannot

132 Statistical analysis used Wilcoxon rank sum test, Kruskal-Wallis, Spearman correlation, and

133 y groups were assessed by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test or Pearson chi(2) test prior to matching a

134 inuous variables were analyzed with Wilcoxon rank sum tests or t tests.

135 lly significant for Q(A) and Q(CV) (Wilcoxon rank sum test P = 0.0002 and P = 0.001, respectively).

136 and constriction velocity (Q(CV)) (Wilcoxon rank sum test P = 0.002, respectively).

137 ubjects without or mild NPDR cases (Wilcoxon rank sum test P = 0.013).

138 was not statistically significant (Wilcoxon rank sum test P = 0.15).

139 he 4 cell types, and chi-square and Wilcoxin rank sum tests (P <.0005) identified 359 and 500 previou

140 eader-reader weighted kappa values (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P < .05).

141 es: MDM2, VCAM-1, erbB2, and H-ras (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = .008, .02, .04, and .04, respectively

142 tients (n = 262; mean, 1.75 v 1.98; Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = .46), nor did their family members (m

143 family members (mean, 1.95 v 2.04; Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = .80).

144 ssociation areas during the recall (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = 0.001) of memorized images.

145 sensory areas during the encoding (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = 0.002) and in the higher-order cortic

146 ic rating scale in the past 3 days (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = 0.0175), 5-D itch scale (P = 0.0146),

147 erent between fathers and children (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, P < .002).

148 diatric ICUs without such programs (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p = .020).

149 0; P <.001) and were younger (69 v 73 years, rank sum test; P <.001), more likely to be married (59%

150 was detected for 49% of the miRNAs (Wilcoxon rank sum test; P<0.01).

151 r than that among women without MS (Wilcoxon rank-sum test; P = 0.002).

152 han emmetropic children (chi(2) and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests; P < 0.024).

153 ssessed by using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank sum tests (phantom data) and mixed-effect models (i

154 yzed with the two-tailed t test and Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively, to determine significance o

155 ared with Fisher exact test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively.

156 by using the two-sample t test and Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively.

157 alized estimating equations and the Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively.

158 lysis included Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, Spearman correlation coefficient, multipl

159 statistics, non-paired t-test, Mann-Whitney rank sum test, Spearman rank order correlation and Pears

160 Shapiro-Wilk test, paired two-sided Wilcoxon rank sum test, Spearman rho correlation, and multiple li

161 Student t test) and nonparametric (Wilcoxon rank sum test) statistics.

162 The two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, Student t test, test for linear regressio

163 of the study subjects based on the Wilcoxon rank sum test, t-score, cat-score, binary discriminant a

164 span a number of approaches such as Wilcoxon rank sum test, t-test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, permutat

165 gnificance level based on a 2-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, t(53) = 2.59).

166 tional DGE analysis (e.g., the t test or the rank sum test) tests each gene independently without con

167 n-Whitney U test (equivalent to the Wilcoxon rank sum test), the Wilcoxon signed rank test, and the s

168 stical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, the Fisher exact test, and Kaplan-Meier

169 ary risk factors were assessed with Wilcoxon rank sum test; those with continuous risk factors, with

170 We used the Wilcoxon rank sum test to assess cost, length of stay, and mortal

171 Results were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, two-tailed Fisher exact test, and multiva

172 Nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests, two-sample t tests, and chi(2) tests wer

173 Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for continuous variables and the

174 Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for continuous variables.

175 The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used for quantitative comparisons.

176 The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric rank sum test was used to assess equality of population

177 The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to assess the difference in axis

178 A Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare patients with and thos

179 Exact Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare performance with learn

180 The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the median ADC values

181 Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to evaluate differences in rate o

182 The Mann-Whitney rank sum test was used to identify parameters with the b

183 The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to test the association between s

184 gnificant and significant cancer, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was used.

185 A Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed to compare ocular findings b

186 The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was performed.

187 The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to assess the significance of mea

188 Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used for statistical analysis, and al

189 The kappa statistic and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to determine agreement and compa

190 Asymptotic Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney rank sum tests were employed to compare glaucoma subgrou

191 ltivariate logistic regression, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were performed.

192 Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess the association betwe

193 The Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to define the accuracy of imagi

194 are proportions, Student t test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare means, and the log-ra

195 Chi(2) And Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed in bivariate analyses to e

196 Fisher's exact and non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to identify significant differe

197 nd rate of volume change per month (Wilcoxon rank sum test) were compared.

198 ally used such as t-tests and non-parametric rank-sum tests, when the sample size is small.

199 f variance, two-sample t tests, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests where appropriate.

200 ysis consisted of the nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test with the NPAR1WAY program.

201 e and placebo (P < 0.05 by paired Wilcoxon's rank sum test), with a significant benefit between group

202 reatment groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests, with P values adjusted for false discove