ライフサイエンスコーパス: significance level

1 ression severity below a predefined clinical significance level).

2 do not have a charge cluster (even at the 5% significance level).

3 ired 534 patients (80% power, 5% [one-sided] significance level).

4 ct transcripts that do not reach genome-wide significance level.

5 esis was rejected at the [Formula: see text] significance level.

6 gin, using a one-sided test done at the 2.5% significance level.

7 ied permutation procedure to control overall significance level.

8 ated with schizophrenia (SCZ) at genome-wide significance level.

9 to be detected at the stringent genome-wide significance level.

10 as used for statistical analysis with a 0.05 significance level.

11 jacent to this gene that reached genome-wide significance level.

12 odel, exceeding the conservative genome-wide significance level.

13 of enhancement in a paired t test at the 95% significance level.

14 e 2355), with 83% power, at the 5% two-sided significance level.

15 6 SNPs associated with glioma risk at the 1% significance level.

16 th docetaxel in relation to the prespecified significance level.

17 ment to achieve the desired power at a given significance level.

18 nserved than the remaining surface at the 5% significance level.

19 al compared with historical controls at a 5% significance level.

20 ys to achieve a desired power at a specified significance level.

21 in specific ethnic groups but not at global significance level.

22 grouping alleles on the value of D' and the significance level.

23 tistic of interest and determine its overall significance level.

24 with only nongenetic factors at nearly every significance level.

25 d with breast cancer risk at the genome-wide significance level.

26 2.36%]), demonstrating superiority at the 5% significance level.

27 to detect the original effect size at the 5% significance level.

28 ts and analysis of variance tests at the 95% significance level.

29 n triplicate by considering t-tests at a 95% significance level.

30 ondary outcome measure at an unadjusted 0.05 significance level.

31 ariance, followed by a Tukey test using a 5% significance level.

32 -based procedure required for estimating the significance level.

33 hese spectra in the PCA score plot within 5% significance level.

34 -year FFS of 64% versus 74% at two-sided .05 significance level.

35 nutrient-content data, considering the 0.01 significance level.

36 pearman correlation coefficients with a 0.05 significance level.

37 = 9.3 x 10(-4); ADAMTS17, P = 8.5 x 10(-4)) significance levels.

38 identified patients with short TTFT at high significance levels.

39 were relatively spared, even at subthreshold significance levels.

40 ativity network of 113 TFs with user-defined significance levels.

41 sholds obtained at the 5% and 10% point-wise significance levels.

42 ercentage activation and at all single-voxel significance levels.

43 st, we employ bootstrap methods to calculate significance levels.

44 , P = 8.3 x 10(-9)), all reaching exome-wide significance levels.

45 loci (TCF7L2 and KCNQ1) reaching genome-wide significance levels.

46 to detect two novel risk loci at genome-wide significance levels.

47 s, support for which falls below genome-wide significance levels.

48 No SNP achieved genome-wide significance levels.

49 dent on statistical assumptions, for example significance levels.

50 ools of 500 individuals, we conclude that at significance level 0.05 we would have 95% (82%) power to

51 ing analysis of variance and post hoc tests (significance level 0.05).

52 For example at the 0.05 significance level, a 13% increase in sample size is nee

53 with vaginal acquisition of GBS at the 0.05 significance level: African-American race (hazard ratio

54 The significance level (alpha) was set at 0.05.

55 ni correction was performed by adjusting the significance level (alpha).

56 using a t-test, while keeping beta<0.01 at a significance level, alpha, of 0.05.

57 ation results as a basis for testing at what significance level, alpha, one can reject a null hypothe

58 The new test maintains the nominal significance level and can be adapted to test hypotheses

59 n APOA5 associated with CAD at a genome-wide significance level and provided new insights into pathwa

60 also proposed a heuristic of determining the significance level and the effective number of independe

61 A randomization procedure to evaluate the significance level and the false-discovery rate in compl

62 justing sample sizes to account for variable significance levels and power, as well as the density an

63 o possibly large difference in the resulting significance levels and the numbers of genes detected.

64 ished in European populations at genome-wide significance level, and found multiple independent assoc

65 null hypotheses without biasing the nominal significance level, and it identifies the subset of phen

66 inal diet history, and no real difference in significance levels appeared.

67 d that several SNPs reaching the genome-wide significance level are located in or adjacent to the loc

68 Statistical significance levels are based on the observed variabilit

69 These significance levels are obtained after the consideration

70 eltam = +/-1.5 Da, we find that the computed significance levels are sufficient to demonstrate the ab

71 us that reached the conventional genome-wide significance level at less than 5.0 x 10(-8): an interge

72 tor were identified based on the statistical significance levels at p<0.005.

73 of intentional violence in the game (at a 5% significance level based on a 2-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum

74 ests on the same genome, the usual pointwise significance level based on the chi-square approximation

75 ociated loci selected from SNPs of different significance levels based on the summary data of the GIA

76 us near the FER gene (5q21) at a genome-wide significance level, best represented by SNP rs10447248 (

77 s effect was not significant at a study-wise significance level (Bonferroni threshold P < 5.8 x 10(-4

78 eak revealed a variant meeting the corrected significance level (Bonferroni-corrected p=5.01x10(-5))

79 I propose that establishing significance levels by coalescent simulation with recomb

80 Furthermore, the genomewide significance level can be appropriately controlled when

81 ts has important applications for estimating significance levels, clustering algorithms, and process

82 e a matching threshold with some statistical significance level, e.g. p = 0.01, for each spectrum, an

83 or count all transmissions and estimate the significance level empirically.

84 tion, despite the need to use more stringent significance levels, even when effect sizes differ betwe

85 conds originating above the bright point and significance levels exceeding 99%.

86 methylation in cord blood at epigenome-wide significance level [false discovery rate (FDR)<0.05].

87 tified as associated with OCD at genome-wide significance level, follow-up analyses of genome-wide as

88 ia (OR = 7.82, P = 0.001), with the combined significance level for all three studies achieving P = 5

89 No SNPs or common CNVs reached a genome-wide significance level for association with height or body m

90 Two chromosomal regions reached genome-wide significance level for childhood asthma symptoms: the 14

91 variant filters or weights and adjusting the significance level for correlations between variants yie

92 ovided evidence for linkage at a genome-wide significance level for loci on 6q (P = 2.7 x 10(-6)) and

93 Using the traditional alpha = 0.05 significance level for null hypothesis significance test

94 P-value combination was used to determine a significance level for the combined evidence within each

95 has raised the question of how to adjust the significance level for the fact that multiple tests are

96 istical methods give different estimates and significance levels for a risk factor.

97 P-value adjustments to correct the observed significance levels for the individual (i.e. for each ge

98 tep-down adjustments to correct the observed significance levels for the individual ANOVA t-tests for

99 lyses were performed to determine genomewide significance levels for this study.

100 error rate of.00574, leading to a genomewide significance level >.05.

101 28% more peptides were identified above the significance level in a standard and extended search spa

102 sociated with periodontitis at a genome-wide significance level in the pooled samples, with P = 1.09E

103 tests that allow determination of empirical significance levels in the presence of linkage disequili

104 Three of these SNPs met nominal significance levels in the replication cohort with odds

105 ith BUA and five with VOS at the genome-wide significance level, including three novel loci for BUA a

106 Bonferroni-corrected significance level is known to be conservative, leading

107 ber of false positives reaching the observed significance level less than 0.05 per study).

108 rade gliomas and 11 low-grade gliomas (P<.05 significance level, Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test, Bonferro

109 Although no regions achieved a 5% genomewide significance level, maximum LOD-score values were >2.0 (

110 At high significance levels, more differences were observed in t

111 The locus on chromosome 1 reached genomewide significance levels (nonparametric LOD score of 3.30 at

112 ere associated with lobar ICH at genome-wide significance levels (odds ratio [OR] = 1.82, 95% confide

113 association with SCC reached the genome-wide significance level [odds ratio (OR) for additive model =

114 BMI; weight (kg)/height (m)(2)) at a minimum significance level of </=5 x 10(-7) in the US National H

115 le comparisons with the Bonferroni-corrected significance level of <0.0015.

116 power of 80% with concordant sib pairs at a significance level of .0001 are given, stratified by par

117 ific performance levels by using a two-sided significance level of .0294.

118 A 2-tailed t test with a significance level of .05 was used for all comparisons.

119 nalyses were done by using chi(2) tests with significance level of .05.

120 ession analysis and two-sided t tests with a significance level of .05.

121 45 with approximately 85% power at two-sided significance level of .05.

122 t were used for statistical analyses, with a significance level of .05.

123 ided P = .055; two-sided P = .11 [predefined significance level of .10, one-sided]).

124 ect a 33% prolongation of PFS at a one-sided significance level of .2.

125 g major molecular response, were tested at a significance level of 0.0001 to adjust for multiple comp

126 was protocol-specified and used a two-sided significance level of 0.001 and a p value at or below th

127 ed with relapse-free survival at a stringent significance level of 0.001 to account for multiple comp

128 ignificantly associated (Bonferroni-adjusted significance level of 0.003) with many ion properties re

129 ention type and occasion factor time, with a significance level of 0.01.

130 fied one-sided stratified log rank test at a significance level of 0.02.

131 near and generalized linear mixed model at a significance level of 0.05 (P value).

132 ore nearly impossible to ensure a genomewide significance level of 0.05 using the available statistic

133 A significance level of 0.05 was applied for 95% confidenc

134 Adopting a cFDR nominal significance level of 0.05, 287 loci were identified for

135 roportional hazards regression models with a significance level of 0.1 were used to build up univaria

136 vidual servers based on TM-score at a t-test significance level of 0.1%.

137 emissions above 200 megaelectron volts at a significance level of 17sigma from the globular cluster

138 14 of 443 experimentally determined sites (a significance level of 18 standard deviations).

139 tein or DNA sequences in the database at the significance level of 1e-6.

140 tal arms) with 81% power while maintaining a significance level of 2.5% in a two-sided test for each

141 th higher liver fat levels at the exome-wide significance level of 3.6 x 10(-7): two in PNPLA3, an es

142 ociated with schizophrenia at the suggestive significance level of 5 x 10(-5).

143 Nine loci reached the genome-wide significance level of 5 x 10(-8) including six already k

144 circulating phylloquinone at the genome-wide significance level of 5 x 10(-8).

145 ect a putative mutant allele at a genomewide significance level of 5% can usually be achieved in prac

146 A significance level of 5% was used.

147 analysis of variance and chi(2) tests with a significance level of 5%.

148 orphometry were statistically processed at a significance level of 5%.

149 re meta-analyzed, and a Bonferroni-corrected significance level of 7.7 x 10(-4) was used to account f

150 ivariate regression analysis were applied at significance level of 95% (P </= 0.05) to compare study

151 vents and number of positions as well as the significance level of a given data set.

152 9p23, and 16q24.1, exceeding the statistical significance level of a LOD score >2.0.

153 Analyses included a significance level of alpha = .10 with no adjustments fo

154 0.73) using one-sided binomial tests with a significance level of alpha=0.025.

155 A Bonferroni-corrected significance level of less than 0.0016 was considered st

156 To adjust for multiple comparisons, a significance level of P < .01 was chosen.

157 0.075 for liver enzyme concentrations, at a significance level of P < .05.

158 ssociated with 1-year overall mortality at a significance level of P < .10 constructed a multivariate

159 power calculation used a 1-sided test with a significance level of P < .10.

160 er to detect 50% prolongation at a one-sided significance level of P < .20.

161 cohort and both the NC and ACA cohorts at a significance level of P < 0.01.

162 atients and controls were generated, using a significance level of P < 0.05 in a general linear model

163 292 genes per wood trait using a statistical significance level of P < 0.05 to maximize discovery.

164 At a significance level of P < 0.05, CGM Cho, CGM and NAWM tN

165 henotype associations with an experimentwise significance level of P < 0.05.

166 (SNPs) that were associated with NAFLD at a significance level of P < 10(-5) was examined in adults

167 12 new susceptibility loci (at a genome-wide significance level of P < 5 x 10(-)(8)) and replicated a

168 ted to prostate cancer risk at a genome-wide significance level of P < 5 x 10(-8) with the most signi

169 AL PARAMETRIC MAPPING software package and a significance level of P < or = 0.001, uncorrected for mu

170 oints, but they did not reach a prespecified significance level of P < or = 25.

171 18p11, and 20q13), with a nominal multipoint significance level of P< or =.01 or LOD > or =1.18.

172 7 (D17S1301), with evidence for linkage at a significance level of P<.005.

173 ies using study data confirmed a genome-wide significance level of P<0.05 (95% CI 0.005-0.0466).

174 We used a statistical significance level of p<0.05 for a between-group differe

175 Using the significance level of p<0.05, we found that 59 miRNAs we

176 fied for 64 nsSNPs, generating a genome-wide significance level of P=0.002.

177 lateral case, corresponding to a genome-wide significance level of P=0.034.

178 ualised relapse rate after 24 months, with a significance level of p=0.10.

179 core-based method for estimating genome-wide significance level of putative QTL effects suitable for

180 LOD score 3.6 is.00191, giving a genomewide significance level of slightly <.05.

181 hen based on D', and 11 cM when based on the significance level of the allelic association.

182 ce determination is applied to represent the significance level of the genes in a Bayesian inference

183 rly all were much smaller than the customary significance level of.0001 for genomewide scans.

184 the sample sizes required for 80% power at a significance level of.001 and also used simulation metho

185 rcentage of activated voxels at single-voxel significance levels of 10(-2), 10(-3), and 10(-4) within

186 Results of the QTL analyses indicated that significance levels of detected QTL were greatly improve

187 s observed at three Y haplotype clades, with significance levels of P = 0.002, P = 0.020, and P = 0.0

188 The statistical significance levels of the correlations and the pattern

189 oducible determinations of the probabilistic significance levels of the deviations between theoretica

190 CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Levels of specific serum phospholipids dif

191 We recover 75%-85% (depending on significance level) of all regulatory sites from a stand

192 By quantifying the increase in significance level (or, correspondingly, the increase in

193 regions of decreased gray matter volume at a significance level p <= .05 corrected for family-wise er

194 )) were associated with LTL at a genome-wide significance level (P < 5 x 10(-8)).

195 , we confirmed eight loci at the genome-wide significance level (P < 5.0 x 10(-8)) and an additional

196 At the exome-wide significance level (P < 5.0 x 10(-8)), we confirmed asso

197 and patients was small but still bellow the significance level (P = .0137).

198 nteraction of sex with training year is near significance level (P = .06).

199 was the primary outcome, failed to reach the significance level (P = .06).

200 l, based on our predetermined two-sided 0.10 significance level (p = 0.09).

201 e association for rs7903146 reached the GWAS significance level (P = 3.6 x 10(-8)), with an odds rati

202 ith cognitive performance at the genome-wide significance level (P<5 x 10(-8)).

203 ican American populations at the genome-wide significance level (P<5.0 x 10(-8)), we also identified

204 bolite features can be filtered out by their significance level (p-value), fold change, mass-to-charg

205 on-binding receptor, reaches the genome-wide significance level (P=1.3 x 10(-8)) in the combined samp

206 and SYT6 loci also came close to genome-wide significance levels (P = 10(-6)).

207 917639) was associated with dose at moderate significance levels (P approximately 10(-4)).

208 Two-sided t tests (significance level, P = .05) were used to determine whet

209 susceptibility region was found (genome-wide significance level, P = 0.038), which is missed with con

210 tronic in CFDP1) was associated with cIMT at significance levels passing multiple testing correction

211 found for patient groups stratified by age (significance levels: PRISM III-12 = .1622; PRISM III-24

212 22; PRISM III-24 = .4137), and by diagnosis (significance levels: PRISM III-12 = .5992; PRISM III-24

213 negative status did not reach to statistical significance level (relative risk=1.23 with P=0.087) aft

214 d predictive utility-the approach learns the significance level relevant for a given data set.

215 approach is the availability of theoretical significance-level results.

216 ociated with serum T levels at a genome-wide significance level (rs10822184: P = 1.12 x 10(-8)).

217 ng the Cox proportional hazards model with a significance level set at P <0.05.

218 n cases where asymptotic theory is doubtful, significance levels should be checked by simulations.

219 differentially expressed in dwarf mice at a significance level that excludes appearance of false pos

220 hough the amygdala finding did not survive a significance level that was Bonferroni corrected for mul

221 Permutation analysis, which adjusts the significance level to account for multiple comparisons i

222 hey differ in how to associate a statistical significance level to the corresponding statistic, leadi

223 We also assign significance levels to our results, adjusted for multipl

224 We associate significance levels to the proposed statistic by either

225 fficacy hypothesis was tested at a two-sided significance level (type I error) of 0.05 using an exact

226 s and automatically sets the experiment-wide significance level; (v) MECPM directly yields a phenotyp

227 k truncated product) may lose power when the significance level varies across SNPs.

228 were analyzed using Chi-square test and the significance level was set as p</=.05.

229 Significance level was set at .01 for pooled analysis.

230 The significance level was set at .05.

231 MD (P-allele = 0.0009, P-trend = 0.0008; the significance level was set at 0.05/25 = 0.002 for multip

232 The significance level was set at P < .05.

233 For all comparisons, significance level was set at P<0.05.

234 In all, the significance level was set to p<0.05.

235 Two-sided 0.30 significance level was specified (80% power, 103 events)

236 Significance level was systematically varied to P < 0.00

237 stically significant differences at the 0.05 significance level were found between concentration valu

238 In (1), the resultant significance levels were approximately doubled, compared

239 mp)) and multiple-test study-wise (P(multi)) significance levels were calculated empirically through

240 Empirical significance levels were determined via gene-dropping si

241 In (2), significance levels were increased somewhat less, and, i

242 Thresholds for the 63%, 10%, 5%, and 1% significance levels were obtained from 100 permutations.

243 stral anterior cingulate cortex, uncorrected significance level) were distinct from overestimation an

244 ndent of obliquity can be rejected at the 5% significance level, whereas the corresponding null hypot

245 Our tests provide a significance level, which is unavailable for the widely

246 sary to attain a specified power for a given significance level, which is useful in the planning of a

247 TR of GDF5 is associated, at the genome-wide significance level, with osteoarthritis susceptibility,