ライフサイエンスコーパス: standard error

1 o the control by 28.2 +/- 2.8% (mean +/- one standard error).

2 e activation energy was 110+/-3 kJ/mol (n=3, standard error).

3 /- 2.3 nM (n = 15 mice, weighted average +/- standard error).

4 Delta'(17)O of -1 +/- 5 parts per million (2 standard error).

5 e provide an analytical approximation of the standard error.

6 tation, improved precision and reduced assay standard error.

7 , accounting for clustering using linearized standard errors.

8 hat these codes have been used in estimating standard errors.

9 including a bootstrap method for estimating standard errors.

10 ultivariable logistic regression with robust standard errors.

11 n regression models with log link and robust standard errors.

12 stment as in Efron (2004) or using jackknife standard errors.

13 ting unadjusted or heteroscedasticity-robust standard errors.

14 g conditional Poisson regression with robust standard errors.

15 rtisol variability leading to underestimated standard errors.

16 power; (b) decrease trait heterogeneity and standard error;

17 overall pain scores (effect estimate 0.004, standard error 0.028, 95% confidence interval -0.052, 0.

18 ing characteristic curve for low PlGF (0.87, standard error 0.03) for predicting preeclampsia within

19 edilation IOP level (coefficient beta -0.17; standard error 0.04; P < 0.001) were significant risk fa

20 ied Shaffer grading (coefficient beta -0.51; standard error 0.19; P=0.01), and predilation IOP level

21 The kappa statistic was 0.65 (standard error +/-0.37, P < .001) between the 2 classifi

22 phy and death was <1 year (estimate -0.0013, standard error = 0.0005, P = 0.023).

23 y 24 to 1 month over 10 years, respectively, standard error = 0.005 QALY), at increasing average cost

24 omarker of inflammation (p = 0.005, beta +/- standard error = 0.08 +/- 0.03).

25 ion of NAFLD with e' velocity (beta = -0.36 [standard error = 0.15] cm/s; P = 0.02), E/e' ratio (beta

26 Cognard classification of DAVFs (kappa = 1, standard error = 0.35).

27 scale [ADAS11] over time [p = 0.03, beta +/- standard error = 0.7 +/- 0.3]; worse forgetting score on

28 g Test (RAVLT) over time [p = 0.02, beta +/- standard error = -0.2 +/- 0.06]).

29 ination value for fractal dimension of 0.96 (standard error =0.025) for the GCL + IPL complex was obt

30 ent for covariates (P = 0.003; beta = 0.016; standard error, 0.006).

31 error categories at 55 years of age to 9.5% (standard error, 0.01) for emmetropia and 15.3% (standard

32 adult BMI in the 75th quantile (beta = 0.06 (standard error, 0.03) kg).

33 AUCs for readers 1 and 2 improved to 0.924 (standard error, 0.0335) and 0.881 (standard error, 0.040

34 with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.905 (standard error, 0.0370).

35 onstrated an ROC curve with an AUC of 0.896 (standard error, 0.0386).

36 to 0.924 (standard error, 0.0335) and 0.881 (standard error, 0.0409), respectively.

37 (136/162), with a kappa statistic of 0.723 (standard error, 0.047; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6

38 cohort was excellent, with a slope of 0.97 (standard error, 0.04; P value [for difference from 1] =0

39 erating characteristic curve values of 0.88 (standard error, 0.05), 0.76 (standard error, 0.06), 0.68

40 of 0.786 (standard error, 0.0522) and 0.796 (standard error, 0.0514), respectively.

41 2 who demonstrated ROCs with AUCs of 0.786 (standard error, 0.0522) and 0.796 (standard error, 0.051

42 alories derived from fat (betameta = 0.2244 (standard error, 0.0548); P = 4 x 10(-5)) and inversely a

43 score at 4.5 years of age increased by 0.12 (standard error, 0.059) units for each 1-mmol/L increase

44 ndard error, 0.01) for emmetropia and 15.3% (standard error, 0.06) for high hyperopia to 33.7% (stand

45 values of 0.88 (standard error, 0.05), 0.76 (standard error, 0.06), 0.68 (standard error, 0.08), and

46 21); P = 0.142), nonatypical MDD (B = 0.007 (standard error, 0.06); P = 0.911), and no history of dep

47 ard error, 0.12) for CESD-10 score and 0.47 (standard error, 0.07) for GDS-15 score between women wit

48 rived from carbohydrate (betameta = -0.2796 (standard error, 0.0709); P = 8 x 10(-5)).

49 rd error, 0.06) for high hyperopia to 33.7% (standard error, 0.08) for high myopia at 85 years of age

50 r, 0.05), 0.76 (standard error, 0.06), 0.68 (standard error, 0.08), and 0.55 (standard error, 0.09) f

51 .06), 0.68 (standard error, 0.08), and 0.55 (standard error, 0.09) for MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, PAM50

52 ariable-adjusted mean differences were 1.00 (standard error, 0.12) for CESD-10 score and 0.47 (standa

53 ce from 1] =0.53) and an intercept of 0.007 (standard error, 0.12; P value [for difference from 0] =0

54 Atypical MDD (B = 0.41 (standard error, 0.15); P = 0.007) was a stronger predict

55 dex than were dysthymic disorder (B = -0.31 (standard error, 0.21); P = 0.142), nonatypical MDD (B =

56 est 90th quantile of adult BMI (beta = 0.64 (standard error, 0.26) BMI units).

57 , 0.7 letters) for fluid only, 59.0 letters (standard error, 0.5 letters) for CNV, and 58.7 letters (

58 e total population (log-relative risk, 1.73; standard error, 0.56; P = .002) and in the surgery-only

59 s also rs10120688 (P = 0.001; beta = -2.135; standard error, 0.634) after adjustment for covariates u

60 n the surgery-only (log-relative risk, 1.97; standard error, 0.66; P = .003) and chemotherapy (log-re

61 features in the foveal center: 64.5 letters (standard error, 0.7 letters) for fluid only, 59.0 letter

62 al deformation (concavity(min); mean AUC +/- standard error, 0.985 +/- 0.002) and a new measure incor

63 ield Trials were designed to obtain precise (standard error,0.1) estimates of the intraclass kappa as

64 risk factors (regression coefficient: 0.29; standard error: 0.06; 95% confidence interval: 0.17, 0.4

65 gical degree of liver steatosis (beta, 0.15; standard error: 0.06; P = 0.0299) that was independent o

66 of decline in global cognition (estimate [+/-standard error], -0.02 +/- 0.01; P = .03) in models that

67 epsis (linear regression coefficient, -3.74; standard error, 1.16; P = 0.002) and Simplified Acute Ph

68 ror, 0.5 letters) for CNV, and 58.7 letters (standard error, 1.3 letters) for hemorrhage (P<0.001).

69 ) and chemotherapy (log-relative risk, 2.93; standard error, 1.41; P = .03) groups, along with other

70 re II (linear regression coefficient, -0.07; standard error, 1.69; P = 0.03).

71 standard error: 2.5%) in the PFO+ and 10.4% (standard error: 1.1%) in the PFO- group (p = 0.46).

72 three-dimensional techniques ( RSE residual standard error = 12.18 for visual assessment).

73 ds and left amygdalar (simple slope, -34.62; standard error, 12.74; P = .008) volumes among young adu

74 inical models in both the BWH RoCI (NRI 79%, standard error 14%, p<1x10(-4)) and ME ARDS (NRI 55%, st

75 ed intensive care unit length of stay (mean (standard error) 14.8 (0.26) vs 3.2 (0.09) days, p < 0.00

76 PVD (Kaplan-Meier estimated probability and standard error, 19.2% and 0.061 vs 5.4% and 0.02; P = .0

77 beta values were 4 to 5 times lower and the standard error 2 to 3 times lower in multilevel models.

78 kedly reduced visual acuity of 48.4 letters (standard error, 2.2 letters; P<0.0001).

79 .22; P = .008) and CA3 (simple slope, -6.42; standard error, 2.42; P = .009) hippocampal subfields an

80 ween 18 and 64 years of age comprised 92.8% (standard error, 2.6%) of HS patients.

81 .5-year cumulative risk of stroke was 10.1% (standard error: 2.5%) in the PFO+ and 10.4% (standard er

82 that a change in disease of 29.2% (relative standard error 20%) between two consecutive CT scans (i.

83 error 14%, p<1x10(-4)) and ME ARDS (NRI 55%, standard error 20%, p = 0.007) cohorts.

84 rred in the first 2 years (probability, 41%; standard error, 3%).

85 s failed, with a 20-year probability of 12% (standard error, 3%).

86 wed an annual ECD decline of 48 cells/mm(2) (standard error, 3.14) and 61 cells/mm(2) (standard error

87 individuals to estimate incidence (relative standard error, 30%) and had >80% power to detect a 50%

88 surgery, with a 20-year probability of 10% (standard error, 4%).

89 eed for dialysis (regression coefficient +/- standard error, 4.5 +/- 1.1) and diabetic wound diagnosi

90 igher CSF amyloid levels (p = 0.03, beta +/- standard error = 47.19 +/- 21.78).

91 overlap with early-onset asthma was 27.3 mL (standard error 5.0) per year, which did not differ signi

92 ed left dentate gyrus (simple slope, -14.20; standard error, 5.22; P = .008) and CA3 (simple slope, -

93 Of that working-age population, 31.5% (standard error, 5.6%) were enrolled in Medicare or Medic

94 osis (residual standard error [ RSE residual standard error ] = 6.38 and 6.33 for quantitative EASL E

95 ) (standard error, 3.14) and 61 cells/mm(2) (standard error, 6.30) in the myopic (P < 0.001) and tori

96 ients with VMT or VMA were younger (mean +/- standard error, 75.5 +/- 0.6 vs. 79.7 +/- 0.24 years; P

97 neurons than those without (estimate -2872, standard error = 829, P = 0.001).

98 .65), with largest AUC of 0.9913 +/- 0.0037 (standard error), accuracy of 96.9%, and sensitivity, spe

99 by linear and Poisson regression with robust standard errors, adjusting for maternal prepregnancy BMI

100 by the small effect size in relation to high standard error and Berkeley's low baseline consumption.

101 tudies were converted to mean difference and standard error and interpolated using the inverse of var

102 etermined prevalence ratios using asymptotic standard errors and 95% confidence intervals.

103 cenarios, DRS matching yielded lower average standard errors and mean squared errors than did matchin

104 image features combined were 0.95 +/- 0.02 (standard error) and 0.88 +/- 0.03 on dataset B and datas

105 ng performance of estimated and bootstrapped standard errors, and a discussion of the potential advan

106 sion was used to estimate beta-coefficients, standard errors, and P values corresponding to change in

107 a values of -1.08 +/- 0.26 log(10) [mean +/- standard error] and -0.83 +/- 0.27 log(10), respectively

108 lated infections was 2.0% +/- 0.5% (mean +/- standard error) at 10 years.

109 ean estimated glomerular filtration rate (+/-standard error) at 36 months was 72.1+/-3.3 vs. 67.5+/-3

110 The success rates (+/- standard error) at the first, third, and fifth years of

111 and EFS between the control (EFS, 35% +/- 3 [standard error] at 4 years) and clofarabine treatments (

112 llitus (seven men; mean age, 46 years +/- 2 [standard error]) before and after 6 months of moderate-i

113 og unit and did not reduce relative log mean standard errors below 0.5.

114 At baseline, mean +/- standard error best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) (logM

115 ntation independent risk factor (beta, 0.33; standard error (beta), 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.

116 s show that bias can be substantial and that standard errors can be severely underestimated in naive

117 At month 12, mean +/- standard error central retinal thickness decreased by 11

118 oaches 7 orders in magnitude with a relative standard error close to 8%.

119 ity, and year, with Taylor series linearized standard errors clustered by state and classroom.

120 nflated negative binomial models with robust standard errors clustered on female sex worker (FSW) wer

121 (12) +/- 1.62*10(12) average copy number +/- standard error) compared to other tested viruses, with D

122 ions/total airways = 0.45 +/- 0.07, mean +/- standard error) compared to short ischemic times (ratio

123 accuracy, covariate balance achieved, bias, standard error, coverage, and mean squared error.

124 The 5-year event-free survival (with standard error) did not differ between groups: 76.7% (2.

125 vs CGT with PLA: model-based adjusted mean [standard error] difference, -2.06 [1.00]; 95% CI, -4.02

126 We obtained per-allele odds ratio (OR) and standard error estimates using age- and sex-adjusted log

127 range were less or equal to the experimental standard error, except for one low-Zn soil.

128 We compared several different forms of the standard error for linear and logistic TSRI estimates in

129 The standard errors for calibration, cross-validation, predi

130 The median logarithmic parameter standard errors for the four models were 1.070, 0.4537,

131 were 0.5% and 2% larger than the unadjusted standard errors for the linear and logistic TSRI estimat

132 precision was indicated by the low relative standard errors for the partition ratios of 0.5-8%, equi

133 chizophrenia and 25(OH)D to obtain betas and standard errors for the SNP-exposure and SNP-outcome ass

134 ing uncorrected or heteroscedasticity-robust standard errors for these estimates.

135 ding yields realistic estimates of parameter standard errors for use in protocol design and feasibili

136 The mean relative fit uncertainty (+/-standard error) for K(trans) was 10% +/- 1 with the Patl

137 l values (LRV) up to 3.71 +/- 0.38 (mean +/- standard error) for TPA-RC and 2.25 +/- 1.00 for AgNP-RC

138 hich significantly decreased the calibration standard error from 0.50 to 0.03log10 (cells/mL).

139 probability of early menarche, estimates and standard errors from an automated optimization routine w

140 ning results via regression coefficients and standard errors from different studies.

141 is typically much greater than the estimated standard errors from the least-squares fits used to obta

142 t in which the PPC and MCV were lower than 4 standard errors from the mean of healthy participants co

143 d 2-stage least squares (in the linear case) standard errors gave the best results in terms of covera

144 We show that TSRI estimators with modified standard errors have correct type I error under the null

145 ms per subject was required to achieve a 0.3 standard error in the anxiety severity estimate and main

146 ation (ignored in a simple Cox model, robust standard errors in a variance-correction model, random e

147 ositive, varied from 0.216 to 0.729, and had standard errors in the range of 0.006-0.060.

148 ytime DeltaT by 3.0 +/- 0.3 kelvin (mean and standard error) in humid climates but decreasing DeltaT

149 ction-level AUC for KWs was 0.845 +/- 0.045 (standard error) in trial 1 and 0.855 +/- 0.044 in trial

150 s should report TSRI estimates with modified standard errors instead of reporting unadjusted or heter

151 Mean (standard error) lesion size changes from baseline, deter

152 stimation for PCH data, including asymptotic standard error, likelihood joint-confidence region, like

153 coefficients of determination, the relative standard errors (<50%), and the correlation of the param

154 , LDL-C, and TG; the differences in mean +/- standard error (mg/dL) are -8.38 +/- 1.56, -3.7 +/- 0.9,

155 Among others, we consider standard errors modified from the approach of Newey (198

156 ration of 0.083 cell/mL was measured, with a standard error of 0.01 (C(95) = 0.065-0.102).

157 91 cell/mL was measured by cytometry, with a standard error of 0.03 (C(95) = 0.85-0.97).

158 icient of determination (R(2)) of 0.986, the standard error of 0.04, the root mean square error of 0.

159 that the published method of estimating the standard error of an IDI estimate tends to underestimate

160 The standard error of calibration for 69 pH standards was 0.

161 s of correlation, root mean square error and standard error of calibration were 0.964, 0.630 and 0.63

162 g to multiple correlation coefficient (RSQ), standard error of cross-validation (SECV), ratio perform

163 The standard error of estimate over a typical range 0-50 ppb

164 r analysis evaluated the probability and its standard error of experiencing an adverse outcome.

165 es of those holding an MD degree (21.4+/-1.6 standard error of mean) were not statistically higher th

166 final examination was -0.4 +/- 0.05 diopter (standard error of mean).

167 aching 49 +/- 10 mum in 30-degree adduction (standard error of mean, P < .0001).

168 y lower (45%) in 2008 than in 1998 (mean +/- standard error of mean: 1998, 2265 +/- 231 nM; 2008, 125

169 (coefficient of variation (CV) = 8.1-12.1%; standard error of measurement (SEM) = 51.6-98.8 Nm(-)(1)

170 clinically important difference (MCID) as 1 standard error of measurement from a well-characterized,

171 An A-IQOLS standard error of measurement of 0.27 implies that a wit

172 The QOLS standard error of measurement was 0.43.

173 howed a coefficient-of-correlation 0.982 and standard error of prediction (SEP) between 0.03% and 0.0

174 rylamide concentration of 5.4 mug kg(-1) and standard error of prediction (SEP) of 14.8 mug kg(-1).

175 coefficients of prediction (rPred)>0.91 and standard error of prediction (SEP) of 24mg/100g phenolic

176 rtial Least Squares Regression (PLSR) showed standard error of prediction (SEP) ~2.33, 0.06, 0.41, 0.

177 ults (coefficient of determination (RSQ) and standard error of prediction (SEP), respectively) for th

178 13 had R(2) values greater than 0.75 with a standard error of prediction c.a. 3-4% by weight.

179 contained and a quantification model with a standard error of prediction of 1.51% were obtained.

180 concentration of olive oil lower than 5% (a standard error of prediction of 3.97% was obtained with

181 llected on an external validation set with a standard error of prediction of 5.6% using 7 factors.

182 This optimized assay displayed a mean standard error of prediction of 7.5 mg/dL (0-300 mg/dL),

183 ble total phenolic content was 0.89, and the standard error of prediction was 6.3mgg(-1).

184 osition of right and left breasts, where the standard error of the estimations was determined.

185 The standard error of the intervention effect increased by a

186 assay reproducibility, expressed as relative standard error of the mean (n = 30), was 1.1%.

187 (t(1/2) = 44 +/- 3.4 days; error represents standard error of the mean (SEM)) compared to 4 degrees

188 is contant Km of 15.3 muM +/- 1.02 (mean +/- standard error of the mean (SEM), n = 16) and an inhibit

189 -type sequence (wild-type mean 0.78 +/- 0.07 standard error of the mean [SEM] and variant mean 0.63 +

190 e proportions, and CIs were derived from the standard error of the mean for continuous variables.

191 om effects analysis of variance and mean and standard error of the mean for the difference between se

192 ithin the dentate nucleus (mean SI ratio +/- standard error of the mean for two-group comparison: 1.0

193 Sensitivity analysis showed that the standard error of the mean in the absolute calibrated va

194 A mean +/- standard error of the mean intracellular uptake of (4.19

195 2 Omega cm(2)+/-1.3 Omega cm(2) (average +/- standard error of the mean of 4 chips), comparable to ot

196 a, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates (+/-standard error of the mean) after two chemoembolization

197 had normalized mean LV SWA of 0.67 +/- 0.04 (standard error of the mean) and 0.56 +/- 0.04 (P = .18,

198 gher in PSC samples (2.53 +/- 0.80, mean +/- standard error of the mean) compared to PBC samples (1.1

199 In smokers, mean (standard error of the mean) marginal bone loss at 5 year

200 DH+) cells comprised 5.8% +/- 1.4% (mean +/- standard error of the mean) of cells from 19 patient sam

201 ng level, mean enhancement of 19.6% +/- 1.7 (standard error of the mean) was achieved without inducin

202 f 29.6% injected dose (ID) per gram +/- 2.2 (standard error of the mean) was significantly greater th

203 The mean EPC levels (+/- standard error of the mean) were 1.4 +/- 0.5 cells/muL i

204 neovascular AMD were 90.8 +/- 2.9 pg/mL (+/- standard error of the mean), 88.2 +/- 2.6 pg/mL, and 79.

205 ator7PCB was estimated to 182 +/- 40 t (+/-1 standard error of the mean), with sediments (144 +/- 40

206 0.82(1) (the digit in parentheses shows the standard error of the mean).

207 t of DNA radiation damage (mean increase +/- standard error of the mean, 0.056 foci per cell +/- 0.00

208 ich lesions revealed that 50+/-7% (average+/-standard error of the mean, n=14 subjects) of total foam

209 values expressed as mean nmol/g protein +/- standard error of the mean, p = 0.040 by ANOVA).

210 ty of 0.76(3), where the uncertainty denotes standard error of the mean.

211 from baseline with both krill oil (mean +/- standard error of the mean: -18.6+/-4.5 mOsmol/l; n = 18

212 guidance under MR imaging (37 seconds +/- 6 [standard error of the mean] vs 55 seconds +/- 3, P < .00

213 tion of 54.7 degrees (21.8 msec +/- 2.8 [+/- standard error of the mean]) than at 0 degrees (10.0 mse

214 ion scores in all segments (mean, 4.7+/-0.1 [standard error of the mean]; vs 3.0+/-0.3 for arterial i

215 ch volunteer was imaged three times, and the standard error of the measurements at the region-of-inte

216 The standard error of the model for calculation of fetal GA

217 d water) and 14 (pore water) and inter-study standard errors of approximately 2 mol (1)H per liter of

218 fficients (higher than 0.700) and acceptable standard errors of cross-validation were obtained.

219 l was the only model for which there were no standard errors of estimated parameters greater than a f

220 The relative standard errors of prediction (RSEP) were calculated for

221 Standard errors of the estimated log odds ratios, includ

222 The standard errors of the estimations of the right-left cor

223 Standard errors of the gas concentrations are approximat

224 ng/ml versus 1.51 +/- 0.44 ng/ml [means +/- standard errors of the means {SEM}; P = 0.0001).

225 quantified, it accounted for an average (+/-standard error) of 0.13+/-0.02% of PM2.5.

226 Cumulative incidence estimates (+/- standard error) of GFNC (n=29), GF-with-compliance (n=46

227 ndicated by slopes (DeltaARAT/week, mean +/- standard errors) of 0.40 +/- 0.15, 0.31 +/- 0.16, and 0.

228 an white matter fractional anisotropy (mean [standard error]: offspring, 0.3232 [0.0009]; controls, 0

229 with MMC and 56.2 +/- 7.9% with CM (mean +/- standard error, p = 0.112, log rank test); however, a si

230 such as the detection limit and the relative standard error predictions were calculated.

231 However, the large standard errors present in the other models are signific

232 (-1) for 45.0, 36.5 and 24.0 degrees C (n=5, standard error), respectively, and the activation energy

233 io performance deviation (RPD) and root mean standard error (RMSE) in the prediction set.

234 h pathologically measured necrosis (residual standard error [ RSE residual standard error ] = 6.38 an

235 oticism and depressive symptoms (r g = 0.82, standard error (s.e.) = 0.03), major depressive disorder

236 oticism and depressive symptoms (r g = 0.82, standard error (s.e.) = 0.03), major depressive disorder

237 e estimate that these SNPs account for 0.12 (standard error (s.e.) = 0.05) of variance in risk ( appr

238 ely 17 million imputed variants explain 56% (standard error (s.e.) = 2.3%) of variance for height and

239 ificantly lower survival (0.012 fewer years [standard error (SE) 0.007]), fewer quality-adjusted life

240 creased 0.04 Standard Deviation Score (SDS) [Standard Error (SE) 0.007], 0.05 SDS (SE 0.008) and 0.14

241 ere inversely related (beta = -0.46 kg/m(2), standard error (SE) = 0.08; P < 0.0001).

242 ed Mean Difference (SMD) plotted against the standard error (SE) are susceptible to distortion, leadi

243 mum allowable repeatability component of the standard error (SE) for the potency assay is derived usi

244 The variability, as measured by the standard error (SE), of a potency assay consists of seve

245 he gene encoding Asb1 (beta-coefficient=0.56 standard error (SE)=0.10, p (Bonferroni)=0.005), a prote

246 ive ultracentrifugation (least squares mean [standard error (SE)]) was 43 (3)% and 55 (3)% with AMG 1

247 index (HIV-1 seroprevalent) partners (beta [standard error (SE)], .17 [.8] log(1)(0); P = .04) and w

248 idence intervals (CIs) or beta estimates and standard errors (SE) for the obesity status and BMI anal

249 However, computing the standard errors (SE) of the measures and their correlati

250 ration as standardized beta-coefficients and standard errors (SE).

251 r current smoker are associated with 0.118% (standard error [SE] 0.0259%, p < 0.001) and 0.108% (SE 0

252 of about 0.11 U per year (estimate = -0.109, standard error [SE] = 0.004, p < 0.001), with significan

253 the rs173539 locus (odds ratio [OR] = 1.25, standard error [SE] = 0.06, p = 6.0 x 10(-4) ) with no h

254 st for fluconazole by disk diffusion (0.902, standard error [SE] = 0.076) and Etest (1.00, SE = 0.218

255 % increases in Tregs were 0.101 x 106 IU/m2 (standard error [SE] = 0.078, 95% CI = -0.052, 0.254) and

256 e intensity of anticoagulation (beta = 0.32; standard error [SE] = 0.08; P < .001; test for trend acr

257 is a person who injects drugs (PWID; 0.62%; standard error [SE] = 0.38%) exceeds 16,757 times the ri

258 scores were higher in the PTSD (mean = 13.4; standard error [SE] = 1.1; n = 22) and depression (mean

259 a 6-year event-free survival (EFS) of 89.0% (standard error [SE] = 1.5%) and a 6-year overall surviva

260 gingival crevicular fluid hsCRP (-5.3 ng/mL, standard error [SE] = 2.4, p = .03) and IL-1beta (-20.1

261 a 5-year event-free survival (EFS) of 58.9% (standard error [SE] = 2.8) and an overall survival of 68

262 aluable for growth, the rate was 0.43 mm/yr (standard error [SE], +/-0.03 mm/year).

263 ement among IPs by kappa statistic was 0.42 (standard error [SE], 0.06).

264 arkinsonism (neuronal loss: estimate, 0.231; standard error [SE], 0.068; p < 0.001; Lewy bodies: esti

265 104 (n = 66), mean VA letter score was 73.5 (standard error [SE], 2.8), 73.1 (SE, 3.4), 65.3 (SE, 3.5

266 The mean age of legal blindness was 48 (standard error [SE], 3.1) years in CD, and 35 (SE, 1.1;

267 ulative probabilities of failure were 31.3% (standard error [SE], 4.0%) (AGV) and 32.3% (4.2%) (BGI)

268 The incidence of dementia was 33.3 (standard error [SE], 4.2) per 1,000 person-years and 22.

269 ociated with longer life expectancy of 0.78 (standard error [SE]: 0.05), 0.55 (SE: 0.06), and 1.03 (S

270 was low: any antiplatelet therapy in 35.7% (standard error [SE]: 2.7%), statin in 33.1% (SE: 2.4%),

271 with a cumulative 5-year incidence of 22.8% (standard error [SE]: 7.1%) and 8.8% (SE: 3.8%), respecti

272 the rs505922 association with stroke, beta (standard error, SE) = 0.066 (0.02), p = 0.001, a finding

273 were used to estimate adjusted growth rates, standard errors (SEs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs

274 rtles from all sites, the geometric mean and standard error THg concentration was 0.805 +/- 0.025 mug

275 s were compared using the Huber-White robust standard error to allow for data clustering of 2 eyes pe

276 st-squares (OLS) regression using Newey-West standard errors to accommodate for serial autocorrelatio

277 ations using regression modeling with robust standard errors to account for clustering at the family

278 nthly monitoring) per patient, respectively (standard error = US$3.7).

279 ted at 0.96 from RapidMiner and the residual standard error value obtained from ACD/ChromGenius was 5

280 it, furthermore, root mean squared error and standard error values were obtained 0.46 and 0.22 respec

281 AUC (maximum likelihood estimate +/- standard error) values in the differentiation of prostat

282 e untreated BCCAO rats (mean, 94.5% +/- 2.3 [standard error] vs 86.6% +/- 1.0; P < .05).

283 ucibility of average measurement ratios as a standard error was typically (0.04-0.26) %.

284 gression with a log link function and robust standard errors was used to compare prevalence of diarrh

285 Multiple logistic regression using robust standard errors was used to compute the odds ratios of e

286 Multivariate Poisson regression with robust standard errors was used to estimate risk ratios.

287 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse (+/- standard error) was 10.8 +/- 0.7% in the dexamethasone a

288 iurnal IOP at week 6 (least squares mean +/- standard error) was 17.6 +/- 0.4 mm Hg and 20.7 +/- 0.4

289 The ISI (mean+/-standard error) was lower for recipients achieving insul

290 generalized estimating equations and robust standard errors, was used to model rates of ADIs with cu

291 In the real-data examples, the Newey standard errors were 0.5% and 2% larger than the unadjus

292 Bootstrapped standard errors were computed to account for uncertainty

293 compare various devices, despite which large standard errors were found for both intercepts and slope

294 log link, Poisson distributions, and robust standard errors were used to estimate adjusted risk rati

295 riable log-Poisson regression with empirical standard errors were used to estimate the continuous and

296 f carbon per square metre per year; mean +/- standard error) were driven by thermokarst erosion and d

297 For honey, the following average levels (+/-standard error) were observed: Zn 571+/-440mugkg(-1), Pb

298 ckground-subtracted SO2 (mean, 5.4% +/- 3.5 [standard error]) when compared with lymph nodes without

299 We derive a formula for the standard error, which helps us find the estimator with t

300 ates produced by GCTA will be biased and the standard errors will likely be inaccurate.