ライフサイエンスコーパス: statistically significant

1 comprehension and processing speed were not statistically significant.

2 measurements, although differences were not statistically significant.

3 However, the difference was not statistically significant.

4 other mutations, but the difference was not statistically significant.

5 h active drugs, although the trends were not statistically significant.

6 mortality, although these estimates were not statistically significant.

7 young adulthood, the disparity was no longer statistically significant.

8 P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

9 ion OS was higher with MAC, but this was not statistically significant.

10 (beta = -0.21, P = .01) in the CN subsample statistically significant.

11 on of PCS and improved survival would not be statistically significant.

12 of the other phthalate metabolites were not statistically significant.

13 acterization of malignant lesions, which was statistically significant.

14 omplex, but these changes were small and not statistically significant.

15 P value of 0.05 or less was considered as statistically significant.

16 7-1.05; P = .09), but the difference was not statistically significant.

17 e adjusted model, these differences were not statistically significant.

18 0.71), although the AUC differences were not statistically significant.

19 an increased risk (PR = 1.26), although not statistically significant.

20 ion between stress and 5-HTTLPR genotype was statistically significant.

21 r every HPV type across all age groups, many statistically significant.

22 P <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

23 up to 90 days before the index date remained statistically significant.

24 in eight of nine regions, four of which were statistically significant.

25 ted events between lithium and valproate was statistically significant.

26 direction as the original study, it was not statistically significant.

27 graft failures; however, this result was not statistically significant.

28 here was a small non-clinically relevant but statistically significant (0.2 [SD 1.1] vs 0.1 [1.1], p=

29 actors to the cross-disorder overlap was not statistically significant (11%, shared environmental cor

30 was reduced, although the difference was not statistically significant (13.0 +/- 16.5 days versus 14.

31 shelf waters, though the difference was not statistically significant (19.4 +/- 4.8 versus 12.0 +/-

32 in inferences based on whether a P value is "statistically significant"; 2) nullism, the tendency to

33 mpared with placebo, this difference was not statistically significant (31.3 vs 37.6, respectively; p

34 localization of proteins at later times with statistically significant accuracy.

35 UD between 2001-2002 and 2012-2013 were also statistically significant across sociodemographic subgro

36 There was no statistically significant additive interaction between C

37 gher relapse rates compared with MAC, with a statistically significant advantage in RFS with MAC.

38 95% CI, 1.23-3.13; P < .001), which remained statistically significant after adjusting for covariates

39 first trimester, but the association was not statistically significant after adjusting for multiple c

40 OS in the univariate analysis and were still statistically significant after adjusting for the Intern

41 The associations remained statistically significant after adjustment for weight, h

42 tests, with nine of 14 comparisons remaining statistically significant after correction for multiple

43 breastfed, but these findings did not remain statistically significant after correction for multiple

44 ose correlated with midregional proANP had a statistically significant albeit weak impact on blood pr

45 Our results suggest a statistically significant (alpha = 0.05) decrease in eva

46 ession patterns, to automatically detect all statistically significant alterations in mutants, and to

47 suggests that adalimumab is associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful impr

48 myocardium, and absolute blood flow was not statistically significant (areas under the receiver-oper

49 There was a statistically significant association between change in

50 There was a statistically significant association between glaucoma a

51 Among elderly people, we found a statistically significant association between preexcitat

52 We observed no statistically significant association between red or pro

53 There was no statistically significant association between RGC densit

54 We did not find any statistically significant association between risk of de

55 Pooled-data revealed a statistically significant association between single nuc

56 0.9] years; 5450 [58.8%] white), there was a statistically significant association between use of ADT

57 y, the cumulative MTX dose corresponded to a statistically significant association of a higher NASH F

58 A statistically significant association was observed betwe

59 Appropriate early empirical treatment had no statistically significant association with 30-day mortal

60 ced moderate-quality evidence that SMT has a statistically significant association with improvements

61 Our findings indicated no statistically significant associations between either su

62 , and population density, we did not observe statistically significant associations between exposure

63 Specifically, we observed positive statistically significant associations between living wi

64 There were no statistically significant associations between low IOP a

65 Large numbers of statistically significant associations between sentinel

66 We observed statistically significant associations between SJS/TEN a

67 Statistically significant associations with perforated a

68 Delayed Recall, between-group score was not statistically significant at 4 years (mean difference, 0

69 ar regression analyses indicated modest, but statistically significant, average annual percent increa

70 or educational interventions had a small but statistically significant benefit for anxiety prevention

71 nalysis suggests that the RT boost confers a statistically significant benefit in decreasing IBTR acr

72 one half of the trials (n = 23, 45%) showed statistically significant benefits for PFS but not for O

73 appear to fade with increasing age, with no statistically significant benefits in octogenarians exce

74 No statistically significant between-group differences were

75 There was evidence of small, statistically significant between-group mean differences

76 ostoperative radiation was associated with a statistically significant but modest absolute improvemen

77 have small effects on the Z scores that are statistically significant but not clinically important.

78 augmentation with aripiprazole resulted in a statistically significant but only modestly increased li

79 95% confidence interval, 23-151; P = 0.008); statistically significant but smaller effects were obser

80 /min/1.73 m in the CNI/MMF group and was not statistically significant, but there is a clinically mea

81 s patients, but within individual patients a statistically significant, but weak, voxel-by-voxel corr

82 reported interaction effects, although both statistically significant, can best be interpreted as ch

83 rvice utilization were not associated with a statistically significant change in spending.

84 There was no statistically significant change in survival before and

85 There was no statistically significant change in survival trends befo

86 e have identified 28 metabolites that showed statistically significant changes between pallid and wil

87 Expression of three genes showed statistically significant changes during cervical diseas

88 ethylxanthine intake alone did not result in statistically significant changes in FMD.

89 Finally, we detect minor, but statistically significant, changes in expression of hair

90 ur, size, and shape of olives, which allowed statistically significant classifications to be achieved

91 co-inactivation of RB1 and TP53 as the only statistically significant co-occurrences in metastatic c

92 d with MANBA expression in the kidney showed statistically significant colocalization with variants i

93 CS patients, although the difference was not statistically significant (compared with 20/20 or better

94 titative CT percentage emphysema also showed statistically significant correlation with percentage pr

95 MA-TV and whole-body TL-PSMA, demonstrated a statistically significant correlation with PSA levels (P

96 There were statistically significant correlations between PM10 and

97 A radiogenomic map was created with 32 statistically significant correlations between semantic

98 There were statistically significant correlations between the lens

99 No statistically significant correlations were found betwee

100 Results Statistically significant correlations were observed for

101 2.30; P = 0.024), adjusted for age, sex, and statistically significant covariates.

102 articipants treated with girentuximab had no statistically significant DFS (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% C

103 In ophthalmology trials, statistically significant dichotomous results are often

104 The white to white distance showed a statistically significant difference (MD -0.14 mm; 95% C

105 -406 to +1 mum/hour) during interruptions, a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001).

106 Student paired t-test confirmed a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) between

107 0% to 69.6%) for the updated one, reaching a statistically significant difference (P <0.05).

108 eline to post intervention, there remained a statistically significant difference (p=0.001) between f

109 There was a statistically significant difference between arms 1 and

110 rplastic polyps in the baseline CC, showed a statistically significant difference between both groups

111 diet of </=600 mg Ca/d.We failed to detect a statistically significant difference between groups in p

112 However the WTW distance indicated a statistically significant difference between the two dev

113 he third CT was predicted with ANFIS without statistically significant difference compared to the gro

114 also benefit from bridging therapy, with no statistically significant difference compared with those

115 lifestyle intervention trials did not show a statistically significant difference in change in BMD be

116 % confidence interval: 1.30 to 18.26) but no statistically significant difference in major bleeding i

117 There was a statistically significant difference in membrane thickne

118 ose hydrocortisone was not associated with a statistically significant difference in neurodevelopment

119 e pancreatitis, limited evidence revealed no statistically significant difference in outcomes between

120 There was no statistically significant difference in overall pain sco

121 No statistically significant difference in overall survival

122 There was a statistically significant difference in residual alveola

123 groups showed improvement, but there was no statistically significant difference in response during

124 5% confidence interval: 1.07 to 4.46) but no statistically significant difference in stroke (3 NOACs

125 However, there was no statistically significant difference in the ADC value, t

126 cy of the cell stiffness is investigated and statistically significant difference in the cell stiffne

127 onducted in SPS patients and demonstrates no statistically significant difference in the efficacy mea

128 dence review done for the guideline found no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of

129 n MYC transcription, but did not result in a statistically significant difference in tumor burden or

130 No statistically significant difference was found between t

131 At 5 years, no statistically significant difference was found in ITT-OS

132 No statistically significant difference was observed accord

133 e) There was not a statistically significant difference when comparing Fab'

134 of FMD levels among the three groups showed statistically significant difference, with P <0.001.

135 iance, with P < .05 considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

136 3) increased the risk for diabetes without a statistically significant difference.

137 P < .05 was considered indicative of a statistically significant difference; 95% confidence int

138 Furthermore, no statistically significant differences at the 0.05 signif

139 There were statistically significant differences between the 2 meas

140 ecificity and cross-reactivity assays showed statistically significant differences between the averag

141 optic disc during the acute phase showed no statistically significant differences between the two gr

142 mpared in multiple ways to determine whether statistically significant differences existed.

143 No statistically significant differences in duration of bac

144 No statistically significant differences in early discharge

145 xidase-were associated with small but highly statistically significant differences in future statural

146 ect observation checklist is demonstrated by statistically significant differences in mean scores bet

147 ciences from 53 US institutions, we found no statistically significant differences in outcomes betwee

148 No statistically significant differences in postoperative H

149 No statistically significant differences in proteins profil

150 Statistically significant differences in quantifiable bi

151 No statistically significant differences in soft-tissue abs

152 No statistically significant differences in surgical compli

153 in (18)F-FDG SUVmax Log-rank analysis showed statistically significant differences in survival for pa

154 Vessel-based analysis revealed statistically significant differences in the binarized f

155 Comprehensive organic speciation revealed no statistically significant differences in the composition

156 There were no statistically significant differences in the effects of

157 coupled to mass spectrometry, we identified statistically significant differences in the metabolic p

158 No statistically significant differences in the survival of

159 n dynamics for all 571 patients, we found no statistically significant differences over 5 years betwe

160 for both the factors "laser" and "graphite", statistically significant differences were observed (p <

161 No statistically significant differences were observed in O

162 Regarding hematologic toxicity, no statistically significant differences were observed; for

163 No statistically significant differences were seen for any

164 lysis of variance with post hoc analysis for statistically significant differences.

165 bolic activity of the cells, larger and more statistically-significant differences as a function of m

166 imates for both endophenotypes were high and statistically significant (disinhibition factor=0.35, SE

167 row cells of Dnmt3a+/- mice had a subtle but statistically significant DNA hypomethylation phenotype

168 Conclusion A small but statistically significant dose-dependent T1-weighted sig

169 conclusion, tenapanor treatment resulted in statistically significant, dose-dependent reductions in

170 m N-fertilized Syrah grapes in 2011 showed a statistically significant effect of irrigation and ferti

171 There was no statistically significant effect of Superdispersant 25 o

172 9 derived tumors by cimetidine resulted in a statistically significant effect, as did the inhibition

173 of the genes adjacent to SNP hotspots showed statistically significant enrichment in immunological pr

174 Using this aggregate data, we identified a statistically significant enrichment of ADP-ribosylated

175 e SEs, only a handful of trait pairs yielded statistically significant estimates.

176 All associations were statistically significant except for the association of

177 With statistically significant experimental data from cryogen

178 nerally underpowered; however, the number of statistically significant findings was larger than expec

179 that when attention is selectively given to statistically significant findings, the estimated effect

180 en for those age >/= 70 years but these were statistically significant for adjuvant and neoadjuvant t

181 e reduction of corneal light backscatter was statistically significant for all follow-up time points

182 Variants at 10q24 were statistically significant for all percent arsenic specie

183 (based on the distribution in controls) were statistically significant for average daily intake mg/d

184 Results were statistically significant for children born at full term

185 The treatment-by-biomarker interaction was statistically significant for three approvals and missin

186 s, we identified a previously unreported and statistically significant gender bias in favor of males

187 SAM, and Empirical Bayes often searches for statistically significant genes without considering the

188 ion), we identified more than 170 pairs with statistically significant genetic covariance.

189 descent, but we did not observe evidence of statistically significant genetic interactions with sex,

190 f all CYD14/15 trial participants revealed a statistically significant genotype-level VE association

191 ed with each control condition, there was no statistically significant harmful association of playing

192 in OS after 52 weeks (P = 0.122), whereas a statistically significant higher DFS was achieved in tre

193 A statistically significant higher percentage of at least

194 F) in the first months" (DBF/BM/FF) showed a statistically significant higher risk of eczema/skin all

195 th regard to normal organs, (18)F-DCFPyL had statistically significant higher uptake in kidneys, urin

196 HLA matching had a statistically significant impact on graft survival of pe

197 oncentration in bacteria-spiked samples with statistically significant impedance change was 10 CFU/mL

198 on of sonoelastography to B-mode US provided statistically significant improvement in correlation wit

199 years (range, 0.6 to 9.9 years), there was a statistically significant improvement in LFS in the inte

200 CRT was associated with a statistically significant improvement in overall surviva

201 A statistically significant improvement in PDT mediated ef

202 ombination of ONSD and FVsv methods showed a statistically significant improvement of AUC values comp

203 We show that this leads to a marginal but statistically significant improvement of cell-count esti

204 t, the combined approach did not result in a statistically significant improvement.

205 ees completing the tele-education system had statistically significant improvements (P < 0.01) in the

206 lumacaftor and ivacaftor was associated with statistically significant improvements in lung function,

207 e also experienced clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in symptom burden

208 Affairs medical center, this study found no statistically significant improvements in the osteoarthr

209 the intervention resulted in clinically and statistically significant improvements in the primary ph

210 cts of prior vaccination were pronounced and statistically significant in 2014-2015 when v1 identical

211 had somewhat declined in weight and were not statistically significant in AGD in either sex.

212 TB treatment, although the findings were not statistically significant in all buffers.

213 acuity for the three working distances were statistically significant in all cases compared to the p

214 ite Canadians, and this association remained statistically significant in multivariable adjusted mode

215 analyses, diabetic nephropathy class was not statistically significant in predicting time to ESRD.

216 though differences with controls only became statistically significant in the last years before diagn

217 nse manner but the association was no longer statistically significant in the sibling comparison mode

218 CT; 13 patients (46%) had CMV viremia, not a statistically significant increase (P = .18).

219 arms, and legs), the umbrella group showed a statistically significant increase in clinical sunburn s

220 We found a statistically significant increase in DNA methylation at

221 rge-bore catheters and was associated with a statistically significant increase in mortality, length

222 exposure to CT of the head are excluded, no statistically significant increase in risk of meningioma

223 d unexposed cohorts showed that there was no statistically significant increase in the risk of mening

224 o 9.63, and only 1 of the 23 hospitals had a statistically significant increase in their late TTA gro

225 e chemoradiotherapy showed a modest, but not statistically significant, increase in dysphagia relief

226 monotherapy was associated with a small but statistically significant increased risk of lymphoma com

227 1.04 [95% CI, 0.91-1.18]; n = 2620) found no statistically significant increased risk of twinning.

228 cortical regions and the hippocampus showed statistically significant increases and were blocked by

229 Twenty of 30 studies reported statistically significant indirect protection effectiven

230 tively, with an estimated IC50 of 160 nM; no statistically significant inhibition of SULT activity wa

231 noid receptor typically exhibited modest but statistically significant inhibition, AGN 211377 profoun

232 mary and secondary outcomes were computed.No statistically significant intervention effect was observ

233 number of tests performed while discovering statistically significant locus pairs.

234 n-syndromic craniosynostosis conditions have statistically significant lower reliability scores than

235 -based untargeted metabolomics often detects statistically significant metabolites that cannot be rea

236 e repeated using freshly prepared pools, and statistically significant metabolites were quantified in

237 The time required to detect a statistically significant negative MD slope decreased as

238 A statistically significant negative trend in survival was

239 Lipid profile levels were statistically significant on comparison between the heal

240 Sex differences were found to be statistically significant only in the posterior cingulat

241 ED with acute extremity pain, there were no statistically significant or clinically important differ

242 Evaluation of the robustness of statistically significant outcomes adds a crucial elemen

243 42 in control patients; this difference was statistically significant (P < .001).

244 emale absolute risk compared with male, both statistically significant (p < 0.001).

245 ndpoints, the between-group differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001).

246 Correlations were statistically significant (P < 0.05) and moderate or str

247 Statistically significant (P < 0.05) differences between

248 However, this difference was not statistically significant (P < 0.1).

249 group; difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P <0.05).

250 between XG-102 90 mug and dexamethasone was statistically significant (P = .013).

251 [reference]), although this finding was not statistically significant (P = .07).

252 tients with complete clearance, although not statistically significant (P = .25).

253 rior outer and temporal outer subfields were statistically significant (p = 0.038, p = 0.004, 0.033 a

254 en compliance and peri-implant condition was statistically significant (P = 0.04).

255 Statistically significant (P<0.05) treatment-related imp

256 lue within both LABC and non-LABC groups was statistically significant (p<0.05).

257 However, a statistically significant (P=0.01) interaction analysis

258 We found statistically significant performance differences for mo

259 luded birth cohorts we consistently observed statistically significant positive associations between

260 Both, any DR and VTDR showed statistically significant positive associations with T2D

261 RMR was a statistically significant positive predictor of the erro

262 s between anterior corneal measurements were statistically significant post-LASIK compared to preoper

263 icopathologic variables, Decipher remained a statistically significant predictor of metastasis (HR, 1

264 Prior depression was a statistically-significant predictor of incident back pai

265 To determine the time required to detect statistically significant progression for different rate

266 e with turning compliance and demonstrated a statistically significant protective effect against the

267 ent association across the quartiles was not statistically significant (Ptrend=0.16).

268 PFM sequence comparison demonstrates a statistically significant qualitative difference between

269 Although not statistically significant, rates of BPAR were 2-fold hig

270 Additionally, zirconia revealed a statistically significant reduction in human plaque thic

271 Both procedures produced a statistically significant reduction in IOP, and eyes und

272 ed a slight (mean difference, 0.24-0.30) but statistically significant reduction in labeling of PD-L1

273 A statistically significant reduction was observed in hsCR

274 with netarsudil q.d. produced clinically and statistically significant reductions from baseline intra

275 Statistically significant reductions in overall and noct

276 We show a statistically significant relationship between fire and

277 We did not observe a statistically significant relationship between gestation

278 Our functional analysis revealed a statistically significant relationship between rs3217869

279 Conversely, no statistically significant relationship was found between

280 tiguity, circularity, and vegetation) have a statistically significant relationship with urban NO2; t

281 tistical power: the probability of finding a statistically significant result given that the effect e

282 nterquartile range: 0.64-1.46) for nominally statistically significant results and D = 0.24 (0.11-0.4

283 will produce more precise, reproducible and statistically significant results required for publicati

284 Statistically significant risk factors for posttransplan

285 90), whereas the following variants were not statistically significant: rs1947274 LPHN3 (odds ratio:

286 Statistically significant shape difference between the t

287 n MMLigner , the first program able to infer statistically significant structural alignments.

288 the RMR and prospective consumption were not statistically significant.These findings suggest positiv

289 layer), the odds of resistance (although not statistically significant) to all antimicrobials except

290 Seventeen cytokines had a statistically significant upward linear trend that corre

291 No statistically significant vaccine efficacy was found aga

292 Implementation of the statistically significant variables in a predictive nomo

293 groups, clinical parameters did not show any statistically significant variations.

294 Across the entire cohort, there were no statistically significant volumetric associations with s

295 ZVIN elicited a statistically significant VZV-specific immune response a

296 We identified 63 miRNAs deregulated in a statistically significant way.

297 Increase in HbA1c over time was statistically significant when severe periodontitis was

298 n the propensity score analysis but remained statistically significant with adjusted odds ratio of 0.

299 Volumetric bone changes were minimal but statistically significant, with more bone loss when memb

300 nonexudative (P = 0.0207) and lower, but not statistically significant, with respect to eyes with no