ライフサイエンスコーパス: study design

1 Study design, technical parameters, number of true- and false

2 s were based on linear mixed models adjusting for sex, age, study design features, ancestry, and kinship and employed a c

3 We used logistic regression adjusted by age, sex, and study design features and examined effect modifications.

4 cting the association, including adversity type, timing and study design.

5 d abstract at a scientific conference; examine, through any study design, the association between an a-priori set of indi

6 r time, confounder control could be improved through better study design, homogeneous population selection, the considera

7 Using an innovative, controlled bioequivalence study design, we observed equivalence between tacrolimus inno

8 mportant socio-economic implications, ranging from clinical study design to health care planning.

9 A prospective cohort study design was used to conduct the current study.

10 We observed common study design and weaknesses in the methods, which substantial

11 come suggest that EFS24 has utility for patient counseling, study design, and risk stratification in PTCL.

12 Using a prospective, randomized, single-blind, crossover study design, we therefore measured EE and rates of glucose a

13 achieve catecholamine depletion in a randomized, crossover study design.

14 subset of studies, stratified by individual and cumulative study design elements.

15 henotype, which is of importance for molecular epidemiology study design.

16 ies, allowing the Catalog to adapt to the needs of evolving study design, genotyping technologies and user needs in the f

17 d to address such questions, but improvements and debate in study design, model evaluation, and methods are still needed

18 We describe differences in study design that could contribute to differences in outcomes

19 ct effectiveness estimates have varied, with differences in study design, location, follow-up duration, and vaccine compo

20 Heterogeneity in study design prevented meta-analysis.

21 istency in reported outcomes may be due to heterogeneity in study design, supplement formulation, dosage, duration, and s

22 ns was limited by a paucity of studies and heterogeneity in study design.

23 y of work also exposes some areas in need of improvement in study design, selection of outcome measures, interpretation o

24 We call for improvements in study design, reporting of research, and quality of evidence

25 elopment, highlighting several examples where innovation in study design, content, and execution is advancing the field o

26 cal or psychiatric conditions, case-control vs longitudinal study design, methodological factors, age and smoking signifi

27 ents and Methods A prospective, single-group, observational study design was used to test the contribution of sociodemogr

28 re limited by the usual biases related to the observational study design, we believe that the present findings should be

29 tors, use of Mendelian randomization, and the key issues of study design and analyses of metabolic profiling for epidemio

30 Best practice for active surveillance at the time of study design was followed (ie, biopsy at 12-month intervals a

31 Data on study design and animal model use were collected.

32 Data Extraction: Two investigators abstracted data on study design, patient characteristics, and virologic and safe

33 Information was sought on study design, rationale for using deceased controls, applicat

34 would be of great relevance to either outcome evaluation or study design.

35 Because our study design leaves open the possibility of unmeasured confou

36 al reduction of busulfan dose was successfully achieved per study design.

37 Study quality was assessed using established methods, per study design.

38 nsional alcohol misuse scales and applied a proxy-phenotype study design.

39 uman ophthalmology-related trial, (2) had a 1:1 prospective study design, and (3) reported a statistically significant di

40 The RCT study design mitigated ascertainment bias by randomizing pati

41 The study design was a randomized clinical trial, with 2 parallel

42 ghts on documenting and standardizing parameters across the study design, data collection, monitoring, analysis, integrat

43 There were no restrictions on the study design.

44 ase-specific analyses show that the implementation of these study design elements has overall not appreciably increased o

45 These obstacles can be overcome with thoughtful study design to ensure maximal risk mitigation.

46 ta were available, meta-analysis was performed according to study design and training strategy.

47 pooled estimates of the risk and odds ratios (according to study design), with sensitivity analyses to investigate poten

48 Residual confounding related to study design and the overextrapolation of quantitatively smal

49 research have been greatly informative, problems related to study design, data quality, integration, and reproducibility

50 Despite the unusual study design, with all its limitations, our observations stre