ライフサイエンスコーパス: t test

1 ved from the mothers (P < 0.0001 by a paired t test).

2 .5%+/-4.0% and 83.2%+/-4.2%, both P < 0.001, t test).

3 ccuracy in seven regions of interest (paired t test).

4 ith epilepsy than healthy controls (p<0.001, t test).

5 6) microL/min at 4 weeks (P = .001, unpaired t test).

6 starch digested at 90 min, P < 0.05, paired t test).

7 .02, respectively, as determined by a paired t test).

8 004; breast P < 0.0001, two-tailed Student's t-test).

9 te matter in controls (P = 0.029 by unpaired t-test).

10 rence values at 95% confidence level (paired t-test).

11 of the calibration curves (p < 0.05, from a t-test).

12 kin) (P < .001 to .005 on independent sample t tests).

13 nterpretation of group differences (unpaired t tests).

14 atched controls (P-values < 0.05; two-sample t-tests).

15 s were evaluated by using the paired Student t test.

16 icance of sex was assessed using the Student t test.

17 stical significance was tested with a paired t test.

18 re calculated and compared using an unpaired t test.

19 sus spared behavioural responses analysed by t test.

20 lysis of variance and the two-tailed Student t test.

21 minations were performed by using the paired t test.

22 s were determined with the two-tailed paired t test.

23 rent dose levels were performed with Student t test.

24 of variance, the Mann-Whitney U test, or the t test.

25 with Prism 7 software and student's unpaired t test.

26 Data were compared with the two-sample t test.

27 he different classes was executed by Student t test.

28 composition by using the distance comparison t test.

29 M SUV ratios were compared using the Student t test.

30 the comparison was tested using a two-sided t test.

31 compared with placebo, tested by a one-sided t test.

32 pared by using a two-tailed unpaired Student t test.

33 on volts) and phantom size by using a paired t test.

34 L and IOL groups were compared with a paired t test.

35 piecewise along tracks by using an unpaired t test.

36 and compared between groups with an unpaired t test.

37 after therapy by using a two-tailed Student t test.

38 Pairwise comparisons were fit using 2-sample t test.

39 subjects were compared by using the Student t test.

40 t were tested by using an independent sample t test.

41 tic therapy rate was conducted using Student t test.

42 s was assessed with the two-tailed Student's t test.

43 re assessed by using a two-tailed two-sample t test.

44 etabolite levels were compared using Welch's t test.

45 ignant renal lesions by using the two-sample t test.

46 uous variables were evaluated with a Student t test.

47 inal treatment response by using the Student t test.

48 ampling; P values were calculated by using a t test.

49 nction, and data were compared with a paired t test.

50 The PET uptake was compared using a paired t test.

51 tical comparisons were made using the paired t test.

52 ality and were compared by using the Student t test.

53 n of the global normalization and a modified t-test.

54 -laser IOP values were compared using paired t-test.

55 s were compared with McNemar test and paired t-test.

56 L with the cross pressure of 5mmHg; p=0.001, t-test.

57 stical analysis was performed using unpaired t-test.

58 alysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Student's t-test.

59 erences were evaluated using paired 2-tailed t tests.

60 Clinical data were analyzed by using Student t tests.

61 and PZ were compared by using paired Student t tests.

62 alth outcome measures evaluated using paired t tests.

63 rdiography experience were compared by using t tests.

64 pathologic entities were evaluated by using t tests.

65 ignificance was assessed by using two-tailed t tests.

66 eline, which was evaluated by paired Student t tests.

67 by linear regression and independent sample t tests.

68 a repeated-measures ANOVA and paired sample t tests.

69 ormed with chi(2), Fisher exact, and Student t tests.

70 ssment total score, each tested by two-sided t tests.

71 h analysis of variance and paired two-tailed t tests.

72 e averaged and evaluated by using two-tailed t tests.

73 inear model approach and subsequent post hoc t tests.

74 ere analyzed with Wilcoxon rank sum tests or t tests.

75 Differences were tested with two-sample t tests.

76 s who underwent GA and CS was evaluated with t tests.

77 els (95-25%) were compared using statistical t tests.

78 ion fields were compared with chi-square and t tests.

79 tal groups by using a mixed linear model and t tests.

80 est (ROI) size were compared by using paired t tests.

81 ted-measures analysis of variance and paired t tests.

82 in the ICS treatment period by using paired t tests.

83 same probabilities from concentration based t-tests.

84 with those of control eyes using independent t-tests.

85 for age and sex, were compared using matched t-tests.

86 gitudinal changes were assessed using paired t-tests.

87 Array data were evaluated with a t test adjusted by the false discover rate (P < 0.05), a

88 The Fisher exact test and Student t test analysis were performed and relative risk and 95%

89 ysis, change-point analysis and a sequential t-test analysis of regime shifts to 72 time series, we c

90 + 4 and GS >/= 4 + 3 tumors by using paired t tests, analysis of variance, receiver operating charac

91 take were correlated by using an independent t test and analysis of variance (P < .05).

92 re compared by using the independent Student t test and analysis of variance.

93 Individual groups were analyzed using paired t test and analysis of variance.

94 uantification was calculated with the paired t test and Bland-Altman statistics.

95 The unpaired t test and chi(2) analysis were used to determine signif

96 The Student t test and chi(2) test were used for statistical analysi

97 cal analysis was conducted using the Student t test and correlation analysis.

98 Groups were compared by using t test and Fisher exact test with a Bonferroni correctio

99 Paired t test and Friedman test with Dunn's post hoc test for m

100 Two-sample t test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical

101 Statistical analysis used Student's t test and multivariate linear regression.

102 s in accuracy were assessed using two-sample t test and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test.

103 analysis was performed by using the Student t test and one-way analysis of variance for the effects

104 Data were analyzed with the Student t test and Pearson correlation.

105 ermined and analyzed by using paired Student t test and Spearman correlation.

106 al comparisons included the Student pairwise t test and the McNemar test in 2x2 contingency tables.

107 statistically analyzed by using the Student t test and two-way analysis of variance.

108 omas and nonadenomas by using the two-sample t test and Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively.

109 ed) was used to compare proportions, Student t test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare m

110 For statistical analysis, paired t tests and a Wilcoxon signed rank test were performed.

111 ations and were compared by using two-tailed t tests and analysis of variance for selected group comp

112 3D tractograms were analyzed by using paired t tests and analysis of variance.

113 groups were compared via independent samples t tests and chi-square tests of factor scores, syndrome

114 Statistical analysis comprised paired t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, as well as Pearson r a

115 Two-tailed Student t tests and repeated-measures analysis of variance were

116 d prediction models was ensured through pair t-test and correlation regression analysis between refer

117 The t-test and Dixon's Q-test were applied in order to exami

118 pared with those of fellow eyes using paired t-tests and with those of control eyes using independent

119 ifferences among cases and controls (Student t test) and the risk of developing MS comparing lower to

120 orientation dispersion (P < 0.001 by paired t-test) and lower fractional anisotropy (P < 0.001 by re

121 Rho-SPION-Ran, eyedrops, P = 0.03, Student's t test), and gliosis in Muller cells (at 6 mo, using SPI

122 XA, did not differ from DXA (P = .15, paired t test), and was able to identify osteoporosis (as defin

123 tinuous variables were compared with Student t test, and categorical variables were compared with the

124 n mean DeltaR2* were tested with the Student t test, and diagnostic accuracy was tested by calculatin

125 est period of abstinence was examined with a t test, and ecological momentary assessment data were ex

126 The Wilcoxon signed rank test, paired t test, and Friedman analysis of variance were conducted

127 orrelation, analysis of variance, two-sample t test, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) wer

128 performed with the chi(2) test, the Student t test, and logistic regression.

129 led Fisher's exact test, two-sample unpaired t test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

130 Box plots, t test, and multi-level mixed effects linear regression

131 e statistic, chi(2) test, Fisher exact test, t test, and repeated-measures analysis of variance.

132 The mean values were compared using a single t test, and the medians were compared by the nonparametr

133 tical testing included analysis of variance, t tests, and permutation tests.

134 Descriptive statistics, t tests, and regression analyses were performed.

135 te analyses (chi(2) test; 2-tailed, unpaired t test; and analysis of variance) as well as multivariab

136 T testing, ANOVA, and regression analyses are reviewed.

137 Paired t-tests, ANOVA and generalized-estimating-equations mode

138 ta were analysed by chi(2) test or Student's t-test as appropriate.

139 e transporter, and hexokinase assays (paired t test), as well as pharmacologic assays against chemoth

140 nalyzed using an unpaired two-sample Welch's t-test assuming unequal variance and Z test of compariso

141 value, and slope of enhancement in a paired t test at the 95% significance level.

142 ficantly decreased by 3.5% (P = .012, paired t test) at 1 month and 4.2% (P = .007) at 3 months after

143 19-5.95] microL/min) GDDs (P = .28, unpaired t test) at 4 weeks without aqueous exposure.

144 group) were compared (analysis of variance, t test) at days 0, 7, 14, and 28 for alveolar ridge heig

145 ical analysis was performed with an unpaired t test by using unequal variance.

146 Statistical analysis was performed with the t test, chi(2) test, Pearson correlation coefficient, an

147 T test, chi(2), and one-way analysis of variance with po

148 ted patients with sepsis were compared using t tests, chi-square tests, and logistic regression; p va

149 T-tests, chi (2), ANOVA and Pearson Correlation tests we

150 Data were analyzed by paired Student t test comparing the effect of cell fractions injected w

151 One-way analysis of variance, paired t tests, concordance and Bland-Altman tests, and Pearson

152 Student paired t-test confirmed a statistically significant difference

153 t test, correlation analyses, and intraclass correlation

154 Student's t tests demonstrate significant differences (p=0.05; n=4

155 Independent samples t tests determined whether patient expectancy differed b

156 Olfaction testing using the Sniffin'T test did not demonstrate hyperosmia.

157 ently significant clones ranked with student t-test discriminating CF antigens from healthy controls

158 nsity estimation, K-function analysis, and a t test distance analysis.

159 Paired-samples t tests evaluated quality of life changes.

160 Data were assessed by using the Student t test, exact binomial distribution, two-sample test of

161 The majority (77%) of the individual TEs tested exhibited enhancer activity in mouse ESCs.

162 ical analysis included use of the two-sample t test, Fisher exact test, and Spearman correlation.

163 tes differed between the ADG groups based on t-test, fold changes and partial least square discrimina

164 on orientations were analyzed with a Student t test for independent groups and a repeated-measures an

165 for intraindividual comparison, the Student t test for paired samples was used.

166 regimens were compared by using the Student t test for unpaired samples; for intraindividual compari

167 compared between the two studies via Student t tests for mean location, using a >5% cutoff for establ

168 he brain in children were verified using the t-test for independent samples.

169 test for categorical variables and student's t-test for quantitative variables.

170 ed significant differences in expression (on t testing) for patients compared with controls for those

171 lution in the form of a distance-based Welch t-test, [Formula: see text], for two sample potentially

172 of treatment effects for fluorescence based t-tests has greater statistical power than the same prob

173 Paired t-tests indicated a significant decrease of muscle displ

174 tistical analysis was performed by using the t test, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and

175 The modified t-test is derived based on asymptotic theory for hypothe

176 The Student's t-test is the most valuable procedure when the normality

177 ared with the baseline score by using paired t tests (level of significance, P < .007).

178 isons were analyzed using chi(2) and Student t tests, logistic regression (predictive), and generaliz

179 ellular volume fraction (P = 0.015 by paired t-test), lower myelin-sensitive contrast (P = 0.030 by r

180 For statistical analysis, Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Spearman's correlation

181 ameters were compared between both groups by t test, Mann-Whitney U test, or likelihood ratio chi-squ

182 re compared with ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, t-test, Mann-Whitney test and Bonferroni's adjustment of

183 , the Welch t test (WT), the moderated Welch t test (MWT)) and the procedure of separate tests on mea

184 Paired-sample t tests of validation datasets showed no significant dif

185 e group and the control group with Student's t test.Of the 355 infants enrolled, 291 infants complete

186 operative groups were compared using: paired t test on a propensity score-matched subset and multivar

187 Continuous data were compared by the Student t test or ANOVA, and categoric variables were compared b

188 p analysis was performed with paired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

189 Results were compared with Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

190 Differences were analyzed using 2-sample t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variable

191 Statistical analysis was performed with t testing or ANOVA.

192 Two-sample t tests or analysis of variance tests were performed to

193 were analyzed by using analysis of variance, t test, or chi(2) test.

194 th a combined fold change >/=2 and Student's t-test p-value < 0.05 to denote significance; associatio

195 nce differences are significant (with paired t-test p-values less than 0.05).

196 Differences were evaluated with t tests (P < .05).

197 ms showed statistically similar thicknesses (t test, p > 0.05), suggesting that long-term disinfectio

198 nificantly higher in cases than in controls (t test, P < .0001).

199 h SCH (19.5 +/- 5.3 vs. 23.7 +/- 4.1, paired t test, p < .0001); however, no correlations were noted

200 after starting binimetinib treatment (paired t test, P < .001).

201 Index, EQ-5D, and pain interference (paired t test, P < .013).

202 cose uptake, and hexokinase activity (paired t test, P < .05).

203 han that with conventional grids (two-tailed t test, P < .05).

204 Significantly higher (t test, P < 0.01) EFs (mug kg(-1) dry fuel, gas + partic

205 eins (at least +/-1.5-fold change; Student's t test, P < 0.05) were identified by mass spectrometry.

206 whereas VB was lower (Mann-Whitney U test or t test, P = .003, P = .036, and P = .019, respectively).

207 ant difference between arms 1 and 2 (Student t test, P = 0.02).

208 ollowing exercise in the prazosin condition (t-test, P = 0.004, interaction effect P = 0.01).

209 following exercise in the placebo condition (t-test, P = 0.03).

210 es between OCT and USP were not significant (t-test, p = 0.32).

211 er in M versus IF in soils post-1940 (paired-t test; p < 0.001).

212 574 [0.26] for control individuals; 2-tailed t test; P = .005 and vs 0.465 [0.32] for AD; P = .02; in

213 ients with TLE than controls (p<0.05, paired t-test), particularly to neocortical regions including i

214 data were analyzed with one- and two-sample t tests, respectively.

215 A two-sample t test resulted in no significant differences between th

216 Paired samples t-tests revealed that both power output and mental perfo

217 ession analysis by methods such as student's t-test, SAM, and Empirical Bayes often searches for stat

218 By comparing the t-test scores, we found that many of the genes different

219 Paired t tests showed no significant differences between the re

220 Post hoc t tests showed reduced fractional anisotropy in the left

221 d 120 min after injection (P < 0.001, paired t test; signal-to-noise ratio at 60 min after injection,

222 ormed, and peaks having intensities of a low t-test significance (p-value > 0.05) and a low absolute

223 A weighted t-test statistic was applied to calculate probabilities

224 Using a t-test statistics approach, we compared gene expression

225 Using voxel-wise t-test statistics, we showed associations between deteri

226 difference at the 95% confidence level with t-test statistics.

227 ke was correlated with the lesion site using t-test statistics.

228 The chi(2) test, the t test, the Mann-Whitney test, and logistic regression m

229 Statistical analysis included a 2-sample t test to compare continuous variables, chi-square testi

230 tralateral eye was achieved employing paired t tests to the visual function measures.

231 e demonstrate that LRCDE, which uses Welch's t-test to compare per-gene cell type-specific gene expre

232 sted for intraindividual differences (paired t tests) to avoid effects resulting from variations in d

233 s conversion type (i.e. Z = |X 1 - X 2|) and t-test, to detect interactions in simulation and real-wo

234 standard of conducting an array of pairwise t tests toward more general linear modeling structures,

235 istically significant differences (student's t-test, two-tailed unequal variance p-value < 0.05) betw

236 cohorts were measured using the independent t test, Wald chi(2), and binomial regression analysis.

237 Paired t test was performed to compare excess foci before and a

238 A one-tailed t test was performed to compare gadolinium concentration

239 A paired two-sample t test was performed to compare SUV(max).

240 Paired t test was used to analyze changes in readability measur

241 Paired Student t test was used to assess the significance of difference

242 A two-sample t test was used to calculate significance between groups

243 The t test was used to compare mean attenuation differences

244 was used to compare proportions; the Student t test was used to compare means.

245 A two-tailed Student t test was used to compare the T1 and T2 results in meta

246 Student t test was used to determine any demographic differences

247 A paired t test was used to determine significant differences bet

248 ized to the SI of the pons, and a one-sample t test was used to test for differences between baseline

249 Student's t-test was applied to compare vascular enhancement.

250 Unpaired t-test was carried out in the analysis to determine the

251 A two-sided t-test was used to evaluate between-group differences in

252 A variance weighted t-test was used to identify differential expression.

253 Two-way analysis of variance and Student t test were used for statistical analyses, with a signif

254 Analysis of variance and t test were used for statistical analysis.

255 -tailed Fisher exact test and paired Student t test were used for statistical analysis.

256 coefficient, and descriptive statistics and t test were used for statistical analysis.

257 egression, Bland-Altman analysis, and paired t testing were performed.

258 Fisher exact, Pearson chi(2), and Student t tests were applied as indicated.

259 Student t tests were performed to assess significance between an

260 Paired Student t tests were performed to compare results between the 3-

261 ations with the reference values, and paired t tests were performed to compare the means.

262 A McNemar test and t tests were used as appropriate to test for significant

263 Two-sided Fisher exact and paired t tests were used for categorical and continuous data, r

264 Paired 2-sample t tests were used for comparative means analyses before

265 Two-sided t tests were used for comparisons between treatment grou

266 Analysis of covariance and paired-sample t tests were used for statistical analysis to compare PE

267 Paired t tests were used to assess improvement before and after

268 One-sample and independent-sample t tests were used to assess the difference in SI ratios

269 chi(2) and Student t tests were used to compare biopsy time, and the Fisher

270 Two-tailed paired t tests were used to compare change in tumor hemoglobin

271 an, and reclassification analyses and paired t tests were used to compare results.

272 Paired t tests were used to compare SI and SI ratios (DN to pon

273 Two-way analysis of variance and Student t tests were used to determine significant differences (

274 Paired t tests were used to estimate and evaluate the significa

275 Two-sided Welch t tests were used to evaluate mean differences between d

276 One-sample t tests were used to examine if the SI ratio differences

277 n-of-interest-based analysis, and one-sample t tests were used to examine if the SI ratio differences

278 Paired t tests were used to identify differences in outcome mea

279 yses, multiple linear regression, and paired t tests were used to select biomarkers of interest.

280 Linear regression models and the t-test were employed to compare significant differences

281 alysis, Bland-Altman plot, and paired sample t-tests were used to analyze the accuracy of the VFALBIA

282 Two-sample T-tests were used to calculate gender differences.

283 synchronous nodules via paired and unpaired t tests, when appropriate.

284 honey was significantly increased (proved by t-test), whereas the honey seems to be affected signific

285 riminant validity was described using paired t tests, whereas internal consistency was described usin

286 btain for current classical tests (e.g., the t-test), which may greatly affect decision-making.

287 because most methods developed are based on t-tests, which do not fit the count data generated by th

288 to 0.22 [SD 0.38] [P < .001, paired samples t test]), which was maintained at 1 year.

289 nd cognitive performance were compared using t tests, while responses to individual questions were co

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

291 were compared utilising a two-sided unpaired t test with Bonferroni correction.

292 s in the CHAMPION trial were computed by the t test with equal variance.

293 hange in manifest refraction (MRx) using the t test with generalized estimating equations.

294 nalysis of variance, followed by the Student t test with post hoc Bonferroni correction.

295 pared with histopathologic findings by using t tests with Holm-Sidak correction.

296 ndings and compared by using Fisher exact or t test, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple compar

297 procedures led to comparable results (paired t-test, with t<tcrit).

298 ent mean heterogeneity test (i.e., the Welch t test (WT), the moderated Welch t test (MWT)) and the p

299 al analyses included the independent samples t test, x(2) test, Fisher exact test, and Cohen k.

300 ing multivariable logistic regression, Welch t test, Z test, Fisher-exact test, Shapiro-Wilk test, an