ライフサイエンスコーパス: univariate analysis

1 a HR-HPV-positive test result (P < .0001, by univariate analysis).

2 increased likelihood of functional decline (univariate analysis).

3 Student t and chi tests were used for univariate analysis.

4 pervised learning method and by conventional univariate analysis.

5 performed by using parameters with P < .2 in univariate analysis.

6 were associated with fistula formation in a univariate analysis.

7 results predicted postoperative delirium on univariate analysis.

8 s with ESRD (73.9% versus 71.8%, P<0.001) on univariate analysis.

9 were associated with higher ABSITE scores on univariate analysis.

10 ) were associated with excellent outcomes in univariate analysis.

11 ginal multivariate phenotypic traits for the univariate analysis.

12 nization were significant predictors only by univariate analysis.

13 icantly associated with future events in the univariate analysis.

14 HR of CD49d for OS was 2.5 (2.3 for TFS) in univariate analysis.

15 factors independently associated with CR by univariate analysis.

16 associated with different LSF categories at univariate analysis.

17 sociated with longer hospitalization only on univariate analysis.

18 associated with reduced graft survival in a univariate analysis.

19 score is associated with shorter survival in univariate analysis.

20 roups of patients were compared using paired univariate analysis.

21 0.38; P = .03) were associated with LC1y on univariate analysis.

22 and they predicted survival (P < 0.0001) on univariate analysis.

23 7%), two of which were not identified by our univariate analysis.

24 nt association of any variable with P<0.1 on univariate analysis.

25 ditionally recovers genes not recoverable by univariate analysis.

26 04), PFS (P = 0.004), and EFS (P = 0.002) on univariate analysis.

27 with higher calprotectinemia (p = 0.019) in univariate analysis.

28 P (n = 157), CR linked to several factors in univariate analysis.

29 herapy interventions that was not evident by univariate analysis.

30 different between both outcome groups in the univariate analysis.

31 their impact on biomarkers was identified by univariate analysis.

32 were predictors of successful downstaging on univariate analysis.

33 ssociated with a lower CMV infection rate on univariate analysis.

34 cally significant variables as determined by univariate analysis.

35 eatures predicted unfavourable survival in a univariate analysis.

36 was associated with a low mortality rate on univariate analysis (0.7% vs 1.2%, P = 0.05), a shorter

37 ession model, the 2 covariates identified on univariate analysis (1 geometric and 1 stress) were foun

38 ognostic for median overall survival (OS) in univariate analysis (2.6 vs. 7.2 months (P<0.011) for pa

39 were most strongly predictive of survival on univariate analysis (2.6- and 2.5-fold increase in morta

40 ars did not differ between the groups in the univariate analysis (31.2% [95% CI 26.8-35.5] with intra

41 roved survival to hospital discharge on both univariate analysis (52% vs 33%, p = 0.054) and after co

42 Of 2,781 CF patients, 2,100 were used for univariate analysis, 764 for Kaplan-Meier survival funct

43 ositive or HER2-positive disease, however on univariate analysis a high RUNX1 protein was significant

44 other factors found to be significant in our univariate analysis, absolute PHE volume remained a sign

45 In univariate analysis, age >60 years, radiation dose, bila

46 On univariate analysis, age (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.05; 95% c

47 In univariate analysis, age, Acute Physiology and Chronic H

48 On univariate analysis, all 3 inflammatory and tumor marker

49 At univariate analysis, an anterior parietal adhesion, a fe

50 Univariate analysis and binary logistic regression analy

51 Afterwards, univariate analysis and clinical associations were condu

52 differences between groups were assessed by univariate analysis and confirmed using a multivariate m

53 We used univariate analysis and Cox proportional hazards models

54 ultivariate model, factors with p < 0.200 on univariate analysis and factors derived from the previou

55 observed to expected ratios were analyzed by univariate analysis and joinpoint regression, respective

56 Univariate analysis and multivariable Cox proportional h

57 We then did univariate analysis and multivariate analysis to investi

58 Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were used

59 s in the occurrence of GDM is tested through univariate analysis and multivariate logistic and multin

60 Outcomes were compared in these cohorts via univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression

61 PCR approached significance at univariate analysis and was not significant at multivari

62 d complete data on all factors identified in univariate analysis and were included in multivariate an

63 antly associated with both PFS and OS in the univariate analysis and were still statistically signifi

64 endence between the risk factors (P < 0.2 in univariate analysis) and SCH.

65 .0%) were lower in the intervention group on univariate analysis, and acceptance of an AST interventi

66 l (DCGS) rates, between the two groups using univariate analysis, and the impact of DGF and AR on gra

67 portance in projection) and the results of a univariate analysis (ANOVA), allowed the identification

68 On univariate analysis, ascites (P = .02), liver disease (P

69 Initial univariate analysis assessed potential associations betw

70 In univariate analysis, BCOR mutations were associated with

71 In univariate analysis, being married (OR = 1.57, 95%CI = 1

72 At univariate analysis, BMI (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confiden

73 the primary outcome variable of mortality by univariate analysis (BNP: chi(2)=40.6; P<0.0001 and sTNF

74 On univariate analysis body mass index (r = 0.40, P = .005)

75 On the basis of univariate analysis, body mass index, liver iron deposit

76 By univariate analysis, both PLN and LNR were significantly

77 On univariate analysis, bulky disease (>10 cm), extranodal

78 OP requiring treatment after keratoplasty in univariate analysis but not in multivariate analysis.

79 Baseline HOMA-IR was associated with SVR in univariate analysis, but not after adjustment for other

80 ) correlated with better seizure outcomes on univariate analysis, but only epilepsy duration remained

81 In univariate analysis, cases and controls were significant

82 By univariate analysis, cervical dystonia patients, compare

83 On univariate analysis, clearance <1.0 or <1.5 mm, pT stage

84 In univariate analysis, clustering was significantly associ

85 Univariate analysis compared patient and operative chara

86 In univariate analysis, compared to controlled HT, the RH g

87 On univariate analysis, compared with standard RT, fewer pa

88 ificant differences within the groups, using univariate analysis, concerning duration of hospitalizat

89 Univariate analysis confirmed incomplete adaptive coding

90 By univariate analysis, cotrimoxazole and antiretroviral th

91 In univariate analysis, death was associated with baseline

92 Univariate analysis demonstrated a survival benefit for

93 Univariate analysis demonstrated differences in QRS axis

94 Univariate analysis demonstrated that age greater than 6

95 Univariate analysis demonstrated that children who recei

96 Univariate analysis demonstrated that eyes with TTF at p

97 Univariate analysis demonstrated that pancreatic stone p

98 A brain-wide mass univariate analysis demonstrated the significant correla

99 ighty-one HTx recipients were included, with univariate analysis demonstrating peak hazards of mortal

100 rim area loss in black persons found in the univariate analysis did not remain significant when base

101 In contrast, univariate analysis did not show changes of activation i

102 In univariate analysis donor type (mother) and GVHD prophyl

103 Results In univariate analysis, duodenal invasion and/or EPNI on pr

104 On univariate analysis elevated serum bilirubin (p = 0.046)

105 In univariate analysis, elevated MTV and TLG were significa

106 At univariate analysis, exercise ejection fraction, exercis

107 In univariate analysis, EZ "normalized" reflectivity was fo

108 On univariate analysis, factors significantly affecting sur

109 In univariate analysis, FibroScan values were slightly corr

110 can predict poor cancer specific survival on univariate analysis for locally advanced and metastatic

111 On univariate analysis for NHL, radiotherapy predicted infe

112 max correlated negatively with survival in a univariate analysis for the whole cohort (hazard ratio [

113 nomic, and clinical factors were analyzed by univariate analysis for their association with 30-day mo

114 ses compared with patients without CP in the univariate analysis for untreated patients (hazard ratio

115 At univariate analysis, FTV2 and RCB class had the stronges

116 At univariate analysis, FTV2, FTV4, and DeltaFTV4 had signi

117 In univariate analysis, FUT2 461 A/A genotype was associate

118 In univariate analysis, group 1 isolates were more likely t

119 On univariate analysis, habitual fruit intake was lower in

120 In univariate analysis, having stage 5 ROP (vs. stage 4 ROP

121 as not significantly associated with tSCC in univariate analysis (hazard ratio = 1.48; 95% CI, .95-2.

122 val in univariable and multivariable models (univariate analysis, hazard ratio [HR] for a one-fold in

123 ith an increased significant LVEF drop risk (univariate analysis: hazard ratio, 4.52; P < .001 and ha

124 owed a 58% reduction in risk of death in Cox univariate analysis (hazards ratio-HR = 0.42 confidence

125 A suite of statistical techniques, including univariate analysis, hierarchical cluster analysis, two-

126 On univariate analysis, high TRG and lymph node metastases

127 In a univariate analysis, higher age (p = 0.0018), male gende

128 Univariate analysis identified 3 statistically significa

129 Univariate analysis identified a history of dyslipidaemi

130 Univariate analysis identified admission-to-transplantat

131 Univariate analysis identified age (odds ratio [OR], 1.0

132 Univariate analysis identified as risk factors: electrop

133 Univariate analysis identified factors associated with I

134 Univariate analysis identified female donor to male reci

135 Univariate analysis identified history of eye disease or

136 Univariate analysis identified pre-extracorporeal membra

137 Univariate analysis identified preoperative factors asso

138 el of drainage amylase is of no use, whereas univariate analysis identified underlying disease, type

139 In univariate analysis impaired pulmonary function was sign

140 st and powerful alternatives to the standard univariate analysis in genome-wide association studies.

141 methylation signature predicted survival in univariate analysis in our and The Cancer Genome Atlas (

142 Univariate analysis included Kaplan-Meier survival curve

143 Univariate analysis including Mann-Whitney U test and Sp

144 On univariate analysis increasing age at enrolment, previou

145 On univariate analysis, increasing left atrial access time

146 On univariate analysis, increasing PP quartile was associat

147 Univariate analysis indicated viral load at admission, a

148 Univariate analysis indicates that both abiotic and biot

149 associated with different LSF categories at univariate analysis; infiltrative morphologic structure,

150 At univariate analysis, %LAA-950insp and %LAA-910exp values

151 On univariate analysis, large nerve invasion was associated

152 In univariate analysis, late TBN (P = 0.017) and acid inges

153 At univariate analysis, leakage was more common in patients

154 r risk of distant metastases at follow-up in univariate analysis (Log-rank P = 0.0084) but not in mul

155 ll survival (OS) by the Kaplan-Meier method, univariate analysis (log-rank test), and multivariate an

156 Application of a univariate analysis (log-rank) and a multivariate Cox pr

157 In univariate analysis, log-creatinine, sex, age, race, and

158 In univariate analysis, lower GFR and higher levels of each

159 On univariate analysis, lower vitamin D was associated with

160 In univariate analysis, male sex, previous endocarditis, in

161 In univariate analysis, maternal factors associated with NA

162 At univariate analysis, mean pixel intensity with spatial s

163 In univariate analysis, means of parameters like total leuc

164 On univariate analysis, men with adverse pathology at radic

165 tide polymorphisms (SNPs) individually using univariate analysis methods.

166 In univariate analysis, mobile follow-up was equally cost-e

167 On univariate analysis, mortality was significantly higher

168 On univariate analysis, multiple factors were associated wi

169 After univariate analysis, multivariate logistic and linear re

170 After univariate analysis, multivariate population-averaged li

171 By univariate analysis, neither increasing maximum carbopla

172 In univariate analysis, neither the changes in the size nor

173 In the univariate analysis, neonates given O-SH-GA in the TV gr

174 associated with noninfectious uveitis in the univariate analysis (odds ratio, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.42-4.51

175 isk (odds ratio) > 1.2 and p </= 0.25 in the univariate analysis of all participants.

176 pared for pure DLB, DLB+AD and pure AD using univariate analysis of covariance and separate logistic

177 A univariate analysis of documented infertility, age at me

178 Univariate analysis of factors associated with the ICU p

179 A univariate analysis of HP prognostic biomarkers revealed

180 Unadjusted univariate analysis of morbidity showed no significant d

181 However, a stratified univariate analysis of MSS for different thickness subgr

182 ping (SPM) is the dominant paradigm for mass-univariate analysis of neuroimaging data.

183 The univariate analysis of OCT parameters demonstrated signi

184 Univariate analysis of preoperative risk factors and 30-

185 In univariate analysis of unpaired images, color images wer

186 On univariate analysis, older age, female sex, postgraduate

187 Flare predictors by univariate analysis on all 3 indices at weeks 24 and 52

188 In univariate analysis only the G/G genotypes of rs3024997

189 sfusion was shown to be a risk factor in the univariate analysis only.

190 (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.04-2.24; P = 0.0297) on univariate analysis only.

191 CI, 0.28-0.71; p = 0.0007 and interleukin-6 univariate analysis only: odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36

192 Despite significance of recanalization at univariate analysis, only reperfusion, age, and National

193 en compared with premenopausal status in the univariate analysis (OR = 1.314, P = 0.043), and such re

194 with susceptibility to secondary DHF in the univariate analysis (OR = 1.60, 95% CI, 1.05-2.46), wher

195 ery were significant predictors of events in univariate analysis (P < .001 for all).

196 ectively; this difference was significant by univariate analysis (P < 0.001) but not by multivariate

197 ively, and the difference was significant in univariate analysis (P = .004) and in multivariate analy

198 ted with more perioperative complications on univariate analysis (P = .05), but multivariate regressi

199 or for increased treatment failure in either univariate analysis (P = .15) or multivariate analysis (

200 FR-1 (chi(2)=45.5) were highly predictive in univariate analysis (P<0.0001) and in multivariable anal

201 of systemic disease, was also significant on univariate analysis (P=.05).

202 ociation between FEV(1) and 25-OHD levels in univariate analysis (P=0.018), which remained significan

203 was found to be statistically significant on univariate analysis (P=0.034), with white patients havin

204 In a univariate analysis, pancreatic cysts were more prevalen

205 In univariate analysis, patients in the high PaO2 group had

206 In univariate analysis, patients with reactivation were mor

207 At univariate analysis, predictors of shorter LTPFS were tu

208 At univariate analysis, predictors of shorter OS were tumor

209 According to univariate analysis, predictors of survival in AL amyloi

210 On univariate analysis, presentation age, foveal retinoblas

211 In univariate analysis, prior suboptimal response or TKI re

212 < .001) and those with BRCA wild-type HGSOC (univariate analysis: reader 1, HR = 2.42, P < .001; read

213 On univariate analysis, receipt of HAI-FUDR (floxuridine) w

214 On univariate analysis recipient age, sex, model for end st

215 However, in univariate analysis, recipients receiving grafts from se

216 Univariate analysis revealed a number of features with a

217 Univariate analysis revealed age and race as significant

218 Univariate analysis revealed shorter hospital stay (11 +

219 The univariate analysis revealed significant correlations be

220 Univariate analysis revealed that increased VCDR (P = 0.

221 Univariate analysis revealed that TLR 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9

222 Univariate analysis revealed the following risk factors

223 of intention in both univariate and adjusted univariate analysis (salience/coherence beta = 0.59, 95%

224 In univariate analysis, SDMA was significantly associated w

225 In patients with pancreatic cancer, univariate analysis showed a negative impact on one-year

226 Univariate analysis showed an increased risk of both car

227 Univariate analysis showed diabetes mellitus (P = .00002

228 Univariate analysis showed effects of sex (P < 0.001), P

229 Univariate analysis showed statistically significant inc

230 Univariate analysis showed strong association of absolut

231 Univariate analysis showed that [TIMP-2][IGFBP7]>2.0 was

232 Univariate analysis showed that localized interictal epi

233 Univariate analysis showed that male sex, Caucasian race

234 Univariate analysis showed that patients with </= mild p

235 Univariate analysis showed that pretreatment body mass i

236 Univariate analysis showed that reward associations modu

237 Univariate analysis showed that several preoperative fac

238 On the basis of the results of univariate analysis, significant predictors of diverticu

239 In univariate analysis, stent age >/=48 months (Odds ratio

240 Univariate analysis suggested these children tended to b

241 On univariate analysis, the 72% cutoff for DeltaSUV1-3 was

242 In univariate analysis, the baseline factors that were sign

243 In our primary univariate analysis, the continuous recurrence score (me

244 In univariate analysis, the difference in the rate of CD4 c

245 On univariate analysis, the factors age, WHO grade, O6-meth

246 In univariate analysis, the hazard ratio for VT recurrence

247 For the univariate analysis, the hazard ratios associated with e

248 s predictors of PFS and OS by using log-rank univariate analysis, the multivariate Cox proportional h

249 On univariate analysis, the need for mechanical ventilation

250 On univariate analysis, the odds ratio of donor consent in

251 On univariate analysis, the parameters associated with HCC

252 On univariate analysis, the rate of endophthalmitis was not

253 In univariate analysis, the starting dose of capecitabine (

254 In the univariate analysis, the sunitinib group had longer over

255 On univariate analysis, the use of neoadjuvant systemic che

256 In univariate analysis, the use of TBI did not modify OS or

257 Based on univariate analysis, there was less primary nonadherence

258 On univariate analysis, there was no association between IO

259 In univariate analysis, there was no difference in rim area

260 On univariate analysis, there were no tumor or dosimetric t

261 We used univariate analysis to identify factors associated with

262 PEEP did not have a large enough effect in univariate analysis to warrant inclusion in the multivar

263 In univariate analysis, tPA use increased over time, especi

264 At univariate analysis, tumor size, minimal margin size, an

265 mine, two methodologies have been developed; univariate analysis using CN emission band and multivari

266 as gene-gene interactions are ignored by the univariate analysis usually applied in these studies.

267 ensitivity troponin-T predicted mortality in univariate analysis (Wald = 8.4; p = 0.004), but not whe

268 tive incidence of grade III-IV acute GVHD on univariate analysis was 8%, 12%, and 17% in the haploide

269 Univariate analysis was by Mann Whitney U Test and Multi

270 In addition, univariate analysis was conducted to predict reduction o

271 OS, and relapse-free survival (RFS) seen in univariate analysis was even greater in the multivariate

272 Univariate analysis was performed between the 2 groups o

273 Univariate analysis was performed by using chi(2) tests.

274 Univariate analysis was performed to obtain P values des

275 Univariate analysis was performed using log-rank time-to

276 significant prognostic factors identified by univariate analysis was performed using step-up and step

277 Univariate analysis was performed with chi(2), Fisher ex

278 Univariate analysis was undertaken, comparing risk facto

279 Univariate analysis was used to compare postoperative mo

280 Univariate analysis was used to evaluate influences betw

281 Univariate analysis was used to identify covariates for

282 orresponding 1-year rates of chronic GVHD on univariate analysis were 13%, 51%, and 33%, respectively

283 nificant overall survival prognosticators on univariate analysis were albumin, bilirubin, ascites, tu

284 Significant variables on the univariate analysis were analyzed by multivariate analys

285 Oral factors associated with death in the univariate analysis were decreased frequency of dental v

286 iables reaching the statistical threshold in univariate analysis were entered into a multivariable Co

287 iables with a significant association in the univariate analysis were entered into a multivariate log

288 The SNPs significant in univariate analysis were further analyzed with multivari

289 Variables found to be important in univariate analysis were multivariate model candidates.

290 tudy, as well as variables identified by our univariate analysis, were used for adjusted analyses to

291 se (regression coefficient: 0.7; P = .04) on univariate analysis, whereas age (<70 years old) was the

292 f values were found for SUVmax or SUVmean at univariate analysis, whereas MTV60 was confirmed as an i

293 es typically employ independent and pairwise univariate analysis, which treats single nucleotide poly

294 icting melanoma specific survival (MSS) in a univariate analysis, which was also consistent with AJCC

295 ge and number of pulses) and more tightly in univariate analysis with both voltage and number of puls

296 uch unplanned pregnancies were associated in univariate analysis with more cognitive delay.

297 ous coronary intervention were associated in univariate analysis with occurrence of heart failure.

298 Univariate analysis (with results reported as effect on

299 In univariate analysis, younger age was associated with sup

300 In the univariate analysis, younger age, higher levels of gamma