ライフサイエンスコーパス: was not significant

1 ntrations, or in the presence of wine volatiles, the effect was not significant.

2 nd coalescence, while in the SN100C solder this coalescence was not significant.

3 take, whereas in the 4-day sample, the test for interaction was not significant.

4 e in referral rate between cytology- and HPV-screened women was not significant.

5 allocated placebo; the difference between treatment groups was not significant.

6 ach (95% confidence interval: [-6.64-3.36] P = 0.13), which was not significant.

7 The adjusted annual decline was not significant.

8 PEF was combined with US at low temperatures the difference was not significant.

9 81% to 49%; P = .11; 95% CI, -2.06 to 0.22), the difference was not significant.

10 take, whereas in the 4-day sample, the test for interaction was not significant.

11 stress disorder), although the difference in anxiety scores was not significant.

12 ins, providing valuable information when the loss of lysine was not significant.

13 BC-II MPI score between boys or girls with or without konzo was not significant.

14 co use prevalence between HIV-positive and HIV-negative men was not significant (1.26 [1.00-1.58]; p=0.050).

15 The difference in AL growth between treated and fellow eyes was not significant (3.3 vs. 3.5 mm, P = 0.31).

16 13 versus pound561 in the control group but this difference was not significant (95% CI- pound353 to pound257, p=0.76).

17 The risk difference for hospitalizations was not significant according to the mixed-effects regression

18 was particularly marked in China (P for trend, 0.001), but was not significant across the other participating countries

19 specific mortality hazard was observed, but the association was not significant (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.8

20 nce interval, 1.06-4.76; P=0.04); however, this association was not significant after correction for multiple testing.

21 However, this difference was not significant after multivariate adjustment (age, basel

22 Correlation between ONL thinning and age was not significant, as were differences between EZW and ONL

23 First, ZipA-induced FtsZ bundling was not significant at pH greater than 7.

24 5% CI, 3.7 to 33.3; P=0.01); the unadjusted risk difference was not significant at the 24-month secondary outcome time po

25 Change in T1 time was not significant (Baseline septal T1 1277.4 ms, follow up

26 For early cannabis use, the monozygotic point estimate was not significant but could be equated to the significant d

27 The association with total stroke was not significant, but it was positive for ischemic stroke

28 iting frequency compared with baseline, but this difference was not significant compared with the placebo group.

29 dent effect of the nursing quality improvement intervention was not significant for all outcomes.

30 an prevent the development of CKD, although the association was not significant for all-oral therapy.

31 tly associated with elevated amyloid SUVR; this association was not significant for late-life risk factors.

32 This difference was not significant; however, 7 (36%) and 13 (72.2%) patients

33 d on the high-dimensional propensity score, the association was not significant (HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.997-2.59]).

34 as largely driven by readmissions early after discharge and was not significant in landmark analyses beginning 30 days af

35 interaction between race/ethnicity-specific height and sex was not significant in the ASCVD model (P = 0.78) but was sig

36 classic Gulf-Atlantic coastal phylogeographic break, which was not significant in the microsatellite analyses.

37 gnificant after adjustment for multiple comparisons, but it was not significant in women (P = 0.39).

38 Analysis of the mediation effects of resilience was not significant, indicating that resilience did not media

39 m) and non-AC rest images (bias, -1; 95% CI, -9 to 7 mm) (P was not significant [NS]).

40 though the intention-to-treat analysis for overall survival was not significant, our sensitivity analysis based on correc

41 epancies after more consecutive days worked, the difference was not significant (P = .0893).

42 etion than having 0% milk protein, although this difference was not significant (p = 0.055), and there was no effect of 5

43 in the change in IBDQ-B scores between the start and nadir was not significant (P = 0.093).

44 ated with all-cause death and heart failure, but the result was not significant (P=0.051).

45 DA release tended to be lower in smokers but the difference was not significant (p=0.08).

46 en bortezomib and placebo in eGFR slope (primary end point) was not significant (P=0.86).

47 en only, but the relative excessive risk due to interaction was not significant throughout.

48 ied greatly among cGvHD patients, and the increase post-ECP was not significant until 6 months.

49 s of mean clinic BP and mean awake or 48-hour ambulatory BP was not significant when corrected by mean asleep BP.

50 hose for anxiety, with the exceptions that insurance status was not significant, whereas being widowed/divorced/separated