コーパス検索結果 (1語後でソート)
通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 (n = 3) of those without LGE (p < 0.001 for Kaplan-Meier survival curves).
2 tiglaucoma medications, time to failure, and Kaplan-Meier survival curve.
3 lmic slit-lamp biomicroscopy and analyzed by Kaplan-Meier survival curve.
4 imately 4 mo) than FVB mice evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier survival curve.
5 CLL cumulative incidence was estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
6 Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated from Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
7 rmed using mixed-effects linear modeling and Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
8 graft survival over time was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
9 ting-characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
10 ing univariate and multivariate analyses and Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
11 atistics included a descriptive analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
12 ion-free survival rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
13 e mortality was calculated from standardized Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
14 y were also determined by comparing adjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
15 Univariate analysis included Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
16 by using Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
17 eriod and graft survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
18 is ability remained strong on time-dependent Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
19 activation of the lesion were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
20 The log-rank procedure was used to compare Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
21 ferences were tested by log-rank tests using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
22 e than 1.27 (high risk) was used to stratify Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
23 1-hour survival were analyzed with chi2 and Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
30 ention effect was estimated using unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a Cox proportional haza
31 over), analysed via intention to treat using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and a proportional hazards
32 analysis, investigators often present crude Kaplan-Meier survival curves and adjusted relative hazar
37 ounts using log-rank tests of differences in Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard
38 were compared between these two groups using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard
43 mission after CAS compared with CEA, we used Kaplan-Meier survival curves and fitted mixed-effects lo
44 time-to-event analyses, were estimated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves and hazard ratios (Cox regr
46 f AF on outcomes was evaluated by unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves and logistic regression mod
47 bgroups defined by these measurements, using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and multivariate Cox propor
50 We used standard survival methods including Kaplan-Meier survival curves and sex-by-treatment intera
53 high-grade rejection within 90 days by chi2, Kaplan Meier survival curves, and by multivariable logis
54 RRD were measured using Poisson regression, Kaplan-Meier survival curve, and Cox proportional hazard
55 Catheter patency was described by using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve, and number of catheter days
56 tistical analysis included chi-square tests, Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and Cox proportional-hazar
59 vival using Cox proportional hazards models, Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and the log-rank test.
60 Descriptive statistics, incidence rates, Kaplan-Meier survival curves, and the RR of NLP outcomes
61 US cancer population using an area under the Kaplan-Meier survival curve approach that combined trial
62 roportional survival hazards and plotted the Kaplan-Meier survival curves as well as the net chance o
64 nd outcome of pneumococcal meningitis, using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, bacteriological and histol
66 as allograft survival is represented using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve comparing (1) locally procur
70 ermanent ventilation was not reached and the Kaplan-Meier survival curve diverged from a published na
72 x proportional hazards model, log-rank test, Kaplan-Meier survival curve, Fisher exact test, and t te
74 s to develop a mathematical model to predict Kaplan-Meier survival curves for chemotherapy combined w
80 pression (odds ratio 7.17 [95% CI 1.5-34.5]; Kaplan-Meier survival curve, log-rank statistic 9.11 [p=
87 88.6, 88.9]), and the separation between the Kaplan-Meier survival curves of patients stratified into
88 ay graphic technique was used to compare the Kaplan-Meier survival curves of patients with local recu
90 ffected by identified variables, we compared Kaplan-Meier survival curves of transplanted and control
91 ost previous studies contrasted (unadjusted) Kaplan-Meier survival curves or, if covariate-adjusted,
92 of a lethal dose of B. dermatitidis yeasts (Kaplan-Meier survival curve P values of 0.027 to 0.0002)
93 ual change rates of segmental brain volumes, Kaplan-Meier survival curves plotting time to event for
101 ues of 34 mL/m(2) for LAVI and -15% for GLS, Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed significant better s
102 and 0.612 for OS and PFS, respectively, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed significant differen
112 val rate as assessed by log rank analyses of Kaplan-Meier survival curves was significantly lower for
127 os (HR), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated by gender an
132 ation, Cox proportional hazard analyses, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were performed within the T
140 ox proportional hazard regression models and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to identify predi
143 othelial dystrophy (FED) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves with log-rank test and Cox
145 Survival differences were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival curves with multivariable Cox prop