ライフサイエンスコーパス: Mann-Whitney U test

1 0.20 mg/L; 95% CI, 0.19-0.21 mg/L; P < .001; Mann-Whitney U test).

2 that of patients given the placebo (P = .02, Mann-Whitney U test).

3 elopment of nosocomial infections (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test).

4 .38, 4.7 letters) in the MTX arm (P = .0435, Mann-Whitney U test).

5 nged in asthmatics than controls (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

6 e multimodal group (5 vs. 7 days; P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

7 ian decrease 3%, range -13-16%; P = 0.029 by Mann-Whitney U test).

8 omplicated malaria (P, >0.1 for all enzymes; Mann-Whitney U test).

9 group compared with the CMV group (p <.005; Mann-Whitney U test).

10 and reduced or absent p27 levels (P = 0.02, Mann-Whitney U test).

11 o 91 copies for 31 subjects without (P=0.02, Mann-Whitney U test).

12 .1% CI difference medians 1.9-4.7, p<0.0001. Mann-Whitney U test).

13 n=4) vesus controls (8.2+/-1.3, n=5, P<0.02, Mann-Whitney U test).

14 ly longer than that in group 2 (P<0.05 using Mann-Whitney U test).

15 ptor motif, gp130 (0.833 mg ml-1) (P < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test).

16 dopamine, respectively, p < .05 for both by Mann-Whitney U test).

17 ,256 vs. $11,234 + $12,146) costs (p < 0.01, Mann-Whitney U test).

18 nimals than in immunized animals (P = 0.014, Mann-Whitney U test).

19 ial diversity parameters between the groups (Mann-Whitney U test).

20 ce (Delta AUROC [SD], 0.44 [0.02]; P = .007, Mann-Whitney U test).

21 eplication remained asymptomatic (P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

22 nd bilateral dural sinus stenosis [p=0.837], Mann-Whitney U test).

23 istically significant difference (P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

24 between groups were significant (P = 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

25 minutes (SD, 18.5), respectively (P < 0.001; Mann-Whitney U test).

26 ces in activation volumes by tumor location (Mann-Whitney U test).

27 re frequent in lesion tissue (all P < 0.005, Mann-Whitney U-test).

28 MSA subjects (0.9; 0.3-2.4 mU/l; P < 0.005, Mann-Whitney U-test).

29 ere 12.28 and 23.14, respectively (P < 0.01, Mann-Whitney U-test).

30 13] to 641 (IQR 507-694) (-31.5%, P = 0.001, Mann-Whitney U-test).

31 Statistical analysis was by ANOVA or Mann Whitney U test.

32 els were compared between diagnoses with the Mann-Whitney U test.

33 exact test, two-sample unpaired t test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

34 was performed with paired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

35 tor expression included the median, IQR, and Mann-Whitney U test.

36 h cross tabulation, Pearson chi(2) test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

37 Relationships were assessed by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

38 tatistical difference was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

39 re assessed with the Wilcoxon signed rank or Mann-Whitney U test.

40 ps were tested using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test.

41 nerve (AC/C) strain ratio, analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

42 ween-group differences of change scores with Mann-Whitney U test.

43 Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

44 s in the two groups were compared by using a Mann-Whitney U test.

45 ood-based markers was investigated using the Mann-Whitney U test.

46 Differences in dose were assessed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

47 UCCA was compared between groups with the Mann-Whitney U test.

48 amyloidosis groups were compared by using a Mann-Whitney U test.

49 ing a Spearman correlation coefficient and a Mann-Whitney U test.

50 cancer and positive control groups using the Mann-Whitney U test.

51 uated using a two-tailed Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U test.

52 lesion sizes were compared with the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test.

53 1, 2, 3, and 4 years were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test.

54 ent between cancer and healthy groups by the Mann-Whitney U test.

55 ficant differences were determined using the Mann-Whitney U test.

56 ificance was computed by using the t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

57 Data were tested statistically by Mann-Whitney U test.

58 ared using the independent samples t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

59 m factors among groups were sought using the Mann-Whitney U test.

60 ltiple logistic regression analyses, and the Mann-Whitney U test.

61 ed semiquantitatively and analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

62 encounters were compared between groups via Mann-Whitney U test.

63 le nonparametric data were assessed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

64 sed were Cox regression, Student t test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

65 tered treatment plans were assessed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

66 was evaluated with the independent t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

67 mpared with those of normal subjects, by the Mann-Whitney U test.

68 ns of spike-rates and HFO-rates were done by Mann-Whitney U test.

69 bution was compared between groups using the Mann-Whitney U test.

70 es were compared between groups by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

71 rading system were compared using a Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test.

72 Differences between groups were assessed via Mann-Whitney U test.

73 vs did not improve were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney U test.

74 s denture experience were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

75 gray matter volumes were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

76 s without revascularization surgery by using Mann-Whitney U test.

77 ositionings, which was compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

78 d immunosorbent assay and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

79 l by census region and division by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

80 ion analysis (Pearson's coefficient) and the Mann-Whitney U test.

81 ed using two-sample t test and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test.

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

83 with that in control mice with a two-tailed Mann-Whitney U test.

84 d by chi2 test and continuous variables with Mann-Whitney U test.

85 (interquartile range) and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

86 neral phases of bone were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

87 frequency of motor seizures were done with a Mann-Whitney U test.

88 wise post hoc tests were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test.

89 m admission to CT were compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

90 etween responders and nonresponders with the Mann-Whitney U test.

91 pletely responding lesions were evaluated by Mann-Whitney U test.

92 control subjects were assessed by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

93 met inhibitor after RF ablation by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

94 were analyzed using the chi-squared test and Mann-Whitney U-test.

95 to sets of unchanging control genes using a Mann-Whitney U-test.

96 chi(2) test and continuous variables by the Mann--Whitney U test.

97 to individual questions were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests.

98 nd carcinoma volumes were compared by use of Mann-Whitney U tests.

99 lysis was performed with the signed-rank and Mann-Whitney U tests.

100 scores in the two groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U tests.

101 were compared using descriptive analyses and Mann-Whitney U tests.

102 analysis was performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.

103 in HPV testing were assessed using chi2 and Mann-Whitney U testing.

104 ses included: 1) Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; 2) Mann-Whitney U test; 3) Pearson chi(2) test; 4) Kruskal-

105 ence test or the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test (alpha = 0.05).

106 Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (alpha = 0.05).

107 without an SSI, was tested using a nonpaired Mann-Whitney U test, an analysis of covariance, and a Pe

108 Mann Whitney U test analysis found the following changes

109 Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney U test, analysis of variance, and linear re

110 Univariate analysis was by Mann Whitney U Test and Multivariate analysis was by a s

111 adiologic conditions were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and chi(2) test.

112 differences between groups were examined by Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square test.

113 Between-group differences were tested by Mann-Whitney U test and correlations by Spearman's rank.

114 er of subjective and objective AEs using the Mann-Whitney U test and examined trends in the frequency

115 Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher exact test were used to a

116 The Mann-Whitney U test and independent Student t test were

117 Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis analysis were use

118 Group differences were assessed using Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test.

119 h interquartile ranges and compared by using Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test.

120 The Mann-Whitney U test and linear regression model were use

121 Mann-Whitney U test and logistic regression were applied

122 Demographic data were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and NSAID groups with one-way ANOVA.

123 and nonresponders were compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristi

124 Statistical analysis was assessed by Mann-Whitney U test and Receiver operating characteristi

125 A Mann-Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristi

126 The Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlation were used t

127 Univariate analysis including Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's correlation was condu

128 Nonparametric statistics, including the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of v

129 signal intensity index were tested with the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis test.

130 after each agent were compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test and the McNemar test.

131 The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test and the paired-sample Wilcoxon signe

132 line characteristics were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and the Pearson chi(2) test.

133 Mann-Whitney U testing and receiver-operating-characteri

134 for the 2 patient groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U tests and effect likelihood-ratio test.

135 heir predictive value was investigated using Mann-Whitney U tests and receiver-operating-characterist

136 Group differences were tested using Mann-Whitney U tests and regression analyses.

137 Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman correlation analysis.

138 Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman correlation were used

139 d MAIT cells between health and asthma using Mann-Whitney U tests and the Jonckheere-Terpstra test (l

140 Comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney U-test and Student's t-test.

141 p compared with increases of 66% (P = 0.004, Mann-Whitney U test) and 21% (P = 0.07) for patients who

142 A comparative analysis between groups (Mann-Whitney U test) and a correlation analysis between

143 ion exposure (0.06 versus 0.34 mSv; P=0.037, Mann-Whitney U test) and lower median costs ($934 versus

144 results were larger (68 vs. 34 mm2; P=0.08, Mann-Whitney U test) and were more likely to have papill

145 sub-100 bp nuclear genomic cfDNA (p 10(-5), Mann-Whitney U Test), and an increased relative abundanc

146 harm and procedural flow disruption scores (Mann-Whitney U test), and number of preventable failures

147 analyses were performed by Student's t-test, Mann Whitney U test, and Pearson product moment test.

148 ith intraclass correlation coefficients, the Mann Whitney U test, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test.

149 Data were analysed using Pearson chi(2), the Mann-Whitney U test, and binary logistic regression.

150 Comparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney U test, and factors associated with develop

151 Kruskal-Wallis H test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test were used to

152 The Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test were used to

153 Data were analyzed using the Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test.

154 tween groups with unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test, and linear regression was performed

155 cluded Fisher exact test, Pearson chi2 test, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression.

156 uded Fisher exact test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Spearman rank correlation.

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

158 cross mRECIST reads were compared by using a Mann-Whitney U test, and the difference in prevalence of

159 rank composite is typically analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test, and the results are summarized by t

160 al analysis, chi(2) test, Fisher exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Wilcoxon test were used.

161 ry cohorts using Wilcoxon signed rank tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Fisher exact tests.

162 Cohen's kappa statistic, regression models, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

163 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentile, using Mann-Whitney U-test, and association between DAOH-90 and

164 stical analysis comprised paired t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, as well as Pearson r and Spearman

165 Data were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U test at P <0.05.

166 enic targets were compared (paired t test or Mann-Whitney U test) at enrollment and after gD/AS04 vac

167 Mann-Whitney U-test, AUROC, chi-square and McNemar' test

168 ndicated no significant difference (P >0.05, Mann-Whitney U test) between the S or F inserts in the a

169 e that was significant at 4 years (P = .036; Mann-Whitney U test) but had a similar occurrence of sun

170 n (range), relative risk, and analyzed using Mann Whitney U test, Chi-square test, as appropriate, a

171 ients (</=55 years) were compared by t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square, or Fisher's exact test.

172 cal analysis was performed with the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test, chi2 test, Wilcoxon matched-pairs s

173 Mann-Whitney U tests compared hypotension burden, durati

174 A Mann-Whitney U test conducted on GenePy scores for this

175 A Mann-Whitney U test confirmed the proinflammatory respon

176 ts), (c) pairwise tests between tumor types (Mann-Whitney U test), (d) relationships between fast flu

177 compared by using unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test, depending on data distribution.

178 f clinical EAE (p = 0.0002 vs control by the Mann-Whitney U test) enough to completely prevent fatal

179 used to compare paired samples, such as the Mann-Whitney U test (equivalent to the Wilcoxon rank sum

180 een-group changes were investigated (ancova, Mann-Whitney U-test, Fisher exact test).

181 For statistic analyses Mann-Whitney U-test, Fisher's exact test and binary logi

182 ups was analysed using independent t-test or Mann Whitney U test for non-parametric data.

183 Fisher exact test for categorical variables, Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables, and logist

184 e used Fisher exact test for categorical and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables.

185 using Student t-test for parametric data and Mann-Whitney U test for non-parametric data.

186 coxon signed rank test for paired data and a Mann-Whitney U test for nonpaired data.

187 ruskal-Wallis test was used, followed by the Mann-Whitney U test for pairwise comparisons.

188 ests were used for within-group comparisons; Mann-Whitney U tests for between-group differences.

189 We used Chi-square, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests for comparison of elective and emer

190 11-514 min] vs 30 min [5-90 min]; p<0.0001, Mann-Whitney U test); for each minute delay from onset o

191 Mann-Whitney U tests identified biomarkers with differen

192 roups were calculated by unpaired t test (or Mann-Whitney U test in nonparametric data).

193 there was a significant reduction (P <0.05, Mann-Whitney U test) in the amount of contamination for

194 Two-sided Mann-Whitney U test, independent samples t test, Fisher

195 Mann-Whitney U tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and chi(2) t

196 Mann-Whitney U tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Spearman

197 y markers with QODD scores were tested using Mann-Whitney U tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, or Spearman'

198 atalase quantification.Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test and Cuzick's te

199 Comparisons were made using the t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, linear mixed models, and generalize

200 between groups was significant (P = 0.005 on Mann-Whitney U test; mean ranks 13.9 and 6.3 [of 21], fo

201 ribution, two-sided t-tests (mean +/- SD) or Mann-Whitney U tests (median[IQR]) were applied, p-value

202 g for interobserver agreement, McNemar test, Mann-Whitney U test, multiple regression analysis, Spear

203 Outcomes were compared with Mann-Whitney U test or chi-square.

204 between Mp-positive and -negative groups by Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate

205 between Mp-positive and -negative groups by Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher's exact test, as appropria

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

207 The Mann-Whitney U test or the chi2 test was used for calcul

208 ysis was carried out using Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, or chi-square test (significance, p

209 were compared between both groups by t test, Mann-Whitney U test, or likelihood ratio chi-square test

210 were compared with analysis of variance, the Mann-Whitney U test, or the t test.

211 ogenic and COSMIC somatic missense variants (Mann-Whitney U test P < 2.2 x 10-16).

212 ogenic and COSMIC somatic missense variants (Mann-Whitney U test P < 2.2 x 10-16).

213 cancer risk among categories was proven with Mann-Whitney U test p value < 0.005.

214 iated with Parkinson's disease age at onset (Mann-Whitney U test p=0.001).

215 2 +/- 35 versus 73 +/- 24 nmol L(-1) d(-1) , Mann-Whitney U-test p < 0.0001), and the South Atlantic

216 ue and 3 AM in Tokoli to 5 AM after 3 years (Mann-Whitney U test, P < .0001).

217 er than those reported in surgical journals (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001).

218 basic tasks demonstrated construct validity (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.05), and learning curves for

219 ntly greater in the BU than the BUmin group (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.05).

220 es than control variants (0.02 median score; Mann-Whitney U test, P < 1 x 10(-16)).

221 n = 4) than did group 2 (n = 96, median = 9, Mann-Whitney U test, p <.0001).

222 g infarct growth in the upper tertile range (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.04) but not in the middle ter

223 terquartile range: 30.5, 10.2 vs. 27.8, 8.8; Mann-Whitney U-test, P = 0.0006).

224 bited significantly fewer reactive epitopes (Mann-Whitney U test; P < 0.0001) relative to subjects wi

225 There were significant (Mann-Whitney U test; p < 0.02) decreases in total length

226 The day-10 (Mann-Whitney U test; P = .012) and day-14 (P = .025) neu

227 ficantly better than did the naive controls (Mann-Whitney U test; P = 0.038).

228 were analyzed using chi-square analysis and Mann-Whitney U-tests; P < 0.05 was used to define signif

229 Mann-Whitney U tests, receiver operating characteristic

230 Continuous variables were compared by Mann-Whitney U test (reported as median [first quartile-

231 were compared by using the paired t test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively.

232 Mann-Whitney U tests resulted in the following P values

233 Mann-Whitney U test revealed a statistically significant

234 Mann-Whitney U tests revealed that length of BE, size of

235 A Mann-Whitney U test showed that PGES was significantly l

236 Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA-on-ranks with post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests showed significant pairwise between

237 s of variance (ANOVA)-on-Ranks with post-hoc Mann-Whitney U-tests showed significant pairwise between

238 and single-shot DWI were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test; significance was defined at P < .05

239 ) points in the intervention group (P = .02, Mann-Whitney U test); similarly, mean (SD) parent-estima

240 5, multiple regression analysis; P =.25-.75, Mann-Whitney U test; Spearman correlation coefficients b

241 atistical analyses (Cohen kappa coefficient, Mann-Whitney U test, t tests, and intraclass correlation

242 Combined with the Mann-Whitney U test, The variation laws of permeability

243 Mann-Whitney U tests, the chi-square test, and Spearman

244 categorical variables and the t test or the Mann-Whitney U test to compare continuous variables.

245 We used the Mann-Whitney U test to compare results between groups.

246 h fluctuating hearing and MRI-designated EH (Mann-Whitney U Test: U = 39, 27; p = 0.01, 0.003 respect

247 d Student's t test for continuous variables (Mann-Whitney U test used for nonnormally distributed var

248 alyzed by Kruskal-Wallis/Bonferroni-adjusted Mann-Whitney U test using statistical software.

249 An independent sample Mann Whitney U test was used to compare differences in A

250 A non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare parameters be

251 The Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare the spatial e

252 The Mann-Whitney U test was carried out to test for signific

253 A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to test whether there

254 Mann-Whitney U test was performed to assess differences

255 Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison among groups

256 Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons in sex and

257 The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons of variable

258 llis test was used for significance, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for pairwise comparison of

259 The Mann-Whitney U test was used for statistical analysis.

260 Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used for within-group comparison

261 Independent T-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze continuous varia

262 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess the difference be

263 Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess the differences i

264 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to check that the proposed

265 Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences in b

266 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the distribution

267 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the median mRNA

268 analysis of functional development, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the medians of 2

269 A Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the model estima

270 A two-sided Mann-Whitney U test was used to detect differences in AP

271 valuate the masticatory performance, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine quality of lif

272 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine interocular diff

273 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to test for differences bet

274 the data were not normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U-test was employed to assess the statistic

275 Fisher exact test, log-rank test, and Mann-Whitney U test were performed.

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

277 Linear regression and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to assess the association

278 chi(2) test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare groups.

279 Mann-Whitney U tests were applied on pairwise comparison

280 npaired Student t, chi(2), Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were applied to analyze the differe

281 Descriptive statistics and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests were applied.

282 Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to compare liver fun

283 Fisher exact, chi2, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis.

284 tric Wilcoxon signed rank, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis.

285 is followed by Bonferroni-corrected post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze the data.

286 Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare CS and absolut

287 Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare study arms, an

288 Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare subgroups of p

289 Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare tumor SUVs acr

290 Independent sample t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used.

291 The chi-square test, Student's t-test, and Mann-Whitney U-test were used for statistical analysis.

292 Descriptive statistics, including chi 2 and Mann-Whitney U test, were performed.

293 he gene sets is performed by an extension of Mann-Whitney U test which is based on weighted rank sums

294 test, Wilcoxon's matched pairs test, and the Mann Whitney U Test with P < 0.05 considered significant

295 Independent samples t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests with post hoc Bonferroni correction

296 Analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U tests with post hoc correction were used

297 ible, non-hypervariable Env sites (p = 0.50, Mann-Whitney U-test) with no significant relationship be

298 versus 23 +/- 1.4 in controls; P < 0.0001 by Mann-Whitney U test), with virtually no overlap between

299 For comparisons, we used the Mann-Whitney U test (Z test).

300 iability and differentiated VCD vs. healthy (Mann-Whitney U-test: z = -5.390, P < 0.001) and asthma (