ライフサイエンスコーパス: Pearson correlation coefficient

1 delayed-type hypersensitivity (p < 0.0001 by Pearson correlation coefficient).

2 ltration rate (eGFR), were assessed by using Pearson correlation coefficient.

3 ations across measures were tested using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

4 h histologic findings was evaluated with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

5 linear correlation parameter by computing a Pearson correlation coefficient.

6 itney test, Student t test, chi(2) test, and Pearson correlation coefficient.

7 asticity and viscosity was assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

8 among PLR, MD, and RNFL thickness using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

9 h alpha coefficient for reproducibility, and Pearson correlation coefficient.

10 cellularity, and micronecrosis by using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

11 nd emphysema extent were tested by using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

12 tions among the results was tested using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

13 esions and tumor size was assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

14 nce of obesity in Massachusetts by using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

15 server variability was assessed by using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

16 le is based on the number of anchors and the Pearson correlation coefficient.

17 mor volume measurement was assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

18 AT volume and quality was assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

19 segmentation metrics was measured using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

20 performance metrics were assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

21 intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson correlation coefficient.

22 test for mean, and the correlation with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

23 rformed by using nonparametric tests and the Pearson correlation coefficient.

24 ons among parameters were evaluated with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

25 values were negatively correlated using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

26 nd depth of target was assessed by using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

27 e test scores, and time to recovery with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

28 elow -950 HU (RA-950) were assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

29 e test scores, and time to recovery with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

30 dical conditions was assessed using weighted Pearson correlation coefficients.

31 d corneal secant modulus was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients.

32 en measured values were assessed by means of Pearson correlation coefficients.

33 lated and assessed by Bland-Altman plots and Pearson correlation coefficients.

34 ent genes that have large absolute values of Pearson correlation coefficients.

35 BMD and bone score, including derivation of Pearson correlation coefficients.

36 Volumes were compared by determining Pearson correlation coefficients.

37 pairs were tested by using Cohen's kappa and Pearson correlation coefficients.

38 pairwise concentration correlation based on Pearson correlation coefficients.

39 entrustment scores were assessed by pairwise Pearson correlation coefficients.

40 sed (ALSFRS-R) total scores was assessed via Pearson correlation coefficients.

41 traclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Pearson correlation coefficients.

42 mentation was assessed using Dice scores and Pearson correlation coefficients.

43 e methods based on the standard Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients.

44 re log-transformed before calculation of the Pearson correlation coefficients.

45 parameters were correlated with age by using Pearson correlation coefficients.

46 and FDa from each region were analyzed with Pearson correlation coefficients.

47 ation coefficient 0.221; P = .027) and HOAs (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.198; P = .048).

48 een height of interface fluid and total RMS (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.221; P = .027) and HOA

49 Fatigue and pain were moderately correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.57); both fatigue and

50 ly in subjects with darkly pigmented irides (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.793, P = 0.05).

51 orrelated with annual temperature anomalies (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.882, p = 0.005).

52 water column were strongly correlated, with Pearson correlation coefficient 0.993.

53 epithelial thickness at 1, 3, and 9 months (Pearson correlation coefficients 0.485, 0.587 and 0.576)

54 stribution of the traffic and attains a high Pearson correlation coefficient (0.75) when compared wit

55 ions and use of observation-only admissions (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.01) or discharge to

56 or discharge to a skilled nursing facility (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.05).

57 ion coefficient = 0.71, P < .001), FAQLQ-TF (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.35, P = .018), and F

58 coefficient = 0.35, P = .018), and FAQLQ-CF (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.51, P < .001).

59 leave-one out cross-validation r(2) of 0.46 (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.68), effectively pre

60 validity of these questionnaires: FAQLQ-AF (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.71, P < .001), FAQLQ

61 0), correlating well with IS/OS lesion area (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.848, P < 0.01).

62 with reduction in persephin and pentraxin 3 (Pearson correlation coefficients = 0.682 and 0.638, P =

63 s the range of projected rates of admission (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.046 [P = .23]).

64 nd ACE levels were significantly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.205; P = .001, 2-side

65 all 30-day risk-adjusted complication rates (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.213, P = 0.303).

66 ) and poor correlation with gestational age (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.25; P = .002).

67 he uptake of the fluorescent glucose analog (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.54 vs. 0.44, respecti

68 and that measured by pathologists (P < .001; Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.81).

69 plasma viral load assay on the log10 scale (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.92; P < 0.001).

70 igen levels and tumor-to-liver volume ratio (Pearson correlation coefficients, 0.105 and 0.113, respe

71 ere uncorrelated with clinical risk factors (Pearson correlation coefficient, -0.018).

72 tween the genetic and proteomic risk scores (Pearson correlation coefficient, -0.04; P=0.13).

73 =0.043) and contractile dysfunction in mice (Pearson correlation coefficient, -0.73).

74 the proportion of generalists among regions (Pearson correlation coefficient=0.06; P=.26).

75 5% on AQ and from 14% to 75% on cardiac MRI (Pearson correlation coefficient=0.95, P<0.0001).

76 coefficient=-0.456, P<0.0001] and BMS sites (Pearson correlation coefficient=-0.450, P=0.0006).

77 with changes in calcium scores both in PES (Pearson correlation coefficient=-0.456, P<0.0001] and BM

78 nvironmental variables were assessed through Pearson correlation coefficient analysis, mixed effect l

79 multidetector CT and cardiac MR imaging with Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analysi

80 lume, and growth were evaluated by using the Pearson correlation coefficient and difference of means

81 compare different lung function parameters, Pearson correlation coefficient and Fisher z transformat

82 We used a Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression to

83 Correlations were examined using the Pearson correlation coefficient and prognostic associati

84 Pearson correlation coefficient and R2 were calculated f

85 nts that are currently the most widely-used (Pearson correlation coefficient and SD-weighted correlat

86 monstrate high reconstruction fidelity, with Pearson Correlation Coefficient and Spearman Correlation

87 tudy shows that SCC is an alternative to the Pearson correlation coefficient and the SD-weighted corr

88 nd compare two correlation coefficients, the Pearson correlation coefficient and the Spearman rho, fo

89 The Pearson correlation coefficient and the standard deviati

90 tistical analysis was performed by using the Pearson correlation coefficient and the Wilcoxon rank su

91 Data were analyzed by using the Pearson correlation coefficient and two-sided t tests as

92 ith RCTs using predefined metrics, including Pearson correlation coefficients and binary metrics base

93 n HealthLNK in comparison with MESA, we used Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots.

94 relations between continuous variables using Pearson correlation coefficients and compared categorica

95 Using Pearson correlation coefficients and mixed-effect logist

96 with a two-sided Pvalue of .05 to calculate Pearson correlation coefficients and multiple regression

97 Pearson correlation coefficients and one-way repeated me

98 CTDI(vol) and D(eff) as variables, by using Pearson correlation coefficients and P values to determi

99 birth cohorts were determined by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients and performing Kaplan-M

100 Pearson correlation coefficients and random coefficient

101 Also, Pearson correlation coefficients and scatter plots were

102 adjusted for energy, were compared by using Pearson correlation coefficients and the Bland-Altman 95

103 Pearson correlation coefficients and the SD of differenc

104 Paired Student t test, chi(2) test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and analysis of varianc

105 rmed by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and Bland-Altman analys

106 indices, including the Jaccard index and the Pearson correlation coefficient, and compare their perfo

107 Tracking was assessed with the use of the Pearson correlation coefficient, and multivariate linear

108 was performed with the t test, chi(2) test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and receiver operating

109 tween data sets were determined by using the Pearson correlation coefficient, and statistical signifi

110 was assessed using mean squared error (MSE), Pearson correlation coefficient, and two-sided Student t

111 were compared using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman plots

112 Wilcoxon tests, Pearson correlation coefficients, and linear regressions

113 urveillance and VTE rates were assessed with Pearson correlation coefficients, and the postdischarge

114 For all drug classes, the Pearson correlation coefficient approached 1.0, indicati

115 Using the Pearson correlation coefficient as a measure of spectral

116 n on a Protein chip, the use of the pairwise Pearson correlation coefficient as the similarity measur

117 s showed a strong linear association, with a Pearson correlation coefficient between 0.703 and 0.962.

118 The average pairwise Pearson correlation coefficient between activity pattern

119 The Pearson correlation coefficient between estimated and ex

120 The Pearson correlation coefficient between experimental dat

121 Pearson correlation coefficient between method predictio

122 The Pearson correlation coefficient between sodium SNR and g

123 The Pearson correlation coefficient between sodium SNR and g

124 The Pearson correlation coefficient between the two techniqu

125 Pearson correlation coefficients between electronic frai

126 Pearson correlation coefficients between observed and Go

127 this correlation, we calculated age-adjusted Pearson correlation coefficients between rates of incarc

128 The Pearson correlation coefficients between the 2 radionucl

129 Pearson correlation coefficients between the gene positi

130 ge features computed from day 3, the highest Pearson Correlation coefficients between the top two fea

131 calibration method on calcium measurements, Pearson correlation coefficients between unadjusted and

132 Statistical tests performed include Pearson correlation coefficients, Bland-Altman agreement

133 Lung sections were divided into blocks and Pearson correlation coefficients calculated to compare m

134 rent comparison measures were tested and the Pearson correlation coefficient chosen.

135 Pearson correlation coefficient demonstrated a strong po

136 On the level of single lobes, Pearson correlation coefficient differed for the right u

137 The popular Pearson correlation coefficient estimates bivariate corr

138 The Pearson correlation coefficient for double-positive samp

139 Pearson correlation coefficient for each combination of

140 In the case of two electrons, the resulting Pearson correlation coefficient for the joint probabilit

141 vely similar to one another, with an average Pearson correlation coefficient for these comparisons of

142 (interquartile range, 0.727-0.832), and the Pearson correlation coefficient for volume was 0.927 (95

143 (interquartile range, 0.894-0.938), and the Pearson correlation coefficient for volume was 0.992 (95

144 Pearson correlation coefficient for yield and peroxisome

145 tected in the pooled QC samples, the average Pearson correlation coefficients for all peaks between a

146 lustered in PCA scores plot, and the average Pearson correlation coefficients for all peaks of QC sam

147 -out data showed low levels of bias and high Pearson correlation coefficients for calcification (-0.0

148 Age- and energy-adjusted Pearson correlation coefficients for correlations betwee

149 focused on statistically significant (P<.05) Pearson correlation coefficients for methicillin-resista

150 Associated Pearson correlation coefficients for ML-PI, ML, and PI w

151 Absolute Pearson correlation coefficients for overall RNFL thickn

152 Pearson correlation coefficients for subcortical regions

153 Pearson correlation coefficients for the mean score and

154 The Pearson correlation coefficients for various carotenoids

155 Pearson correlation coefficients for vitamins E and C in

156 he random forest training, which generates a Pearson correlation coefficient >0.8 between the predict

157 o year with excess cardiovascular mortality (Pearson correlation coefficients >/=0.75, P </= .05 for

158 y concordant in absolute terms (Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients >=0.94).

159 y concordant in absolute terms (Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients >=0.95).

160 regulated lncRNAs significantly correlated (|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|>= 0.9) with 91 up-regul

161 expression, which is mostly detected via the Pearson correlation coefficient, has played an important

162 k correlation coefficient) and measured ADC (Pearson correlation coefficient) in six prostates ex viv

163 Furthermore, we found that the Pearson correlation coefficient may be more suitable tha

164 ta on the sign and magnitude of gene-to-gene Pearson correlation coefficients obtained from the pool

165 metastatically aggressive cell lines with a Pearson correlation coefficient of < or = -0.64.

166 lated with lower monthly percentile ranking (Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.69; P = .01).

167 d global peripapillary RNFL thickness with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.60 (P < .0001).

168 - 257,050, R(2) = 0.65, P < 0.0001), with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.81.

169 A Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.82 with an RMSE of

170 y analyses of solvent exchange rates, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.84 obtained.

171 l concentration of NAs in the samples with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.89.

172 a common set of regulated transcripts with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.895.

173 ylation values were highly correlated with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9 in leave-one-tiss

174 of compounds from the TIES protocol, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.90 between calculat

175 their metastatic potentials with an overall Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.90.

176 s demonstrated with a median CV of 15.3% and Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.95 from biological

177 ase in body weight due to water loss, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.956 +/- 0.033 among

178 breath samples yielded a slope of 0.93 and a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.9705 (p < 0.05, n =

179 dataset, our end-to-end approach achieved a Pearson correlation coefficient of 86.49% for LV(EF) est

180 Validity was confirmed by a Pearson correlation coefficient of r = 0.95 (EPCO r = 0.

181 et with the other four was modest, with mean Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.37-0.54.

182 vely correlated with histopathologic volume (Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.49, 0.59, and 0.55

183 egression R2 values of 88%, 82%, and 85% and Pearson correlation coefficients of 92%, 91%, and 92% fo

184 Pearson correlation coefficients of perfusion values for

185 reement with experimental observations, with Pearson correlation coefficients of r = 0.79 and r = 0.8

186 v3 with RDKit molecular descriptors achieved Pearson correlation coefficients of up to 0.836, 0.780 a

187 Pairwise associations (Pearson correlation coefficients) of discharge-level pre

188 n absolute error (MAE) and the R(2) (squared Pearson correlation coefficients) of the estimated and a

189 e density by up to 5.9% in terms of per-gene Pearson correlation coefficient on the datasets from thr

190 Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) analysis is common

191 a male sex hormone, testosterone, using the Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) analysis.

192 te Error (MAE), Mean Squared Error (MSE) and Pearson Correlation Coefficient (PCC) as evaluation metr

193 The Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) between predicted

194 ompartments information, with the ranking by Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) calculated from ge

195 ash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) of 0.8048 and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) of 0.8971.

196 was calculated using a Bland-Altman plot and Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC).

197 ren, regardless of gravidity and HIV status (Pearson correlation coefficient [PCC] > 0.8, chi2<1.1),

198 ot significantly associated across clusters (Pearson correlation coefficient [PCC] = 0.36; 95% confid

199 ich was correlated with hospital attendance (Pearson correlation coefficient [PCC] = 0.76).

200 This strategy identified >70 compounds with Pearson correlation coefficients (PCCs) >0.4, where redu

201 a well for the cooling portion of the spray (Pearson correlation coefficient R >/= 0.994), but the su

202 ic SER was significantly correlated with AL (Pearson Correlation coefficient r = - 0.82), AL/CR ratio

203 d with actual changes in relevant variables (Pearson Correlation Coefficient r = 0.911 with embryo ph

204 lular AQP2 (exosomal AQP2 vs. cellular AQP2, Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.93).

205 EC and NGS was observed in all laboratories (Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.996).

206 hange bias (less than twofold difference and Pearson correlation coefficient R approximately 0.87-0.8

207 %, an MAE of 15.82 um, a RMSE of 18.85 um, a Pearson correlation coefficient r of +0.98 (P < .00001),

208 to moderate positive correlation with HOAs (Pearson correlation coefficient r ranged from 0.300 to 0

209 The Cohen kappa and Pearson correlation coefficient R were used to determine

210 hin each participant, were assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient r.

211 odel performance was evaluated using squared Pearson correlation coefficient (r(2)) between observed

212 d dose and tumor reduction was found, with a Pearson correlation coefficient (R(2)) of 0.64 for tumor

213 The maximum possible squared Pearson correlation coefficient (R(2)) on large data set

214 Mean absolute error (MAE) and squared Pearson correlation coefficient (r(2)) were used to eval

215 etermination of tPSA in serum samples with a Pearson correlation coefficient (R(2)=0.96).

216 compared with noble gas MRI scans using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and mean absolute er

217 quantification were assessed with use of the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and the intraclass c

218 error (MAE), root mean squared error (RMSE), Pearson correlation coefficient (r), and determination c

219 Pearson correlation coefficient (r), two-sample t test,

220 I) and other prognostic factors by using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r).

221 bserver's scores was calculated by using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r).

222 For voxelwise and patientwise analyses, Pearson correlation coefficients (r (voxelwise) and r (p

223 Linear regression and Pearson correlation coefficients (r values) were used to

224 For voxelwise and patientwise analyses, Pearson correlation coefficients (r(voxelwise) and r(pat

225 l results and available measurements yielded Pearson correlation coefficients (R) >/= 0.8 at >/= 5 si

226 Pearson correlation coefficients (r), corrected for atte

227 ely with the likelihood of cancer detection (Pearson correlation coefficient [r] = -.4778 after log-l

228 ve findings and/or histopathologic findings (Pearson correlation coefficient [r] and Cohen kappa coef

229 es) and agreement between area measurements (Pearson correlation coefficient [r] values) were calcula

230 group, many indices were highly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient |r| >/= 0.80), making it

231 nced glaucoma group (133 eyes), superficial (Pearson correlation coefficient, r = -0.46, P < .001; pa

232 here was no correlation between IOP and ICP (Pearson correlation coefficient, r = 0.07; p = 0.59).

233 positive correlation between FFR and CT-FFR (Pearson correlation coefficient, R=0.64, P<0.0001).

234 ncipal component analysis weighting schemes (Pearson correlation coefficient, r=0.98).

235 ent correlation with absorbance-based assay (Pearson correlation coefficient, r=0.992).

236 DNA-RNA (R-loop) complex structures, with a Pearson correlation coefficient ranging from 0.775 to 0.

237 h moderately advanced stages of damage, with Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from 0.64 to 0.

238 Pearson correlation coefficient, receiver operating char

239 Although Pearson correlation coefficients relating the target and

240 PCA and Pearson correlation coefficient reveal that the darkest

241 Fisher's Z transformation indicated the Pearson correlation coefficient rho >/= 0.8 for all devi

242 related with tyrosine phosphorylation of AR (Pearson correlation coefficient rho = 0.71, P < 0.0001).

243 nd RT from CARTO and ECGI was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient, rho (AT) and rho (RT),

244 We show that the Pearson correlation coefficient, rho L, between two LOD

245 The Pearson correlation coefficient showed a cubic function

246 Pearson correlation coefficients showed that in Tween 20

247 ke and patient age was assessed by using the Pearson correlation coefficient test.

248 oposed topological approach has a 84% higher Pearson correlation coefficient than the current state-o

249 les were considered "preclinical." Using the Pearson correlation coefficient, the authors examined th

250 g order were the weighted kappa coefficient, Pearson correlation coefficient, the unweighted kappa co

251 nalyses were performed by using Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients to evaluate the relatio

252 The median Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.40 (range: -0.04 t

253 The average energy-adjusted Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.46 for comparative

254 For the 75 paired samples, the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.842.

255 For example, from 2017 to 2019, the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.86 (p-value< 0.05)

256 The Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.99 at the state le

257 The weighted Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for hospi

258 blication and to assess results over time; a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to assess

259 Pearson correlation coefficient was computed between the

260 A Pearson correlation coefficient was determined between t

261 A high Pearson correlation coefficient was obtained for the 2 r

262 Pearson correlation coefficient was used to analyze for

263 Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess cente

264 The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess the c

265 The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to measure corr

266 According to the Pearson correlation coefficients we obtained, the face m

267 Pearson correlation coefficient were 0.36 (p = 0.02) and

268 ction, the root mean square error (RMSE) and Pearson correlation coefficient were computed.

269 ionally, and compound annual growth rate and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to characteriz

270 er-Site Phase Coherence was observed: median Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.15 in unexposed

271 Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.71 (95% CI 0.29-

272 Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated and 95%

273 ghted and unweighted kappa coefficients, and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated as stat

274 Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for cor

275 Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to asse

276 At the optimal setting, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to asse

277 Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to comp

278 ng general linear modeling, and side-to-side Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated.

279 For pairwise correlations between variables, Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated.

280 nd GP to CA were calculated, and univariable Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated.

281 Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated.

282 Thereafter, several models based on Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated.

283 Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between b

284 In IgAN, the mean values of the Pearson correlation coefficients were higher for C3-IgA

285 Pearson correlation coefficients were measured using biv

286 Mixed models and Pearson correlation coefficients were used for body mass

287 Mean absolute error (MAE) and Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess mod

288 Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess rel

289 Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess the

290 n signed rank test and analysis of variance; Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate t

291 Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate t

292 Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate t

293 Pearson correlation coefficients were used to investigat

294 Cronbach alpha and pairwise Pearson correlation coefficients were used to measure in

295 baseline to 24 weeks for both BCVA and CST, Pearson correlation coefficients were: ME from RVO, -0.3

296 For baseline BCVA and CST, Pearson correlation coefficients were: ME from RVO, -0.5

297 Our model reaches 0.754 +/- 0.024 Pearson correlation coefficient when predicting yield in

298 nd DSN, our predicted response reached a 0.6 Pearson correlation coefficient with observed responses

299 e of stage III-IV cancer were compared using Pearson correlation coefficients with 95% CIs, linear re

300 Pearson correlation coefficients with corresponding p-va