ライフサイエンスコーパス: U test

1 tion volumes by tumor location (Mann-Whitney U test).

2 % CI, 0.19-0.21 mg/L; P < .001; Mann-Whitney U test).

3 nts given the placebo (P = .02, Mann-Whitney U test).

4 osocomial infections (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test).

5 ers) in the MTX arm (P = .0435, Mann-Whitney U test).

6 atics than controls (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

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

8 3%, range -13-16%; P = 0.029 by Mann-Whitney U test).

9 laria (P, >0.1 for all enzymes; Mann-Whitney U test).

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

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

12 or 31 subjects without (P=0.02, Mann-Whitney U test).

13 ence medians 1.9-4.7, p<0.0001. Mann-Whitney U test).

14 (P = 0.0068, all Mann-Whitney nonparametric U test).

15 ntrols (8.2+/-1.3, n=5, P<0.02, Mann-Whitney U test).

16 n that in group 2 (P<0.05 using Mann-Whitney U test).

17 p130 (0.833 mg ml-1) (P < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test).

18 spectively, p < .05 for both by Mann-Whitney U test).

19 234 + $12,146) costs (p < 0.01, Mann-Whitney U test).

20 n immunized animals (P = 0.014, Mann-Whitney U test).

21 parameters between the groups (Mann-Whitney U test).

22 OC [SD], 0.44 [0.02]; P = .007, Mann-Whitney U test).

23 ith undetectable VL (38.0 pg/mL) (P < .0001, U test).

24 mained asymptomatic (P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

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

26 nificant difference (P < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

27 ps were significant (P = 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).

28 18.5), respectively (P < 0.001; Mann-Whitney U test).

29 n lesion tissue (all P < 0.005, Mann-Whitney U-test).

30 (0.9; 0.3-2.4 mU/l; P < 0.005, Mann-Whitney U-test).

31 23.14, respectively (P < 0.01, Mann-Whitney U-test).

32 QR 507-694) (-31.5%, P = 0.001, Mann-Whitney U-test).

33 after RF ablation by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

34 nd continuous variables by the Mann--Whitney U test.

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

36 d with paired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

37 n included the median, IQR, and Mann-Whitney U test.

38 ared between diagnoses with the Mann-Whitney U test.

39 ation, Pearson chi(2) test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

40 hips were assessed by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

41 fference was analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

42 ith the Wilcoxon signed rank or Mann-Whitney U test.

43 d using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test.

44 strain ratio, analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

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

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

47 kers was investigated using the Mann-Whitney U test.

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

49 fferences of change scores with Mann-Whitney U test.

50 ompared between groups with the Mann-Whitney U test.

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

52 n correlation coefficient and a Mann-Whitney U test.

53 sitive control groups using the Mann-Whitney U test.

54 two-tailed Student's t-test or Mann-Whitney U test.

55 were compared with the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test.

56 4 years were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test.

57 ancer and healthy groups by the Mann-Whitney U test.

58 ences were determined using the Mann-Whitney U test.

59 computed by using the t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

60 ta were tested statistically by Mann-Whitney U test.

61 e independent samples t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

62 ng groups were sought using the Mann-Whitney U test.

63 ic regression analyses, and the Mann-Whitney U test.

64 re compared using chi-square and Whitney-Man-U test.

65 tatively and analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

66 ric data were assessed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

67 nt plans were assessed with the Mann-Whitney U test.

68 stical analysis was by ANOVA or Mann Whitney U test.

69 with the independent t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

70 regression, Student t test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

71 hose of normal subjects, by the Mann-Whitney U test.

72 mpared between groups using the Mann-Whitney U test.

73 red between groups by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

74 ates and HFO-rates were done by Mann-Whitney U test.

75 were compared using a Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test.

76 etween groups were assessed via Mann-Whitney U test.

77 mprove were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney U test.

78 erience were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

79 volumes were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

80 ascularization surgery by using Mann-Whitney U test.

81 which was compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

82 ere compared between groups via Mann-Whitney U test.

83 egion and division by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

84 (Pearson's coefficient) and the Mann-Whitney U test.

85 sample t test and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test.

86 compared with Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

87 nt assay and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

88 control mice with a two-tailed Mann-Whitney U test.

89 t and continuous variables with Mann-Whitney U test.

90 e range) and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

91 of bone were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

92 motor seizures were done with a Mann-Whitney U test.

93 tests were conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test.

94 o CT were compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

95 ders and nonresponders with the Mann-Whitney U test.

96 nding lesions were evaluated by Mann-Whitney U test.

97 ects were assessed by using the Mann-Whitney U test.

98 using the chi-squared test and Mann-Whitney U-test.

99 nchanging control genes using a Mann-Whitney U-test.

100 l questions were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests.

101 volumes were compared by use of Mann-Whitney U tests.

102 formed with the signed-rank and Mann-Whitney U tests.

103 ing multivariate analysis of variance, t, or U tests.

104 e two groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U tests.

105 using descriptive analyses and Mann-Whitney U tests.

106 performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.

107 ng were assessed using chi2 and Mann-Whitney U testing.

108 scimol during NMR conditioning and/or during US testing.

109 1) Kolmogorov-Smirnov test; 2) Mann-Whitney U test; 3) Pearson chi(2) test; 4) Kruskal-Wallis test;

110 the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test (alpha = 0.05).

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

112 I, was tested using a nonpaired Mann-Whitney U test, an analysis of covariance, and a Pearson chi2 te

113 Mann Whitney U test analysis found the following changes at 6 months

114 Statistical analyses included Mann-Whitney U test, analysis of variance, and linear regression.

115 ditions were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and chi(2) test.

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

117 roup differences were tested by Mann-Whitney U test and correlations by Spearman's rank.

118 ive and objective AEs using the Mann-Whitney U test and examined trends in the frequency of subjectiv

119 Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher exact test were used to assess group d

120 The Mann-Whitney U test and independent Student t test were used for nonp

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

122 le ranges and compared by using Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test.

123 The Mann-Whitney U test and linear regression model were used for statist

124 Univariate analysis was by Mann Whitney U Test and Multivariate analysis was by a stepwise appro

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

126 A Mann-Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristic analysis wa

127 ders were compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristic analysis.

128 stical analysis was assessed by Mann-Whitney U test and Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curv

129 The Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman correlation were used to evaluate st

130 Univariate analysis including Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's correlation was conducted on selec

131 etric statistics, including the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, were

132 sity index were tested with the Mann-Whitney U test and the Kruskal-Wallis test.

133 gent were compared by using the Mann-Whitney U test and the McNemar test.

134 The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test and the paired-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test w

135 ristics were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test and the Pearson chi(2) test.

136 Mann-Whitney U testing and receiver-operating-characteristic analysis

137 tient groups were compared with Mann-Whitney U tests and effect likelihood-ratio test.

138 ve value was investigated using Mann-Whitney U tests and receiver-operating-characteristic analysis.

139 p differences were tested using Mann-Whitney U tests and regression analyses.

140 analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman correlation analysis.

141 Mann-Whitney U tests and Spearman correlation were used for statistic

142 between health and asthma using Mann-Whitney U tests and the Jonckheere-Terpstra test (linear trend a

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

144 Agreement was better between two Doppler US tests and between two contrast-enhanced MR angiograph

145 th increases of 66% (P = 0.004, Mann-Whitney U test) and 21% (P = 0.07) for patients who received pla

146 rative analysis between groups (Mann-Whitney U test) and a correlation analysis between glycemia and

147 (0.06 versus 0.34 mSv; P=0.037, Mann-Whitney U test) and lower median costs ($934 versus $1275; P=0.0

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

149 uclear genomic cfDNA (p 10(-5), Mann-Whitney U Test), and an increased relative abundance of mitochon

150 cedural flow disruption scores (Mann-Whitney U test), and number of preventable failures (Fisher exac

151 lysed using Pearson chi(2), the Mann-Whitney U test, and binary logistic regression.

152 The Kaplan-Meier estimator, U test, and Cox regression analysis were used for statis

153 omparisons were performed using Mann-Whitney U test, and factors associated with development of postv

154 Kruskal-Wallis H test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test were used to compare the g

155 The Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test were used to look for stat

156 lyzed using the Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Fisher exact test.

157 with unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test, and linear regression was performed to examine f

158 exact test, Pearson chi2 test, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression.

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

160 xact test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Spearman rank correlation.

161 tical analysis, Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Spearman's correlation coefficient were used

162 reads were compared by using a Mann-Whitney U test, and the difference in prevalence of tumor respon

163 e is typically analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test, and the results are summarized by the mean of ra

164 s correlation coefficients, the Mann Whitney U test, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test.

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

166 ing Wilcoxon signed rank tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Fisher exact tests.

167 a statistic, regression models, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests.

168 5th, and 90th percentile, using Mann-Whitney U-test, and association between DAOH-90 and 1-and 5-year

169 is comprised paired t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, as well as Pearson r and Spearman rho for corre

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

171 were compared (paired t test or Mann-Whitney U test) at enrollment and after gD/AS04 vaccination, bef

172 ignificant difference (P >0.05, Mann-Whitney U test) between the S or F inserts in the amount of cont

173 hat CRM was abolished by inactivation during US testing but intact following inactivation during NMR

174 gnificant at 4 years (P = .036; Mann-Whitney U test) but had a similar occurrence of sunset glow fund

175 lative risk, and analyzed using Mann Whitney U test, Chi-square test, as appropriate, a P-value <=0.0

176 years) were compared by t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, chi-square, or Fisher's exact test.

177 was performed with the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test, chi2 test, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank te

178 aired nontumorous tissues was performed on a US test cohort of 84 patients with incident colon adenoc

179 A Mann-Whitney U test conducted on GenePy scores for this positive cont

180 A Mann-Whitney U test confirmed the proinflammatory response in VTRS1-i

181 wise tests between tumor types (Mann-Whitney U test), (d) relationships between fast fluid-attenuated

182 sing unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test, depending on data distribution.

183 E (p = 0.0002 vs control by the Mann-Whitney U test) enough to completely prevent fatal EAE, whereas

184 are paired samples, such as the Mann-Whitney U test (equivalent to the Wilcoxon rank sum test), the W

185 nges were investigated (ancova, Mann-Whitney U-test, Fisher exact test).

186 For statistic analyses Mann-Whitney U-test, Fisher's exact test and binary logistic regressi

187 test for categorical variables, Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables, and logistic regression

188 exact test for categorical and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables.

189 sed using independent t-test or Mann Whitney U test for non-parametric data.

190 t-test for parametric data and Mann-Whitney U test for non-parametric data.

191 rank test for paired data and a Mann-Whitney U test for nonpaired data.

192 test was used, followed by the Mann-Whitney U test for pairwise comparisons.

193 d for within-group comparisons; Mann-Whitney U tests for between-group differences.

194 d Chi-square, Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests for comparison of elective and emergent cases.

195 vs 30 min [5-90 min]; p<0.0001, Mann-Whitney U test); for each minute delay from onset of CSE to arri

196 A comparison between median values (U-test) highlighted statistically significant difference

197 lculated by unpaired t test (or Mann-Whitney U test in nonparametric data).

198 significant reduction (P <0.05, Mann-Whitney U test) in the amount of contamination for both inserts

199 Two-sided Mann-Whitney U test, independent samples t test, Fisher exact test, m

200 h QODD scores were tested using Mann-Whitney U tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, or Spearman's rank-correl

201 ification.Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test and Cuzick's test followed b

202 ons were made using the t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, linear mixed models, and generalized linear mode

203 s was significant (P = 0.005 on Mann-Whitney U test; mean ranks 13.9 and 6.3 [of 21], for juniors and

204 -sided t-tests (mean +/- SD) or Mann-Whitney U tests (median[IQR]) were applied, p-values were Bonfer

205 server agreement, McNemar test, Mann-Whitney U test, multiple regression analysis, Spearman correlati

206 tly higher median concentrations (p , 0.001, U test) of 8-OHdG in their mononuclear cells than their

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

208 ositive and -negative groups by Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate.

209 ositive and -negative groups by Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.

210 oma (AC), whereas VB was lower (Mann-Whitney U test or t test, P = .003, P = .036, and P = .019, resp

211 The Mann-Whitney U test or the chi2 test was used for calculating the dif

212 ied out using Student's t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, or chi-square test (significance, p < .05).

213 between both groups by t test, Mann-Whitney U test, or likelihood ratio chi-square test.

214 with analysis of variance, the Mann-Whitney U test, or the t test.

215 SMIC somatic missense variants (Mann-Whitney U test P < 2.2 x 10-16).

216 mong categories was proven with Mann-Whitney U test p value < 0.005.

217 rkinson's disease age at onset (Mann-Whitney U test p=0.001).

218 us 73 +/- 24 nmol L(-1) d(-1) , Mann-Whitney U-test p < 0.0001), and the South Atlantic Bight (20 +/-

219 n Tokoli to 5 AM after 3 years (Mann-Whitney U test, P < .0001).

220 reported in surgical journals (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.001).

221 emonstrated construct validity (Mann-Whitney U test, P < 0.05), and learning curves for novices plate

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

223 ol variants (0.02 median score; Mann-Whitney U test, P < 1 x 10(-16)).

224 id group 2 (n = 96, median = 9, Mann-Whitney U test, p <.0001).

225 wth in the upper tertile range (Mann-Whitney U test, p = 0.04) but not in the middle tertile (p = 0.9

226 ange: 30.5, 10.2 vs. 27.8, 8.8; Mann-Whitney U-test, P = 0.0006).

227 cantly fewer reactive epitopes (Mann-Whitney U test; P < 0.0001) relative to subjects with Lyme arthr

228 There were significant (Mann-Whitney U test; p < 0.02) decreases in total lengths of protein

229 The day-10 (Mann-Whitney U test; P = .012) and day-14 (P = .025) neutrophil count

230 er than did the naive controls (Mann-Whitney U test; P = 0.038).

231 d using chi-square analysis and Mann-Whitney U-tests; P < 0.05 was used to define significance.

232 s were compared within (t test) and between (U test) patients.

233 Mann-Whitney U tests, receiver operating characteristic analyses, Spe

234 uous variables were compared by Mann-Whitney U test (reported as median [first quartile-third quartil

235 by using the paired t test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively.

236 Mann-Whitney U tests resulted in the following P values for these pro

237 Mann-Whitney U test revealed a statistically significant association

238 Mann-Whitney U tests revealed that length of BE, size of hiatal herni

239 A Mann-Whitney U test showed that PGES was significantly longer in the

240 is ANOVA-on-ranks with post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests showed significant pairwise between-cluster diff

241 (ANOVA)-on-Ranks with post-hoc Mann-Whitney U-tests showed significant pairwise between-cluster diff

242 hot DWI were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test; significance was defined at P < .05.Results: MUS

243 he intervention group (P = .02, Mann-Whitney U test); similarly, mean (SD) parent-estimated child anx

244 egression analysis; P =.25-.75, Mann-Whitney U test; Spearman correlation coefficients between -0.33

245 lyses (Cohen kappa coefficient, Mann-Whitney U test, t tests, and intraclass correlation) were perfor

246 Laser-mediated tissue damage let us test the functional significance of these effects.

247 desaturase is active as a homodimer prompted us test the hypothesis that an archetypal integral membr

248 Combined with the Mann-Whitney U test, The variation laws of permeability performance o

249 VOCs were selected by U test to build a Probabilistic Neural Network (PNN) mod

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

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

252 test for continuous variables (Mann-Whitney U test used for nonnormally distributed variables).

253 skal-Wallis/Bonferroni-adjusted Mann-Whitney U test using statistical software.

254 A non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare parameters between the 2 g

255 The Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare the spatial errors.

256 The Mann-Whitney U test was carried out to test for significance of diffe

257 A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to test whether there was a perform

258 Mann-Whitney U test was performed to assess differences in number of

259 Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison among groups and Wilcoxon

260 Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons in sex and age.

261 The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons of variables.

262 used for significance, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for pairwise comparison of the groups.

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

264 Non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was used for within-group comparisons of disease

265 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess the difference between groups.

266 Mann-Whitney U test was used to assess the differences in the texture

267 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to check that the proposed super-resolut

268 An independent sample Mann Whitney U test was used to compare differences in ADCs, skewness

269 Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences in bacterial burd

270 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the distribution of grades at

271 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the median mRNA copy numbers

272 unctional development, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the medians of 2 groups and K

273 A Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the model estimated ratio of

274 A two-sided Mann-Whitney U test was used to detect differences in APT-weighted (A

275 asticatory performance, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine quality of life (P <0.05).

276 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to examine interocular differences in oc

277 The Mann-Whitney U test was used to test for differences between paired p

278 e not normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U-test was employed to assess the statistical validity o

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

280 Two-sample t test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis to compare dif

281 Linear regression and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to assess the association between the k

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

283 nt t, chi(2), Fisher exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests were applied to analyze the differences between

284 ve statistics and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U tests were applied.

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

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

287 y Bonferroni-corrected post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze the data.

288 Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare CS and absolute/scaled ILDs

289 Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare subgroups of patients.

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

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

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

293 is performed by an extension of Mann-Whitney U test which is based on weighted rank sums computed fro

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

295 Analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U tests with post hoc correction were used to assess dif

296 All 14 PSMs passed the u-test with residuals between the gravimetric and the Ge

297 ervariable Env sites (p = 0.50, Mann-Whitney U-test) with no significant relationship between epitope

298 1.4 in controls; P < 0.0001 by Mann-Whitney U test), with virtually no overlap between groups.

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

300 differentiated VCD vs. healthy (Mann-Whitney U-test: z = -5.390, P < 0.001) and asthma (z = -5.730, P