ライフサイエンスコーパス: absolute difference

1 ents of the magnitude of inequality than the absolute difference.

2 s, 0.27-1.62, p=0.006) in hospitals and 47% (absolute difference 0.033 cases per 10,000 IDs, 0.018-0.

3 e when samples were frozen within 24 h (mean absolute difference 0.2 pg/ml; intraindividual variation

4 onventional fractionated radiotherapy group (absolute difference 0.2%, 90% CI -3.0 to 2.6; hazard rat

5 acebo group (19.45% vs 19.82%, respectively; absolute difference 0.36%, 95% CI -6.07 to 7.38, p=0.92)

6 fL concentration significantly, either (mean absolute difference 0.7 pg/ml; intraindividual variation

7 MRSA prevalence density was reduced by 50% (absolute difference 0.94 cases per 1000 OBDs, 0.27-1.62,

8 d in 37 patients (5.3%) in the Xience group (absolute difference -0.3% [one-sided 95% upper confidenc

9 sus 9.3 days (8.7-9.9) in the control group (absolute difference -0.4, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.5; p=0.34).

10 in the VGLB group versus 61.7% in controls (absolute difference -0.6%; lower limit of 95% confidence

11 6.5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0.8% [95% CI -3.3 to 1.8], pnon-inf

12 video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy (absolute difference, 0 [95% CI, 0 to 0]; P = .95).

13 igned to placebo (Hodges-Lehmann estimate of absolute difference, 0 days; 96.2% confidence interval [

14 red with 0.85 in the placebo group (n = 97) (absolute difference, 0.09 [95% CI, -0.37 to 0.54] for 3

15 than surrogates' (C statistic, 0.83 vs 0.74; absolute difference, 0.094; 95% CI, 0.024-0.163; P = .00

16 red with 1.21 in the placebo group (n = 89) (absolute difference, 0.23 [95% CI, -0.35 to 0.82] for 3

17 g in interventional treatment (1.3% vs 0.8%; absolute difference, 0.52% [95% CI, -0.01% to 1.04%]; RR

18 ) but not among those with low-risk disease (absolute difference, 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -10.

19 ad a mean of 12.0 days (95% CI, 0 to 16.95) (absolute difference, 0.9 days [95% CI, -3.25 to 5.05]; a

20 ) and 91 of 416 patients with BiPAP (21.9%) (absolute difference, 0.9%; 95% CI, -4.9% to 6.6%; P = .0

21 odds ratio [AOR], 1.18 [95% CI, 1.10-1.28]; absolute difference, +0.68% [95% CI, 0.36%-1.01%]; numbe

22 6.6%; AOR, 1.00 [0.94-1.06]; nonsignificant absolute difference, -0.01% [-0.37% to 0.36%]).

23 rotid vs 0.3% for the transfemoral approach; absolute difference, -0.09% [95% CI, -0.37% to 0.19%]; R

24 f 236 (10.6%) in the placebo group had died (absolute difference, -0.2% [95% CI, -5.7% to 5.3%]; aOR,

25 dence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.14, P = 0.74; absolute difference, -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.

26 o 0.79]; P = .001), and death (0.4% vs 1.0%; absolute difference, -0.55% [95% CI, -0.98% to -0.11%];

27 tensive group vs 0.6% in the moderate group; absolute difference, -0.6%; 95% CI, -1.8% to 0.6%; P = .

28 ents (5.9%) in the standard-treatment group (absolute difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confide

29 0.37; 95% CI: 0.54, - 0.19; p < 0.0001; and absolute difference: - 0.21; 95% CI: - 0.32, - 0.10; p =

30 : - 8.31; 95% CI: - 13.8, - 2.85; p = 0.003; absolute difference: - 0.37; 95% CI: 0.54, - 0.19; p < 0

31 um concentrations of fT4, TT4, fT3, and TT3 [absolute difference: - 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI

32 cidence rate ratio 5.82 [95% CI 2.47-13.72]; absolute difference 1.0 [95% CI 0.3-2.6] events per 100

33 yngoscopy vs 83.2% with direct laryngoscopy; absolute difference 1.2% [95% CI, -6.3% to 8.6%]; P = .7

34 reduction compared with the control period (absolute difference 1.3 SDs, p<0.0001).

35 increased from 6.2% in 2009 to 7.5% in 2013; absolute difference 1.3% (95% CI, 1.30-1.40%; p < 0.0001

36 of 169 patients in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference 1.3% [95% CI -7.1% to 9.7%]; p=0.76)

37 % increase compared with the control period (absolute difference 1.9 SDs; p<0.0001]).

38 se (9.7 vs 8.6 deaths per 1000 person-years; absolute difference, 1.2 per 1000 person-years; hazard r

39 nce at 1 year after operation, 3.0% vs 1.3%; absolute difference, 1.7% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.2%]; hazard ra

40 gnificantly reduced hospital length of stay (absolute difference, 1.9 days; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.2 days),

41 irin and clopidogrel (AOR, 1.47 [1.16-1.86]; absolute difference, +1.67% [0.58%-3.00%]; NNH, 60).

42 harge (24.1% vs 27.8%; AOR, 1.14; 1.07-1.22; absolute difference, +1.99% [0.78%-3.22%]; number needed

43 .8 days vs 3.8 days for the intensive group (absolute difference, -1.0 days; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.2; P

44 %) in the saline group died in the hospital (absolute difference, -1.0% [95% CI, -3.3% to 1.2%]; RR,

45 7 to 0.72]; P < .001), stroke (1.3% vs 2.4%; absolute difference, -1.10% [95% CI, -1.79% to -0.41%];

46 .4 days vs 10.9 days in the intensive group (absolute difference, -1.5 days; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.3; P

47 f in-hospital stroke or death (1.6% vs 3.1%; absolute difference, -1.52% [95% CI, -2.29% to -0.75%];

48 ed with 136 (40%) of 336 in the IYCF groups (absolute difference 10%, 95% CI 2-17); and the prevalenc

49 renz group met the primary efficacy outcome (absolute difference 10%, 95% CI 3-18; p=0.0015); the dif

50 to 43 of 219 (19.6%) in the non-WASH group (absolute difference, 10.6% [95% confidence interval {CI}

51 icians vs 13.7% for unaffiliated clinicians (absolute difference, -10.9% [95% CI, -11.0% to -10.7%]),

52 r "minor" problems (95% CI -38.6% to -14.2%, absolute difference: -10,933 per year, 95% CI -15,995 to

53 disability-free survival at day 90 with MT (absolute difference 11%, adjusted OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.65 t

54 atin, and trastuzumab plus pertuzumab group (absolute difference -11.3 percentage points, 95% CI -20.

55 ed 46% (from 24.0% in 2010 to 35.3% in 2013; absolute difference, 11.3%; adjusted test for linear tre

56 the DHA group vs 31.4% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 11.5% [95% CI, 2.3% to 23.2%]; rela

57 ial diagnosis (43.8% vs 55.6%, respectively; absolute difference, 11.8%; 95% CI, 2.1%-21.5%).

58 ion start to 13.1% at intervention month 18 (absolute difference, -11.0%) for control practices; from

59 gepant group and 25.2% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 12.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 6.9

60 py group within+ 7 days after randomization (absolute difference, -12.4%; 95% CI, -23.5% to -1.3%; P

61 -risk (more residents-to-beds, more severe), absolute differences +13.9, +20.5 percentage-points.

62 ngle-dose and 3-dose regimens, respectively (absolute difference, 13% [95% confidence interval {CI},

63 were reported as receiving general payments (absolute difference, 13.3%; 95% CI, 13.1-13.6; odds rati

64 ventilation (54% vs 55%; p = 0.92; 95% CI of absolute difference, -13.8 to 12.4) but was associated w

65 on among men with intermediate-risk disease (absolute difference, 14.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.8

66 ose receiving a positive payment adjustment (absolute difference, 14.5% [95% CI, 14.3% to 14.6%]), an

67 han during control therapy (74.7% vs. 59.5%; absolute difference, 15.2 percentage points; 95% confide

68 ) for control practices; from 22.1% to 6.1% (absolute difference, -16.0%) for suggested alternatives

69 o -2.9%]; P < .001); and from 19.9% to 3.7% (absolute difference, -16.3%) for peer comparison (differ

70 ; P = .004, with imputation of missing data; absolute difference, 17.2%; 95% CI, 6.2% to 28.2%).

71 nfections (43/137 [31.4%] vs 63/128 [49.2%]; absolute difference, -17.8%; 95% CI, -30.2% to -5.4%; P

72 up were diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus (absolute difference 18.3 per 1000 person-years [95% CI 1

73 nce in 6-minute walk distance (399 vs 417 m; absolute difference, 18 m [95% CI, 6-30]; P = .30), afte

74 those receiving a bonus payment adjustment (absolute difference, 18.9% [95% CI, 18.6% to 19.1%]).

75 rences in trajectories); from 23.2% to 5.2% (absolute difference, -18.1%) for accountable justificati

76 the median center-level ITTS was 66.9% (mean absolute difference 19.6%, 95% limits of agreement 4.3 t

77 delayed initiation group (83 of 119 [69.8%]; absolute difference, -19.6%; 95% CI, -32.0% to -7.2%; P<

78 nts vs 37[27%] of 137 infants, respectively, absolute difference 2.65%, 95% CI -8.45 to 13.75).

79 rsons with more advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis (absolute difference 2.9 for fibrosis severity score [FIB

80 ; hazard ratio=0.88 [0.79-0.97] in women and absolute difference, 2%; hazard ratio=0.95 [0.91-0.998]

81 95% CI, -10.5 to 11.8) or high-risk disease (absolute difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -11.

82 56% vs 4.17% for within-sibpair differences; absolute difference, 2.40% [95% CI, 1.67%-3.21%]; HR, 1.

83 41]), in term-born children (8.89% vs 6.31%; absolute difference, 2.58% [95% CI, 1.92%-3.29%]; HR, 1.

84 aventricular tachyarrhythmia (3.1% vs. 0.4%; absolute difference, 2.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1

85 tion (42.1% vs 46.6%; AOR, 1.13 [1.08-1.17]; absolute difference, +2.23% [1.55%-2.92%]; number needed

86 ol (usual care) group (CI, 7.89% to 10.92%) (absolute difference, -2.01 percentage points [CI, -4.18

87 standard oxygen therapy (25.4 vs 23.2 days; absolute difference, -2.2 days; 95% CI, -0.1 to 4.6 days

88 mplications (10/181 [5.4%] vs 14/181 [7.7%]; absolute difference, -2.3% [95% CI, -7.4% to 2.8%]; P =

89 tensive group vs 4.9% in the moderate group; absolute difference, -2.4%, 95% CI, -7.1% to 2.2%) and b

90 direct laryngoscopy groups (67.7% vs 70.3%; absolute difference, -2.5% [95% CI, -11.9% to 6.9%]; P =

91 -145 mL) in the control group (P = .19), the absolute difference 20 mL (95% CI, -13 to 35 mL).

92 % for those with qSOFA score of 2 or higher (absolute difference, 21%; 95% CI, 15%-26%).

93 tients living in high-poverty neighborhoods (absolute difference, 21.8% [95% CI, 14.1%-29.4%]), had a

94 %] of 343 patients died vs 57 [60.6%] of 94; absolute difference 22.1% [95% CI 11.0-33.3]; adjusted h

95 terquartile range, 22 to 112), respectively (absolute difference, 22 hours; 95% CI, 14 to 30).

96 mpared with 26.7% receiving placebo (n = 60; absolute difference, 22.5%; 95% confidence interval, 5.6

97 22 patients (56.4%) in the face mask group (absolute difference, -22.3%; 95% CI, -43.3 to -1.4; P =

98 52 (60%) patients given adalimumab (adjusted absolute difference 23.3% [16.6-30.1]; p<0.0001).

99 ) of 304 patients given adalimumab (adjusted absolute difference 24.9% [95% CI 17.5-32.4]; p<0.0001),

100 n hospital market share (median, 28% vs 52%; absolute difference, 24%; 95% CI, -5% to 55%; P = .11);

101 es was 529 [92%] of 574 vs 387 [67%] of 574; absolute difference 25%, 95% CI 21 to 29; p<0.0001).

102 frequent with surgery than with observation (absolute difference, 26.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 19.

103 92/206 [45%]) than score (n = 34/206 [17%]; absolute difference 28% [95% CI, 20-37%]; p = 0.001).

104 interquartile range, 0 to 17), respectively (absolute difference, 28 hours; 95% CI, 22 to 34); the co

105 st and did not differ between women and men (absolute difference, 3%; hazard ratio=0.88 [0.79-0.97] i

106 he HR was not significant (14.59% vs 10.71%; absolute difference, 3.38% [95% CI, 2.95%-4.87%]; HR, 1.

107 7.8 per 100,000 (95% CI, 7.64-7.89) in 2013 (absolute difference, 3.3; 95% CI, 3.09-3.41) among adult

108 .4%) and 22 of 79 noncooled infants (27.9%) (absolute difference, 3.5%; 95% CI, -1% to 17%).

109 mendan group and 30.9% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 3.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.5

110 spectively, calculated by the Weibull model; absolute difference, 3.7 percentage points; 95% upper co

111 %] vs 17/179 [9.5%] for direct laryngoscopy; absolute difference, 3.8% [95% CI, -2.7% to 10.4%]; P =

112 sing group met at least 1 of the end points (absolute difference, 3.9% [95% CI, 0.7%-7.2%], P = .02;

113 (19.1%) in the NIV group were reintubation (absolute difference, -3.7%; 95% CI, -9.1% to infinity);

114 up vs 10.2% of infants in the placebo group (absolute difference, -3.9% [95% CI, -6.8% to 1.4%]; rela

115 vs 272 operations per hospital for 3 years; absolute difference, 31; 95% CI, -27.64 to 89.64; P = .3

116 per Medicare-eligible population in 3 years; absolute difference, 33.82; 95% CI, -84.08 to 16.43; P =

117 pectively, failed to recover renal function (absolute difference, -34.8%; 95% CI, -54.6% to -15.0%; P

118 25 by RECIST (24 [39%] of 61 vs none of 59; absolute difference 39% [95% CI 27-53]; p<0.0001).

119 ol period (monthly mean 4386; 32% reduction, absolute difference 4.2 SDs, p<0.0001).

120 ercial valve group (52 [13.8%] vs 35 [9.6%]; absolute difference 4.2, 95% CI -0.4 to 8.8 [upper confi

121 CI [0.8%, 4.1%]) in non-intervention sites (absolute difference 4.6%, P=0.025).

122 I [-9.1%, -3.9%]) at non-intervention sites (absolute difference 4.7%, P=0.092).

123 ing HSCT (8.7%) vs 1 control patient (4.5%) (absolute difference, 4.2% [95% CI, -14.2% to 22.6%]; P =

124 e SGRQ scores (30.9 vs 26.5 units; P < .001; absolute difference, 4.4 [95% CI, 2.2-6.6]) and mMRC sca

125 CI, 0.8% to 4.1%) in nonintervention sites (absolute difference, 4.6%; P = .025).

126 2 (22.7%) were seropositive postvaccination (absolute difference, 4.7% [95% CI, -1.4% to 10.8%]; P =

127 I, -9.1% to -3.9%) at nonintervention sites (absolute difference, 4.7%; P = .092).

128 tile range, 9-31] in the conventional group; absolute difference, -4 [95% CI, -54 to 46]; P = .66].

129 le range, 5.0 to 10.0) in the control group (absolute difference, -4.0 days; 95% CI, -4.7 to -3.3; P<

130 2; adjusted proportions, 22.7% versus 26.7%; absolute difference, -4.0%; 95% confidence interval, -7.

131 therapy and 68 (39%) with standard therapy (absolute difference, -4.2%; 95% CI, -14.3% to 6.0%).

132 roup and 18.2% (n = 8) for the helmet group (absolute difference, -43.3%; 95% CI, -62.4% to -24.3%; P

133 56 patients continuing adalimumab (adjusted absolute difference 45.0% [28.9-61.1]; p<0.0001) at week

134 $2141-$2314) among primary care physicians (absolute difference, $4651; 95% CI, $4014-$5288).

135 vs 59% (81/137) in the UC arm were in care (absolute difference 5%; 95%CI -6-16; p=0.38) and 57% (78

136 definition and 1.3% by the JNC7 definition (absolute difference, 5.2% [95% CI, 4.7%-5.7%]).

137 entire cohort of children (12.01% vs 6.45%; absolute difference, 5.56% [95% CI, 5.04%-6.19%]; adjust

138 5 hours (IQR, 10-47 hours) in the NIV group (absolute difference, -5 hours; 95% CI, -34 to 24 hours).

139 survived without bronchopulmonary dysplasia (absolute difference, -5.0% [95% CI, -11.6% to 2.6%]; rel

140 decreased from $16,466 to $10,528 (adjusted absolute difference-$5451, 95% CI -$7755 to -$3147), lea

141 2) of seropositive women in control clinics (absolute difference 56.8% [12.8-99.0]; p=0.0028).

142 nd 93.8% (85.0-98.9) in the control clinics (absolute difference 6.1% [95% CI 1.1-14.1]; p=0.00092).

143 vs 38/263 [14.4%] in the conventional group; absolute difference, 6.1% [95% CI, 0.7% to 11.6%]; P = .

144 5%] vs 5/179 [2.8%] for direct laryngoscopy; absolute difference, 6.7% [95% CI, 1.8% to 11.6%]; P = .

145 the standard oxygen therapy group had died (absolute difference, -6.5%; 95% CI, -16.0% to 3.0%; P =

146 on group and 82 (44.8%) in the oxygen group (absolute difference, -6.6 [95% CI, -16.6 to 3.4]; P = .2

147 p than in the surgery group (8.5% vs. 15.1%; absolute difference, -6.6 percentage points; 95% confide

148 group and 6.8 ng/mL in the 2000 IU/d group (absolute difference: 6.9; 95% CI: 4.5, 9.3 ng/mL).

149 than in the non-IYCF groups (24 [7%] of 329; absolute difference 7%, 95% CI 2-12).

150 CI [0.8%, 6.5%]) at non-intervention sites (absolute difference 7.0%, P=0.018).

151 ative reduction 86%, 90% CI 64-96, p=0.0001; absolute difference 7.8/100 person-years, 90% CI 4.3-11.

152 vs. 13 days [interquartile range, 11 to 14]; absolute difference, 7 days [95% confidence interval, 5

153 ngle-dose and 3-dose regimens, respectively (absolute difference, 7% [95% CI, -7% to 22%]; P = .49).

154 CI, 0.8% to 6.5%) at nonintervention sites (absolute difference, 7.0%; P = .018).

155 9%] vs 32 [12.2%] in the conventional group; absolute difference, 7.2% [95% CI, 2.5% to 12.2%]; P = .

156 gepant group and 12.0% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 7.6 percentage points; 95% confiden

157 are hospital (OR [95% CI]: 1.44 [1.42-1.47]; absolute difference: +7.4 percentage-points) and low soc

158 etween-group difference in LDL-C was -36.1%; absolute difference, -71.7 mg/dL.

159 etween-group difference in LDL-C was -37.8%; absolute difference, -75.8 mg/dL.

160 nd in 6 of 72 patients in the placebo group (absolute difference, 8.7% [95% CI, 1.8%-16.4%] from surv

161 nce interval (CI): - 0.12, - 0.01; p = 0.04; absolute difference: - 8.31; 95% CI: - 13.8, - 2.85; p =

162 in 109 (76.8%) in the axial-flow pump group (absolute difference, 9.4 percentage points; 95% lower co

163 ed 48% (from 21.4% in 2010 to 11.6% in 2013; absolute difference, -9.8%; adjusted test for linear tre

164 Adjusted absolute differences (95% confidence interval) in surviv

165 iving aspirin alone (AOR, 1.19 [1.06- 1.34]; absolute difference [95% CI], +0.68% [0.21%-1.20%]; NNH,

166 eir perceptions of operative risk increased [absolute difference (AD) = -29.6% from 1.0 standard devi

167 ional management practices (27.7% and 35.1%, absolute difference [AD] 7.3%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.73,

168 rn Africa than in black women in any region (absolute difference [AD] from black women in western Afr

169 vs 59% (81/137) in the UC arm were in care (absolute difference [AD], 5%; 95% confidence interval [C

170 The mean (SD) absolute difference and percentage difference between th

171 ganglion cell asymmetries were expressed as absolute difference and ratios between inferior hemisphe

172 s) determined by blinded investigators using absolute differences and relative risks, including two-s

173 iority margin of 2 percentage points for the absolute difference) and PLATO major or minor bleeding a

174 r rates of revascularization, although small absolute difference, and higher in-hospital mortality co

175 reement, 5 of the 11 measures, including the absolute difference, are retained, because they remain f

176 ] 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.98; p=0.0033), with an absolute difference at 5 years of 3.1% (95% CI 1.3-4.9)

177 therapy (HR 1.22, 1.05-1.42; p=0.0098), with absolute differences at 5 years of -5.8% (-11.9 to 0.3)

178 ractionated group (HR 0.83, 0.74-0.92), with absolute differences at 5 years of 8.1% (3.4 to 12.8) an

179 optimal mean arterial blood pressure and the absolute difference between clinically observed mean art

180 Comatose neurocritically ill adults with an absolute difference between clinically observed mean art

181 atio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.04-4.41; p = 0.04) and absolute difference between clinically observed mean art

182 e noninferiority margin corresponds to a 12% absolute difference between groups in Functional Assessm

183 cally meaningful efficacy was defined as 30% absolute difference between groups.

184 also had markedly better calibration (median absolute difference between observed and predicted 180-d

185 alidation with excellent calibration (median absolute difference between observed and predicted 30-da

186 The absolute difference between risk-adjusted mortality rate

187 We used a non-inferiority margin of 4.5% (absolute difference between rivaroxaban and fondaparinux

188 The mean +/- standard deviation absolute difference between the CT and (3)He MR imaging

189 ct volume (r = 0.73, p < 0.0001); the median absolute difference between the observed and predicted v

190 oup and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5.3% [9

191 Mean absolute difference between the VNC and unenhanced atten

192 The absolute differences between calculated and manufacturer

193 secondary end points, the least-square mean absolute differences between groups all favored eliglust

194 Absolute differences between predicted and actual 1-year

195 Models were used to derive the estimated absolute differences between schools that closed and sch

196 If the absolute differences between the percentages of examinat

197 nd within similar geographic areas, although absolute differences between these outcomes at VA and no

198 erall survival was seen with exemestane; the absolute difference (between exemestane and tamoxifen) a

199 The data corresponded to an absolute difference (between exemestane and tamoxifen) a

200 bstantial to almost perfect, and the average absolute difference (Delta) from the reference observer

201 and 125 of 456 (27.4%) in the placebo group (absolute difference for 50 mg vs placebo, 11.5%; 95% CI,

202 and 65 of 456 (14.3%) in the placebo group (absolute difference for 50 mg vs placebo, 7.5%; 95% CI,

203 (172 of 360 patients) in the control group (absolute difference for intervention vs. control, 14 per

204 al care group (including 61 deaths [15.3%]) (absolute difference for the primary end point, 2.8% [95%

205 meter (LVEDD) after 5 years, measured as the absolute difference from baseline, which was evaluated b

206 g modalities, OCT recorded the smallest mean absolute difference from the reference measurement with

207 For the most common SPMs in AYAs, the absolute difference in 5-year survival was 42% lower for

208 The absolute difference in ADCs (right branch - left branch)

209 methylated CpGs (DMCs, adjusted p < 0.01 and absolute difference in average beta-value > 0.15), of wh

210 authors primarily assessed variation as the absolute difference in BP divided by the mean over 2 seq

211 vided DeltaEpsilon values >12, indicating an absolute difference in color.

212 The absolute difference in cumulative incidence of type 2 DM

213 The absolute difference in fall incidence was 0.74 (95% CI,

214 requentist analyses yielded similar results (absolute difference in mortality with ZMapp, -15 percent

215 clinical outcomes significantly favoured MT (absolute difference in mRS 0-2 of 22% and adjusted OR 4.

216 The NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest-

217 1-0.63; p<0.0001), with a 26% (95% CI 13-39) absolute difference in patients who avoided permanent co

218 T images was computed as the normalized mean absolute difference in PET signal intensity between a me

219 The absolute difference in proportion of LTs performed for u

220 Within each group, the absolute difference in proportional use of devices betwe

221 other was in the worst-performing quartile (absolute difference in readmission rate, 2.0 percentage

222 A significant absolute difference in response rates was observed at mo

223 oup (relative risk, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.7; absolute difference in risk, -0.4 percentage points; 95%

224 group and in 1 (0.1%) in the control group (absolute difference in risk, 0 percentage points; 95% CI

225 6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.4 to 6.8; absolute difference in risk, 0.3 percentage points; 95%

226 d in 42 men (11.4%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 4.0 percentage points; 95%

227 245 of 367 (66.8%) assigned to observation (absolute difference in risk, 5.5 percentage points; 95%

228 lic blood pressure (SBP) was assessed as the absolute difference in SBP divided by the mean over two

229 We calculated the percentage change and absolute difference in SD units for the number of regist

230 The absolute difference in survival did not change after pat

231 The absolute difference in the 3-year progression-free survi

232 Absolute difference in the change between groups was 9.1

233 0.001); the between-group least-squares mean absolute difference in the LDL cholesterol level was -13

234 In the overall sample, the absolute difference in the prevalence of use between the

235 The absolute difference in the proportion of positive blood

236 The absolute difference in the risk of perinatal depression

237 nferiority was determined by calculating the absolute difference in the risk of the primary outcome,

238 nferiority was determined by calculating the absolute difference in the risk of the primary outcome;

239 ifference in the ADC value, thickness or the absolute difference in thickness between the two groups.

240 The absolute difference in this survival rate between these

241 The mean absolute difference in uptake of HIV testing between the

242 The average value of the absolute differences in [max, mean] dose is found to be

243 However, no absolute differences in cytokine production between the

244 Absolute differences in life expectancy, healthy life ex

245 Estimated 5-year absolute differences in local relapse compared with the

246 Absolute differences in nonaccess site bleeding were neg

247 normal RR intervals (SDRR) and percentage of absolute differences in normal RR intervals greater than

248 NIMs or hazard ratios that reflected larger absolute differences in OS or PFS between arms.

249 The absolute differences in PFS were -30% (95% CI -52 to -8)

250 The absolute differences in proportional use from the expect

251 re (AQuA)-HiChIP, an advance that allows the absolute differences in protein-anchored chromatin inter

252 However, absolute differences in richness are still likely to cha

253 Absolute differences in STI acquisition between groups v

254 The objective was to compare absolute differences in the prevalence of Indigenous-rel

255 Absolute differences in the rates of any breastfeeding r

256 Therefore, absolute differences in VBD between FFDM, DBT, and MR im

257 re, and within-person clustering, to provide absolute differences in width and area, and percentage d

258 ide percentage differences in tortuosity and absolute differences in width.

259 ficients were identical between the methods (absolute difference <10(-7)).

260 omparing the root mean square (RMS) and mean absolute difference (MAD) between the model estimates an

261 tile range, 0 to 26.2), respectively, for an absolute difference of -0.3 days (95% confidence interva

262 ore intensive glucose control resulted in an absolute difference of -0.90% (95% CI -1.22 to -0.58) in

263 .2%) of 229 participants in the placebo arm (absolute difference of -12.2% [-21.4%, -3.0%], P =; .010

264 ter than placebo in improving MRI-PDFF by an absolute difference of -3.4% (95% confidence interval [C

265 in 252 (6.6%) in the glargine group, for an absolute difference of 1.7 percentage points (rate ratio

266 in the once-every-3-weeks arm, leading to an absolute difference of 14.6% (95% CI, 5.7% to 23.5%); P

267 bation than in the placebo group (47.7%); an absolute difference of 19.3% (95% CI, 5.0%, 33.6%) repre

268 ld higher in the intervention group (average absolute difference of 2.86 points; 95% confidence inter

269 tuximab and placebo groups, respectively, an absolute difference of 22% (CI, 9% to 36%) with a hazard

270 using a margin of noninferiority equal to an absolute difference of 25%.

271 The absolute difference of 7% (95% CI, -2% to 16%) correspon

272 ears after randomization and a between-group absolute difference of 7% as the noninferiority margin.

273 490 (83.7%) of 30 456 non-PHS-IR kidneys-an absolute difference of 7%.

274 plus macrolide combination therapy, with an absolute difference of 7.6% (1-sided 90% CI upper limit,

275 e assessed control group to 41% (77 of 187) (absolute difference of 8%).

276 4), followed by log IT/IN index (0.725), and absolute difference of IT-SN GCIPL thickness (0.715).

277 ation following lumpectomy; however, with an absolute difference of less than 1% in the 10-year cumul

278 ne group compared with in the placebo group (absolute difference of log(10) ratio of vaccine peptide-

279 did participants who were give vaccine only (absolute difference of log(10)-fold change of 0.64 [95%

280 r-15 examination to Y25 was evaluated as the absolute difference of log-transformed CAC from year-15

281 All absolute difference of temperature pairs between tempera

282 compared with esophageal temperature with an absolute difference of temperature pairs equal to or low

283 e -0.00 degrees C +/- 0.36 degrees C with an absolute difference of temperature pairs equal to or low

284 The absolute difference of the area of EZ loss on test-retes

285 opy compared with a control population, with absolute differences of -7.4 percentage points (95% CI,

286 A non-inferiority margin of absolute differences of 20% was used.

287 The absolute differences of 5% and 2%, respectively, were st

288 to emergency departments for minor problems (absolute difference: - pound767,976, - pound1,130,767 to

289 s correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.71), with absolute differences ranging from zero to 4-degrees in 8

290 on of the Raman OH-band, (ii) the integrated absolute difference spectrum, (iii) the intensity ratio

291 0.1%) and 7.9% (95% CI, 3.9%, 12.0%) larger (absolute difference) than white men.

292 that are closer to those obtained by PSG, in absolute difference, than the same estimates from their

293 after 40 Gy was 2.1% (1.4 to 3.1); estimated absolute differences versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were -

294 e receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was -2.4 percentage points (95% conf

295 val, 0.78-0.94); in patients without DM, the absolute difference was 0.7% (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% co

296 For the intention-to-treat population, the absolute difference was 1.6% (95% CI, -0.9% to 4.1%); th

297 rimary arrhythmia: 25 mm (95% CI, 22-28)-the absolute difference was 7-9 mm.

298 ightly underestimated this estimate, but the absolute difference was only +/-0.2 percentage points.

299 ntly lower in CCSs than in controls, but the absolute difference was small (0.7%).

300 that in the other three groups, although the absolute difference was within the 5-percentage-point ma

301 Median absolute differences were 39% (0.17 h(-1)) for Tier 1, 1