ライフサイエンスコーパス: random assignment

1 bo-controlled treatment with nicotine patch (random assignment).

2 s progression free and alive at 1 year after random assignment).

3 pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment.

4 areas of the country but not in others, via random assignment.

5 ainly in the first 6 months to 2 years after random assignment.

6 Analyses are from the time of random assignment.

7 rol treatment for individual patients before random assignment.

8 Treatment was determined through random assignment.

9 nt was progression-free survival (PFS) after random assignment.

10 progression-free survival (PFS) from date of random assignment.

11 ks and progression-free survival (PFS) after random assignment.

12 and body weight, as assessed 96 hours after random assignment.

13 sulin and insulin resistance up to 6 y after random assignment.

14 ostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing before random assignment.

15 ne loading dose, which was determined before random assignment.

16 survival for up to 5 years from the date of random assignment.

17 ombined median = 14.7 months; P = .61) after random assignment.

18 oint was overall survival (OS) measured from random assignment.

19 on defects underwent CTG or GTR according to random assignment.

20 ding of key components of the RCT, including random assignment.

21 3 EP patients and 352 EC patients) underwent random assignment.

22 nical nodal status, age, or calendar year of random assignment.

23 ment of Cancer core QoL questionnaire before random assignment.

24 ent, at 6 months, and at 1 and 2 years after random assignment.

25 id not return to normal levels 2 years after random assignment.

26 ce with daily living for up to 2 years after random assignment.

27 valproex treatment and 6 weeks of placebo by random assignment.

28 initial premedication regimen was chosen by random assignment.

29 ally every other week starting at 3 mo after random assignment.

30 rs or their congregations were not masked to random assignment.

31 line assessments were completed, followed by random assignment.

32 Three infants died from sepsis after random assignment.

33 atients with T3-T4 tumors underwent a second random assignment 1:1 between standard RT dose 68.0 Gy t

34 d dosing once a week for 5 weeks followed by random assignment (1:1:1) at week 6 to one of three unbl

35 Random assignment 2:1 to CGM (n = 105) or usual care (co

36 After baseline measurements and random assignment, 35 nonmedicated healthy postmenopausa

37 Women were assessed before random assignment, 4 months later (immediately post-inte

38 Of those patients who died by 6 months post-random assignment, 40% had documented disease recurrence

39 Before random assignment, 933 participants (172 women) in the A

40 9) were randomly allocated (stratified block random assignment) according to age and body mass index

41 tion (CASP)-like sensitivity measurement the random assignment achieved 6%, FSSP-59% and the optimum

42 Stratified random assignment allocated patients 2:1:1 to SOC (contr

43 Results Random assignment allotted 165 patients to each arm; arm

44 st compared OS between arms as measured from random assignment (alpha = .0498).

45 eding phase I dose escalation and subsequent random assignment among the dose levels.

46 Primary end points, assessed before random assignment and 4 and 13 months later, included me

47 were assessed via patient self-report before random assignment and 7 to 28 days later.

48 f eight (80%) of the 10 clinical trials with random assignment and all eight (100%) of the studies wi

49 executive functions was administered before random assignment and at 12 and 24 weeks.

50 crine subscale (ES) were administered before random assignment and at predefined follow-up times.

51 ber of days a patient experienced an AE post-random assignment and before disease progression.

52 ith the goal of minimizing the complexity of random assignment and data analyses of a platform trial.

53 linical condition of patients at the time of random assignment and the polarity of symptoms at follow

54 om assignment of patients who underwent both random assignments and who were assigned to ABMT/cis-RA

55 to random assignment, time from diagnosis to random assignment, and PSA velocity.

56 irmed lesions on any scan >/= 12 weeks after random assignment, and/or progression in nodes or viscer

57 ition severely limits matching compared with random assignment as an evaluation estimator.

58 ere assessed from the date of study entry or random assignment, as appropriate.

59 as the incidence of CWM within 6 months from random assignment, assessed in the intention-to-treat po

60 mg once-daily upadacitinib per prespecified random assignment at baseline.

61 nine percent of parents failed to understand random assignment at both times.

62 blind, partial-crossover trial with a second random assignment at year 2 for those who initially rece

63 icle reports on results from baseline before random assignment, at 6 months, and at 1 and 2 years aft

64 self-reported outcomes were assessed before random assignment, at the end of chemotherapy, and at th

65 iefly to (a) practical problems implementing random assignment, (b) important uncontrolled sources of

66 The primary end point was OS 18 months post-random assignment based on an intent-to-treat analysis.

67 Patients were stratified before random assignment based on number of previous chemothera

68 Empowerment Questionnaire), assessed before random assignment (baseline, T0) and after 4 (T1), 6 (T2

69 Assessments were completed before random assignment, before cycle 4, and 3 to 6 weeks and

70 he QLQ-C30 and the PR25 were administered at random assignment, before cycle four (week 10) and cycle

71 454 (58% of eligible) patients consented to random assignment between CABG and PCI.

72 vival (OS) was significantly higher for each random assignment by a test of the log(-log(.)) transfor

73 sed the impact of treatment by choice versus random assignment by comparing the results in the regist

74 We did the random assignment by use of a minimisation method with a

75 Random assignment (by a validated computer-based system)

76 Block random assignment (by breast density and hormone therapy

77 r CDAI >200; clinical management group after random assignment: CDAI decrease of <100 points compared

78 vious week; clinical management group before random assignment: CDAI decrease of <70 points compared

79 At random assignment, characteristics of the 2 groups were

80 The design involved a random-assignment, double-blind, placebo-controlled para

81 In a 6-week random-assignment, double-blind, placebo-controlled tria

82 Using random assignment, each respondent was presented one cas

83 Pain and analgesic use were measured at random assignment, every cycle for eight cycles, and 1 y

84 pecifically, we completed a meta-analysis of random-assignment experiments testing the effects of mat

85 groups (tight control group before and after random assignment: faecal calprotectin >/=250 mug/g, C-r

86 With minimum post-random assignment follow-up of 13.5 months, median PFS w

87 or the experimental arm and advised stopping random assignment for early PET-negative patients.

88 int was progression-free survival (PFS) from random assignment for maintenance placebo versus sunitin

89 A total of 580 tumors were evaluated before random assignment for stromal TILs and lymphocyte-predom

90 With random assignment, half the participants used the sonic

91 ligibility criteria were clinical trial with random assignment; health care quality improvement inter

92 During the sixth week after random assignment, hot flash scores were reduced by 55%

93 A post-random assignment hypothesis that was generated by multi

94 r genomic DNA analysis were collected before random assignment in 169 patients.

95 tisol and leptin levels were assessed before random assignment in 32 weight-recovered subjects with a

96 nrolled in year 2 (Y2), receiving vaccine by random assignment in both years.

97 ith adverse glycemic effects up to 6 y after random assignment in postmenopausal women.

98 We used the random assignment in the lottery to calculate the effect

99 men age 40 to 59 years who gave blood before random assignment in the Physicians' Health Study, a ran

100 Two patients (age 26 and 35 years at random assignment) in the control group had spontaneous

101 in CTC conversion, bone biomarkers, and post-random assignment incidence of SSEs but not PSA outcomes

102 Eligibility after surgery for good response random assignment included >/= two cycles of preoperativ

103 Random assignment into 2 groups: 40-mg triamcinolone ace

104 Random assignment into 4 groups: daily use of broad-spec

105 Before random assignment, investigators chose capecitabine (Cap

106 Before random assignment, investigators chose capecitabine, a t

107 e components of structured social relations, random assignment is not plausible even as a hypothetica

108 technique for statistical adjustment for non-random assignment is through the use of a two-stage anal

109 er the predetermined observation times after random assignment; it was 0.31% at 24 hours, 0.26% at 7

110 2,260 registered patients; 716 consented to random assignment (MAP, n = 359; MAP plus IFN-alpha-2b,

111 ), with a median follow-up of 39 months from random assignment, median PFS was not reached for lenali

112 ceived the same induction chemotherapy, with random assignment (N = 379) to consolidation with myeloa

113 Changes in understanding of random assignment occurred in 19% of parents, with 17% o

114 227 patients to acupuncture plus usual care (random assignment of 1:3 respectively) with minimization

115 this hypothesis directly, confirming that a random assignment of 27% from the total population produ

116 s The study was prematurely closed after the random assignment of 270 patients: 129 to chemotherapy p

117 (P = .81) with 2-year FFS rates from second random assignment of 77%, 79%, 74%, and 45% for R-CHOP,

118 With a median follow-up after random assignment of 78 months, 5-year OS and progressio

119 ping automated endothelial keratoplasty with random assignment of a donor cornea with a PT of 7 days

120 DSAEK with random assignment of a donor cornea with PT of 0 to 7 da

121 Random assignment of anemic participants to intervention

122 Random assignment of biological data to structure leads

123 standardized blood pressure techniques, and random assignment of children in intervention trials.

124 ims data from Oregon and exploited the quasi-random assignment of DACA eligibility among mothers with

125 rences approach, which serves to approximate random assignment of exposure across the population and

126 Random assignment of eyes (1 per participant) to afliber

127 We exploit random assignment of independent observers to 156 of 3,1

128 in life, but previous studies have not used random assignment of infant diet with prospective follow

129 Random assignment of initial antidepressant prescription

130 tion using a natural experiment based on the random assignment of judges to criminal cases.

131 , we leverage a natural experiment using the random assignment of judges with different propensities

132 itions were included: unclustered data and a random assignment of locations to clusters.

133 n these groups were of the same magnitude as random assignment of neighborhoods would have generated,

134 up 9413, a 2 x 2 factorial trial, included a random assignment of neoadjuvant or concurrent versus ad

135 were fractured via mechanical testing, with random assignment of one femur from each pair to the sin

136 Exploiting the quasi-random assignment of patients to a clinician within an U

137 Random assignment of patients to treatment groups was no

138 The 5-year OS from the second random assignment of patients who underwent both random

139 luate the outcome of physician-guided versus random assignment of percutaneous transluminal coronary

140 rch designs, however, have not leveraged the random assignment of police-public contact to identify t

141 n silico HCV-infected patients, generated by random assignment of realistic host and viral kinetic pa

142 Our method allowed random assignment of stimulus monkeys to ranks in an art

143 The dates of the random assignment of the first subject and the last subj

144 emporaneously controlled clinical trial with random assignment of the intervention; electronic distan

145 defined relapses occurred or 1.5 years after random assignment of the last patient enrolled, whicheve

146 At a minimum follow-up time (ie, time from random assignment of the last patient to data cutoff) of

147 PFS) and overall survival (OS) 6 years after random assignment of the last patient were compared by u

148 e) until recurrence or up to 21 months after random assignment of the last patient.

149 A yes/no question was used with random assignment of the starting bids.

150 assigned treatment within the first year of random assignment of treatment (19% of the exemestane gr

151 mitigate potential bias associated with non-random assignment of treatment duration.

152 nt difference in event-free survival despite random assignment of treatment to 2,848 patients, 1,001

153 of the observed covariates; however, unlike random assignment of treatments, the propensity score ma

154 a 1:1 ratio to either AHT for 5 years after random assignment or no AHT (control).

155 ion or further mastectomy within 6 months of random assignment, or a pathologically avoidable mastect

156 roup than in the NTC group at 6 months after random assignment (P = .0267), with patients with sASCT

157 (better) in the NTC group at 100 days after random assignment (P = .0496), but not at later time poi

158 The study was a 3-week double-blind, random-assignment, parallel-group, placebo-controlled in

159 By random assignment, patients received either 200 mg DOXY

160 s with the following features were included: random assignment, placebo or other adequate control, pu

161 A second random assignment (R-C) compared docetaxel-capecitabine

162 In multivariate analysis, IDA random assignment remained associated with a higher cure

163 Analysis partitioned at 2.5 years after random assignment showed that the on-treatment benefit o

164 an analysis that is timed from enrollment or random assignment, such as disease-free or overall survi

165 and all eight (100%) of the studies without random assignment suggested that psychotherapy reduces t

166 A follow-up experiment using random assignment suggests that priming underlies these

167 al Assessment of Cancer Therapy) from before random assignment (T1) to the 3-month follow-up (T3) wer

168 n at least 2 controlled clinical trials with random assignment that include a control condition of ps

169 Despite random assignment, the baseline score on the Mini-Mental

170 Before random assignment, the surgeon indicated whether the pat

171 etic resonance angiography within 30 days of random assignment, the TAMV was significantly higher in

172 Because most eligible patients refused random assignment, the trial was changed in 2001 to a co

173 very cycle for eight cycles, and 1 year from random assignment; the QLQ-C30 and the PR25 were adminis

174 variability was evaluated from 3 months into random assignment through the use of various measurement

175 the end of the intervention (4 months after random assignment, time 2) and one 2 months later (time

176 y, time from androgen deprivation therapy to random assignment, time from diagnosis to random assignm

177 time-to-event end points, each defined from random assignment: time to immune checkpoint inhibitor (

178 y assigned to PCV (224 patients) or TMZ (sub-random assignment: TMZ-5 [200 mg/m(2) for 5 days, 112 pa

179 Random assignment to 0.625 mg/d of conjugated equine est

180 Random assignment to 1 of 3 dosing regimens of selepress

181 After random assignment to 1 of 3 groups, the adolescents list

182 ian follow-up of 11 years (IQR 10.09-11.53), random assignment to 1 year of trastuzumab significantly

183 Consortium Protocol 00-01 were eligible for random assignment to 1) dexamethasone or prednisone, adm

184 Random assignment to 2 treatment groups receiving either

185 Defibrillation threshold testing and random assignment to a control group were not performed.

186 ttention to estimated event frequency and/or random assignment to a control group.

187 edicted cardiovascular mortality better than random assignment to active drug or placebo over 3 years

188 l-group, double-blind controlled trials with random assignment to adjunctive atypical antipsychotic o

189 Random assignment to aflibercept, 2.0 mg; bevacizumab, 1

190 ouble-blind, controlled clinical trials with random assignment to an antidepressant medication or pla

191 Random assignment to an intensive or standard SBP goal (

192 Over 12 years of follow-up, random assignment to aspirin was associated with a relat

193 Random assignment to begin inpatient rehabilitation on p

194 Random assignment to BLRc or R&R and masked examinations

195 Random assignment to CGM (n = 79) or usual care (control

196 Random assignment to chlorthalidone, amlodipine, or lisi

197 at baseline and at least at one point after random assignment to clozapine, olanzapine, risperidone,

198 Random assignment to continue 2 hours of daily patching

199 Random assignment to daily oral mirtazapine (30 mg) or p

200 overall survival (OS), defined as time from random assignment to death (any cause), and relapse-free

201 al, a secondary end point, was measured from random assignment to death as a result of any cause.

202 Random assignment to either a self-help program (n = 212

203 nse to citalopram, patients who consented to random assignment to either cognitive therapy or alterna

204 nical trial were followed for 9 months after random assignment to either vitrectomy or tap/biopsy.

205 Block random assignment to emotion arousal manipulation and ea

206 t possible, researchers must control for non-random assignment to experimental groups.

207 We review studies with random assignment to experimental manipulations of consc

208 r-free interval (BCFI), defined as time from random assignment to first occurrence of invasive locore

209 e first surgical treatment (test or control; random assignment to first treatment) performed as more

210 We find that random assignment to FT significantly decreases the prob

211 ) was designed to assess the effect of prior random assignment to hormone therapy (HT) (conjugated eq

212 Before random assignment to infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin

213 were followed for a mean of 3.2 years after random assignment to intensive lifestyle intervention, m

214 rence among patients who recurred found that random assignment to interferon treatment (P =.009) and

215 oint was local DFS, defined as the time from random assignment to local disease recurrence or death.

216 Random assignment to low-dose CT or chest radiography wi

217 Random assignment to mailed FIT outreach (n = 2400), mai

218 Random assignment to maintenance antidepressant pharmaco

219 Random assignment to medical therapy alone (602 patients

220 urve = 6) and paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)), with random assignment to one of the following three erlotini

221 ous: it had a large number of subjects, used random assignment to one of three instructions, included

222 Random assignment to one of three study groups: 12.5 mg

223 e- and double-vessel disease were treated by random assignment to percutaneous transluminal coronary

224 ree survival (FFS), defined as the time from random assignment to progression, relapse, or death, whi

225 fy a subgroup of patients who benefited from random assignment to prompt coronary revascularization.

226 improving (with resumption if worsening) and random assignment to prompt or deferred (>/=24 weeks) fo

227 rction, or stroke; we then evaluated whether random assignment to prompt revascularization reduced th

228 nts with abnormal troponin T concentrations, random assignment to prompt revascularization, as compar

229 point was radiographic PFS (rPFS; time from random assignment to radiologic progression or death) pe

230 Random assignment to ranibizumab every 4 weeks until no

231 Random assignment to receive a housing voucher to move i

232 We analysed children on the basis of their random assignment to receive dihydroartemisinin-piperaqu

233 larger decrease in the sCD14 level included random assignment to receive EVG/c/FTC/TDF, higher basel

234 and genotype data, lower body mass index and random assignment to receive lopinavir/ritonavir were as

235 Random assignment to receive placebo or canakinumab (50,

236 relapse-free survival, defined as time from random assignment to relapse or death (any cause).

237 index did not differ significantly following random assignment to six months of TC vs. a waitlist con

238 ensity scores to account for bias due to non-random assignment to SNB vs SNB + AD.

239 We used random assignment to study its impact across 200 village

240 We defined treatment as random assignment to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine or dihydr

241 EFS was defined as the time from random assignment to the date of first evidence of disea

242 d utility were longitudinally assessed, from random assignment to the follow-up visit at 8 +/- 2 mont

243 f a high-SFA (HS) diet and after 24 wk after random assignment to the HS diet or diets that contained

244 tion and to examine the relationship between random assignment to the intervention and men's past-yea

245 ere abstinent for a mean of 2 weeks prior to random assignment to the placebo or 20- or 80-mg/d dose

246 Six of seven patients removed from random assignment to treatment because of cardiac deteri

247 tudy limitations (small sample size, lack of random assignment to treatment groups, and differential

248 high, especially in the first 3 months after random assignment to treatment groups.

249 Random assignment to treatment was between ifosfamide 2.

250 logy Group Protocol POG 9404, which included random assignment to treatment with or without dexrazoxa

251 Women could elect to receive calcium plus random assignment to vitamin D or placebo.

252 Random assignment to weight loss compared with weight ma

253 ents who had bcl-2 PCR-detectable disease at random assignment, treatment significantly prolonged med

254 ects participated in a 12-month double-blind random-assignment trial comparing clozapine and haloperi

255 Previously, a double-blind, random-assignment trial of the novel antipsychotic olanz

256 combined modality therapy of chemoradiation, random assignment trials have demonstrated an improvemen

257 Those who responded (N=292) underwent random assignment, under double-blind conditions, to con

258 or intense pregnancy surveillance alone from random assignment until 36 weeks' gestation.

259 relevant study personnel were masked to the random assignment until completion of the study at month

260 progression-free survival 1 (PFS1; time from random assignment until the first progression or death),

261 Progression-free survival 2 (PFS2; time from random assignment until the second progression or death)

262 were participants in a 15-site double-blind, random-assignment Veterans Administration trial comparin

263 All cause mortality within 30 days of random assignment was 13% on BSC and 7% on topotecan.

264 Random assignment was 1:1 to gefitinib 250 mg orally per

265 Median PFS from time of random assignment was 3.7 months with bevacizumab/placeb

266 Median overall survival from random assignment was 6.9 months for placebo and 9.0 mon

267 Three-year PFS after random assignment was 68% MR versus 33% OBS (hazard rati

268 Two-year FFS rate from second random assignment was 76% for MR compared with 61% for o

269 IDA random assignment was associated with higher CR rate, bu

270 Random assignment was balanced dynamically on the basis

271 Random assignment was centralized, computer-generated, a

272 Random assignment was closed to accrual in March 2018 af

273 Group Data and Safety Monitoring Committee, random assignment was discontinued after 3 years of enro

274 Random assignment was done at the NSABP Biostatistical C

275 Random assignment was done by use of a web-based automat

276 Random assignment was done via a central computer system

277 Random assignment was halted early based on the observed

278 ime the study was opened until the time that random assignment was halted, 56 patients received CC an

279 +/- 5% v 31% +/- 5%) from the time of second random assignment was higher for cis-RA than for no furt

280 Median overall survival from random assignment was longer with continuous versus 1-ye

281 Random assignment was performed with stratification for

282 Amenorrhea 12 months after random assignment was significantly different between tr

283 t a median follow-up of 8.1 months, PFS from random assignment was significantly improved in the beva

284 Random assignment was stratified by age, sex, center, st

285 Random assignment was stratified by number of embolizati

286 Random assignment was stratified by stage, histology, an

287 Random assignment was stratified by stage, weight loss i

288 Random assignment was stratified by the number of prior

289 evelopment of a new SCC within 2 years after random assignment was the primary end point.

290 Random assignment was through a central interactive voic

291 t of removing the data of 209 patients whose random assignment was to stay with their baseline antips

292 Random assignment was to surgery alone (S) or to two cyc

293 Random assignment was unblinded.

294 er, response duration (measured from date of random assignment) was significantly longer after tremel

295 Median overall survival (OS) times from random assignment were 13.3 and 14.4 months with bevaciz

296 n = 82); the most common reasons for lack of random assignment were patient refusal and relapse.

297 Fasting triglycerides at initial random assignment were related to risk of coronary heart

298 Separate random assignments were performed for patients with cont

299 , and less time from initial diagnosis until random assignment, were associated with improved OS.

300 We did the random assignments with a computer-generated random perm