ライフサイエンスコーパス: statistically significant

1 wed by HBOC and LS (both with 1 < RR < 2 and statistically significant).

2 A P value < .05 was considered statistically significant.

3 were in the same direction but generally not statistically significant.

4 reated with the drug, the difference was not statistically significant.

5 diarrhea and weight loss, but they were not statistically significant.

6 tioning; however, all relationships remained statistically significant.

7 HR, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.9-1.5]; P = .20) were not statistically significant.

8 weeks a 25% difference between arms was not statistically significant.

9 se in the COVID-19 case growth rate that was statistically significant.

10 hy controls, however, the difference was not statistically significant.

11 A 1-sided P<0.10 was considered statistically significant.

12 The difference was not statistically significant.

13 otal IgG and IgG3 post-TCZ, but this was not statistically significant.

14 e p values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

15 es between prasugrel and ticagrelor were not statistically significant.

16 ank test with a value of p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

17 verall (P = .30), but the difference was not statistically significant.

18 defects than the 24-2 grid, but this was not statistically significant.

19 (Figure 2F; Poliseno et al., 2010), but not statistically significant.

20 ssociated with lower mortality, although not statistically significant.

21 wing implementation of the Directive was not statistically significant.

22 A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

23 (4.1 kg), though these differences were not statistically significant.

24 06) ,P = .2) desensitized recipients, with a statistically significant 2.22-fold (wIRR = (1.33) 2.22(

25 higher in this group, although this was not statistically significant (33.3% vs. 22.8%; P = 0.23).Co

26 ur culture positivity, although this was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval [CI],

27 egrating these features provided modest, but statistically significant, ability to predict causal var

28 ce, and nicotine dependence among users were statistically significant across most sociodemographic s

29 ase were associated with frequent AECRS with statistically significant adjusted odds ratios (aORs) af

30 The only statistically significant adverse event was diuresis in

31 of myocardial injury with mortality was not statistically significant after adjusting for age, sex,

32 Associations remained statistically significant after adjusting for potential

33 ween PN and cardiovascular mortality was not statistically significant after adjustment (HR, 1.27 [CI

34 The difference remained statistically significant after adjustment for gestation

35 We demonstrate statistically significant age-related changes in triglyc

36 The same milk samples did not elicit statistically significant agreement with the Lionex-test

37 y to develop MetS, this relationship was not statistically significant among males and females.

38 to 2.1% (P < 0.001), and %HEX increased by a statistically significant amount (0.7%, P = 0.030) in th

39 Year over year, there was a statistically significant an increase in wait-times (P<0

40 gible acute toxicity in the rotarod test and statistically significant analgesic effects in the forma

41 AP after initial active surveillance was not statistically significant, and there was no association

42 There was no statistically significant association between childhood

43 There was a statistically significant association between diagnosis

44 Multivariable logistic regression revealed a statistically significant association between female gen

45 We found no statistically significant association between geneticall

46 e study of an adult US population revealed a statistically significant association between sleep dura

47 Nevertheless, a statistically significant association between sugar-swee

48 No statistically significant association was found between

49 alyses adjusted for multiple comparisons, no statistically significant association was found between

50 No statistically significant association was observed betwe

51 esult did not show a clinically important or statistically significant association with illicit drug

52 ek to no leisure-time physical activity, and statistically significant associations were determined u

53 No statistically significant associations were observed bet

54 No other statistically significant associations were reported.

55 ssing each grader individually, there was no statistically significant asymmetry in correct grading u

56 Associations were considered statistically significant at a Bonferroni corrected p-va

57 The differences among the 4 groups were statistically significant at P < 0.001.

58 s extended to the 39-y period 1979-2017, and statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level)

59 erity in morbidity or mortality failed to be statistically significant because of survey design or be

60 Overall, there were no statistically significant benefits of any intervention i

61 and road/intersection ratio were found to be statistically significant between groups with low and hi

62 his literature, however, have failed to find statistically significant between-study spatial converge

63 Within that range, however, there was no statistically significant bias toward exact integer rati

64 We identify a family of large, statistically significant biclique subgraphs in the conn

65 Only Fpocket showed a statistically significant but low magnitude enhancement

66 te that although rhythmic mu stimulation has statistically significant but small effects on the initi

67 les and females, although Nematodes showed a statistically significant but small male-biased parasite

68 concentrations of free amino acids showed no statistically significant change during storage.

69 No statistically significant change in osmolarity was found

70 PY (95% CI, 1.96-3.93 cases/105 PY), with no statistically significant change.

71 No statistically significant changes in ECD were seen in an

72 stimulant medication was not associated with statistically significant changes in risk of suicide att

73 There were no statistically significant changes in RNP area on WF SS-O

74 None of the other wellbeing variables showed statistically significant changes in the adjusted models

75 There were statistically significant changes in total meiboscores (

76 COVID-19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits.

77 ecretory proteins predicted by our model are statistically significant compared with existing cancer

78 l neuroimaging meta-analyses, we establish a statistically significant concentration of human GMV sex

79 23, AHRR, F2RL3, RARA, and 2q37.1), we found statistically significant contributions of Cd to smoking

80 A statistically significant correlation (slightly higher f

81 There was a statistically significant correlation between degree of

82 ned nose and throat swabbing and establish a statistically significant correlation between the detect

83 l sites for the FGGT group (P = 0.09), and a statistically significant correlation for the TDT-harves

84 nerve sheath diameter demonstrated a modest, statistically significant correlation with intracranial

85 The results indicate that there are statistically significant correlations between Google Tr

86 es with a three-month time-lag is 0.35, with statistically significant correlations over 54.0% of the

87 Statistically significant correlations were found betwee

88 udied and conclusions were made based on the statistically significant correlations.

89 Of the 6 layers, there was a statistically significant decline with age of only the G

90 i Inactivation of the CjNC110 ncRNA led to a statistically significant decrease in autoagglutination

91 ged the type of cases performed and led to a statistically significant decrease in both the age of ou

92 er miR-9-3p or miR-9-5p mimics resulted in a statistically significant decrease in luciferase express

93 All but one study reported a statistically significant decrease in the amount of opio

94 On average, we found a statistically significant decrease of 0.05 unit in the p

95 61% of contigs clustering into modules with statistically significant diel periodicity.

96 However, there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000012) in t

97 No statistically significant difference (p = 0.332) was fou

98 n under 10 min, and both platforms showed no statistically significant difference (p-value > 0.05).

99 There was no statistically significant difference between behavioral

100 There was no statistically significant difference between cBL and rBL

101 all mean length was 7.40 +/- 3.39 mm, with a statistically significant difference between dentate and

102 e of the primary composite outcome showed no statistically significant difference between groups (POP

103 pecified secondary end points, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups, inc

104 higher for PET than for CT, but there was no statistically significant difference between HD and non-

105 enopathy and pericardial effusion, showed no statistically significant difference between the MDR-TB

106 There was no statistically significant difference between the retinal

107 There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day mortality

108 aled that the majority of proteoforms having statistically significant difference in abundance betwee

109 At follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the cardi

110 y, good vs. intermediate to poor) revealed a statistically significant difference in baseline feature

111 There was no statistically significant difference in biopsy rate (P =

112 Univariate analysis did not show a statistically significant difference in CSF C4 values be

113 ng variables, PMRT was not associated with a statistically significant difference in disease-free sur

114 There was no statistically significant difference in mortality betwee

115 One-way analysis of variance revealed a statistically significant difference in MTR between the

116 For cT1b cancers, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival

117 A statistically significant difference in pregnancy rates

118 low-dose digoxin or bisoprolol, there was no statistically significant difference in quality of life

119 There was no statistically significant difference in readmission rate

120 us ligand-free structure performance show no statistically significant difference in structure type v

121 There was no statistically significant difference in survival on pump

122 There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of

123 We did not observe a statistically significant difference in the mean daily c

124 There was no statistically significant difference in the primary end

125 There was no statistically significant difference in the total number

126 There was no statistically significant difference regarding initial d

127 No statistically significant difference was demonstrated be

128 After 24 weeks, no statistically significant difference was found in K-BILD

129 No statistically significant difference was found in mean c

130 , 11 showed no significant difference, but a statistically significant difference was found in median

131 No statistically significant difference was found in patien

132 0.74 [95% CI 0.61-0.89]; p=0.0019), with no statistically significant difference with the risk reduc

133 eight women in the placebo group (21.1%) (a statistically significant difference).

134 P < .05 was indicative of a statistically significant difference.

135 However, the number of studies not showing statistically significant differences between CP and AgP

136 There were no statistically significant differences between grafts and

137 CBCT scan analyses showed no statistically significant differences between groups in

138 in level across 40 clinical samples resolved statistically significant differences between PD patient

139 There were no statistically significant differences between standard a

140 Histologically, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups

141 respecified secondary end points, there were statistically significant differences for all 9 CGM metr

142 prespecified secondary outcomes, there were statistically significant differences in 3 of 7 binary H

143 [CI]: 0.7-1.1; P = 0.38), which indicated no statistically significant differences in achieving quies

144 riteria with FAF, CFP, and IR, there were no statistically significant differences in baseline area o

145 TTNtv location was not associated with statistically significant differences in baseline clinic

146 No statistically significant differences in biomarkers of i

147 No statistically significant differences in composition wer

148 However, there were no statistically significant differences in handgrip streng

149 Statistically significant differences in measurable heal

150 There were no statistically significant differences in morbidity or mo

151 There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary

152 No statistically significant differences in responders were

153 llows for quick identification of genes with statistically significant differences in ribosome occupa

154 There were no statistically significant differences in urinary or bowe

155 There were no statistically significant differences in vaginal birth r

156 of bilateral cataract in children showed no statistically significant differences regarding intraope

157 stly in favor of the treatment group, but no statistically significant differences were detected.

158 No statistically significant differences were found in the

159 Statistically significant differences were observed betw

160 There were no other statistically significant differences.

161 A statistically significant differential profit margin fav

162 ons, users can identify diagnosis pairs with statistically significant directionality and combine the

163 Statistically significant distances were detected betwee

164 None of the associations was statistically significant during 60 days of follow-up.

165 igation into sub-optimal diets highlighted a statistically significant effect on rumen microbial abun

166 Gender and duration of diabetes did not have statistically significant effect on VI outcomes.

167 We focused our analyses on studies reporting statistically significant effects of prevention on venou

168 fidence interval, -.14 to -.02]), but had no statistically significant effects on bacteria, viruses,

169 ork Heart Association functional class, with statistically significant effects that were apparent 28

170 Statistically significant effects were not observed for

171 We find a statistically significant enrichment of genome-wide asso

172 These findings remained clinically and statistically significant even after multivariable adjus

173 Conversely, we find no statistically significant evidence of a higher false dis

174 This revealed that males showed statistically significant expansion of a region of the h

175 of the observed bicliques the neurons share statistically significant expression patterns and morpho

176 Within groups, CV declined in a statistically significant fashion from baseline to month

177 iables; the tests for heterogeneity were not statistically significant for any of these comparisons.

178 Group by time interaction was statistically significant for BVMT-R Learning (F[2, 257]

179 67 [95% CI 1.45-1.91]; P < .001) but was not statistically significant for CRAO (HR 1.18 [95% CI 0.75

180 DGF-ESW interaction was statistically significant for graft failure (P=0.04) and

181 physical variables, (b) physical drivers are statistically significant for Pacific cod and walleye po

182 This difference was statistically significant for VSS score (P < 0.0001) and

183 Associations were positive, but not statistically significant, for triglycerides, fasting gl

184 The derived estimations result in statistically significant ([Formula: see text]) correlat

185 uce test statistic inflation, we identify 64 statistically significant gene-based associations in our

186 In addition, we found multiple statistically significant gene-phenotype associations th

187 The monthly group demonstrated a statistically significant greater regression of DRSS sco

188 only 1 trial reported on harms and found no statistically significant group differences.

189 After case-mix correction, 2 hospitals had statistically significant higher failure to cure percent

190 on to smoking initiation was associated with statistically significant higher odds of lung cancer in

191 in patients with severe ptosis, there was a statistically significant higher rate of success after M

192 data on progression-free survival (PFS), no statistically significant HR was reported for PFS in the

193 related to physical activity were small, but statistically significant (IM = 2,282 kcal day(-1); SP-1

194 loys robust hypothesis testing for detecting statistically significant imbalances in mean methylation

195 ocular pathologies, but both groups showed a statistically significant improvement after surgery comp

196 d glucose monitoring resulted in a small but statistically significant improvement in glycemic contro

197 st cancer with brain metastases (BMs) showed statistically significant improvement in progression-fre

198 For stage III disease, there was a statistically significant improvement in survival with t

199 Statistically significant improvements in 40-m sprint ti

200 ntion, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in a composite me

201 There were no statistically significant improvements in insulin sensit

202 inical trials (accuracy > 84% for predicting statistically significant improvements in patient outcom

203 condary structure prediction and resulted in statistically significant improvements in the Q3 accurac

204 Statistically significant improvements were seen in the

205 I patients), although the difference was not statistically significant in a multivariable analysis, w

206 plicit time in type 2 diabetic subjects were statistically significant in most of the assessed rings

207 Even though the effects were not statistically significant in phylogenetically controlled

208 etween RBC transfusion and mortality was not statistically significant in the above-mentioned subgrou

209 The decline over time in reported cough was statistically significant in the children residing in th

210 A marginally statistically significant in the density of grafted bone

211 No other evaluated factors were found to be statistically significant in the multivariable analysis.

212 th the same professional was recorded, and a statistically significant increase in adherence to the i

213 However, a multivariable analysis showed a statistically significant increase in CSF C4 levels betw

214 bRNA reads; however, it does not result in a statistically significant increase in differentially exp

215 A statistically significant increase in DNA fragmentation

216 In normal and dry eyes, a statistically significant increase in measurement variab

217 pared with standard care alone resulted in a statistically significant increase in the number of vent

218 There was a statistically significant increase in the relative compo

219 ssion of mutant dog SOD1 was associated with statistically significant increased aggregate formation,

220 cal approach was associated with a small but statistically significant increased risk of major surgic

221 By a post hoc analysis, there were no statistically significant increases from week 52 to week

222 Triggering is commonly identified from statistically significant increases in earthquake rate c

223 There were no statistically significant increases in KS rates in any a

224 Though there were no statistically significant increases in KS rates in any d

225 measured on multichannel membranes also show statistically significant increases, with temperatures t

226 utaneous immunotherapy, observing modest and statistically significant induction of desensitization,

227 ban areas, and norms and institutions have a statistically significant influence.

228 We observed no statistically significant interactions between PM2.5 exp

229 Statistically significant intervention-related reduction

230 hod detected 19 distinct drug exposures with statistically significant, large relative risks indicati

231 nt characteristics with promoters, including statistically significant local overrepresentation of co

232 insic kinase activity is consistent with the statistically significant longer overall survival times

233 The Kane keratoconus formula had a statistically significant lower MAE compared with all fo

234 Statistically significant lower net work of the COM was

235 orrelations among the 3 lens dimensions were statistically significant (LV-LT: r = 0.785; P < .001; L

236 3 [95% CI, 0.75-0.92]), whereas there was no statistically significant mortality reduction with prasu

237 19.23% reduction in mortality which was not statistically significant (N = 3, HR = 0.8077 (95% CI 0.

238 There were statistically significant negative correlations between

239 after an eruption, but this response is not statistically significant, nor does it appear after the

240 n without those diagnoses, although this was statistically significant only for vaginitis (for vagini

241 No statistically significant or meaningful benefits were ob

242 nurses, the obesity risk was found not to be statistically significant (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.84-1.35

243 urrent state-of-the-art methods, achieving a statistically significant (P < .001) vertebrae identific

244 ), and bottled water use ( - 0.39); all were statistically significant (p < 0.001).

245 Cutoffs resulting in statistically significant (P < 0.005) differences betwee

246 caused by physical health problems) remained statistically significant (P < 0.01).

247 he difference in speed among all regions was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

248 een group I (29.4%) and group II (11.8%) was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

249 We observed statistically significant (p < 2.8 x 10(-6)) enrichment

250 an 19, IQR 11-28), but this decrease was not statistically significant (P = .0770).

251 did not flare (1.186 mg/kg/week) but was not statistically significant (P = .417).

252 CI = 0.6-2.1), but this relationship was not statistically significant (P = .61).

253 There were statistically significant (p = 0.001) of the mADC value

254 between ischemic time and alteplase dose was statistically significant (p = 0.018).

255 is difference in effect estimates by HIV was statistically significant (p = 0.02).

256 cies of inconsistent parts of OS and NPS was statistically significant (P = 0.021).

257 The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.183).

258 13.2% and 10.0%, respectively, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.202).

259 I, 0.53-1.3]; P=0.448)-a difference that was statistically significant (P interaction, 0.0235).

260 3% vs. 29.0%); however, differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05 for all).

261 Statistically significant (p<0.001) differences in the u

262 ith postoperative steroids, but this was not statistically significant (P-value = 0.6510).

263 Dimensional changes from S1 to S3 were statistically significant, P <0.017.

264 We present new findings demonstrating the statistically significant prediction of a wider set of p

265 s regression analysis showed that race was a statistically significant predictor of 90-day readmissio

266 .8 for requiring TPK (P = .03) but was not a statistically significant predictor of perforation, scar

267 etermined vascularity and septation were not statistically significant predictors.

268 Nine countries had statistically significant pro-rural (significantly highe

269 lity while only Tajikistan and Malawi showed statistically significant pro-urban inequality (p < 0.05

270 epolizumab was observed, although it was not statistically significant (rate ratio [RR] = 0.56 [95% C

271 ; spleen as reference region) demonstrated a statistically significant reduction (-36.2%) in radiolig

272 nd found that the DUBmut-infected mice had a statistically significant reduction (P < 0.05) in viral

273 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.96; P = .01), and a statistically significant reduction in deaths as a resul

274 compared with usual care did not result in a statistically significant reduction in mortality at 90 d

275 Netarsudil did not produce a statistically significant reduction in the risk of stero

276 Blocking experiments gave a statistically significant reduction in tumor uptake (6.3

277 ating all 6 wk of posttax time points showed statistically significant reductions (-203.7 ounces, 95%

278 vehicle, cenegermin-treated patients showed statistically significant reductions in lesion size and

279 C3 inhibition with pegcetacoplan resulted in statistically significant reductions in the growth of GA

280 Results suggest a statistically significant relationship between immediate

281 own that the neurophysiological domain has a statistically significant relationship with the neurodev

282 gs, facial morphological variants, and CNVs, statistically significant relationships were found with

283 Only half of the studies reported statistically significant results and were largely weak

284 We also show that the statistically significant results in the original paper

285 Statistically significant risk factors for developing co

286 ic regimens and PICU patients demonstrated a statistically significant risk ratio of 1.76 and 1.90 fo

287 riate antibiotic therapy in surgical ICUs, a statistically significant risk ratio of 2.59 was calcula

288 hile this facilitates real-time detection of statistically significant Rt changes, inference is highl

289 nt does not appear to be associated with any statistically significant safety concerns in the populat

290 e hypothesis testing these findings were not statistically significant, suggesting that the gut micro

291 Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible wi

292 tably, HDV co-infection also did not lead to statistically significant transcriptional changes across

293 gistic regression model was used to identify statistically significant trends, with covariates includ

294 ce, while the other analytes did not exhibit statistically significant trends.

295 vely, with all pairwise comparisons yielding statistically significant values (P < .001).

296 ised discovery of metabolites that express a statistically significant variance in a two-sample class

297 No statistically significant variation was found for perina

298 All venular caliber associations were not statistically significant when corrected for potentially

299 The International Prognostic Index was statistically significant, with low- (0-2 points) and hi

300 esults indicated that sleep disturbances are statistically significant, yet weak, risk factors for su