ライフサイエンスコーパス: underpowered

1 rotransmission; the same analysis for BD was underpowered.

2 erence of networks in this setting is highly underpowered.

3 t that analysing individual rare variants is underpowered.

4 otential risk, although the study of RV1 was underpowered.

5 tain extent of information loss and thus are underpowered.

6 ected, which may have caused the study to be underpowered.

7 asets of delayed antibiotic prescription are underpowered.

8 ome diagnostic tools are most inaccurate and underpowered.

9 emonstrate benefit, likely because they were underpowered.

10 , results have been contradictory and trials underpowered.

11 ion analysis can be performed, it is grossly underpowered.

12 x (triglyceride : HDL-C ratio), or have been underpowered.

13 ints but may have had selection bias or been underpowered.

14 tudies using Froh to date have probably been underpowered.

15 d sample sizes suggest that cGxE studies are underpowered.

16 described in several studies, but many were underpowered.

17 c hepatitis B infection, but the trials were underpowered.

18 ancreatitis, although the study was probably underpowered.

19 xpected event rates, the trial may have been underpowered.

20 ted and (2) studies that are not aborted are underpowered.

21 tive cisplatin-based regimens, but they were underpowered.

22 power and, consequently, in studies that are underpowered.

23 bject to high sample variance, and therefore underpowered.

24 ity-weighted analysis and the study might be underpowered.

25 aching the initial target, leaving the trial underpowered.

26 Corresponding analyses of strict AMD were underpowered.

27 PWI-DWI mismatch, although this analysis was underpowered.

28 aved of a partner or child were elevated but underpowered.

29 he gene-set analyses for the other loci were underpowered.

30 In practice, current methods are often underpowered.

31 al randomized controlled trials appear to be underpowered.

32 h mortality, though this analysis was likely underpowered.

33 tudies of mutation carriers have so far been underpowered.

34 our primary analysis on mortality was likely underpowered.

35 arches for specific genes involved have been underpowered.

36 s were of high quality and many studies were underpowered.

37 ll in size, short in duration and frequently underpowered.

38 nature, initial genetic studies were mostly underpowered.

39 for multiple testing, but this analysis was underpowered.

40 ated in SZ because of previous studies being underpowered.

41 gnificance; however, the study may have been underpowered.

42 The subgroup analysis by sex was underpowered.

43 inconsistent results, and some analyses were underpowered.

44 cally heterogeneous, and some were small and underpowered.

45 n CC size; however, the studies were heavily underpowered (20% power to detect Cohen's d = .3).

46 ts were classified in 4 mismatch categories: underpowered (29%), overpowered (32%), underpowered/over

47 genome-wide association study data are often underpowered after adjustment for multiple comparisons.

48 l trials (CCTs) can lead to systematic bias, underpowered analyses, and a loss of scientific knowledg

49 ant clinical benefit, although the study was underpowered and alternative results cannot be excluded.

50 These studies have largely been underpowered and contradictory.

51 However, most studies have been underpowered and demonstrate elements of a statistical '

52 tudy, can result in a clinical trial that is underpowered and fails to detect a truly effective new t

53 .16 to 1.15), although the last of these was underpowered and had wide confidence intervals.

54 However, previous studies have been underpowered and have not been designed to address poten

55 to date, a majority of MRI studies have been underpowered and have used heterogeneous patient samples

56 rugs to treat symptoms of MS have often been underpowered and have used inappropriate measures of out

57 Nevertheless, our study was underpowered and important differences between groups ma

58 ies assessing genotype-specific VE have been underpowered and inconclusive.

59 ke other literature-is that many studies are underpowered and lacking in generalizability [M.

60 limited by small numbers, are statistically underpowered and many face difficulties with accrual.

61 Three trials were underpowered and of insufficient duration to evaluate sc

62 Such studies were overall underpowered and of insufficient duration to show any ef

63 suggested, but some of these approaches are underpowered and result in high false positive rates bec

64 Our epidemiological study was underpowered and retrospective in nature, so firm conclu

65 is that intranasal OT studies are generally underpowered and that there is a high probability that m

66 However, the study was underpowered and the confidence intervals were wide.

67 nt chemotherapy for bladder cancer have been underpowered and/or terminated prematurely, yielding inc

68 However, the trial may be underpowered, and an interaction was found between longe

69 Existing studies may be underpowered, and cohort estimates may overstate individ

70 Instrumental variable analysis was underpowered, and estimates were imprecise.

71 uman intervention studies have been limited, underpowered, and not well controlled.

72 Because sample sizes left most studies underpowered, and procedures to enhance treatment fideli

73 However, the trial was likely underpowered as the final infarct size was smaller than

74 as been complicated by phenotypic diversity, underpowered association studies and ancestry-specific e

75 However, widely used metrics are severely underpowered at detecting constraints for the shortest ~

76 Although underpowered, at least twice daily screening was associa

77 However, the study was underpowered because it did not meet the planned accrual

78 The planned non-inferiority test was underpowered because of the low number of events.

79 sis in children aged 12 months and older was underpowered because there were few unvaccinated cases a

80 ed by region-of-interest approaches that are underpowered because they do not conform to the underlyi

81 Its heterogeneity and rarity often result in underpowered clinical trials making the analysis and int

82 has been complicated by conflicting results, underpowered clinical trials, and the lack of a placebo

83 te long-standing critiques of the conduct of underpowered clinical trials, the practice not only rema

84 guments to support the validity and value of underpowered clinical trials: that meta-analysis may "sa

85 ever, studies have typically been limited to underpowered cohorts.

86 ng this period, they are still significantly underpowered compared with studies reported in populatio

87 conducted at a single site and was slightly underpowered compared with the initial design.

88 Limitations included underpowered comparisons and small samples.

89 We adapt a network-based approach to handle underpowered complex datasets to provide new insights in

90 However, the study may have been underpowered, considering the range of the 95% CI, to de

91 architecture of phenotypes and statistically underpowered due to heavy multiple-testing correction bu

92 In addition, these experiments may be underpowered due to insufficient sequencing depth or var

93 irect genetic effects, but these designs are underpowered due to limited sample sizes.

94 rogated breast cancer survival but often are underpowered due to subtype heterogeneity and clinical c

95 tations per gene (FastQTL), or statistically underpowered (eigenMT and TreeQTL).

96 g patients with fixed EDSS of >/=6.0 will be underpowered even with large numbers or prolonged durati

97 These calculations were derived from a small underpowered experimental data set for the fungus and tw

98 e sizes and hence power, since the currently underpowered experiments in preclinical biomedicine are

99 on way to reduce the false discovery rate in underpowered experiments is to raise the fold cutoff.

100 However, in an underpowered exploratory analysis this benefit appears t

101 l design and related attrition, analyses are underpowered for (epi-) genome-wide approaches due to th

102 a limited number of subjects can be severely underpowered for any but the largest effect sizes.

103 Although underpowered for clinical outcomes, more participants ha

104 d with bisphosphonate use, but the study was underpowered for definitive conclusions.

105 oach for detecting common variants, they are underpowered for detecting associations with rare varian

106 existing single-marker association tests are underpowered for detecting rare risk variants.

107 Because of early closure, this study is underpowered for drawing conclusions about the impact on

108 Analyses were underpowered for individual components of the composite

109 This study was severely underpowered for its primary endpoint, and therefore no

110 c scores of >=3, and the study was therefore underpowered for its primary objective.

111 Comparative studies have been underpowered for mortality because of small sample size.

112 or harms with fewer prenatal visits but was underpowered for rare, serious outcomes.

113 ity definition at 2 of 9 time points but was underpowered for the observed treatment effect.

114 he intended sample size, leaving it severely underpowered for the primary composite endpoint of death

115 ut our sample, the largest yet reported, was underpowered for their detection.

116 ot identified, although the trial was likely underpowered for these outcomes.

117 d cases of dementia, the study may have been underpowered for this end point.

118 Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are often underpowered for validating gene-treatment interactions.

119 e gene studies prone to false positives, and underpowered genome-wide association studies limited by

120 am injections; however, the study was likely underpowered given the 95% CI, and a clinically meaningf

121 As this pilot study is underpowered, given the findings we recommend pursuing a

122 The studies meta-analyzed were generally underpowered; however, the number of statistically signi

123 hods, however, use a single distance and are underpowered if the distance is poorly chosen.

124 genetic signals in case-control studies are underpowered in genetically heterogeneous cohorts.

125 PN13, PIK3CA, and SERPINB5 via TWAS that are underpowered in GWAS.

126 ks as traditional statistical techniques are underpowered in high dimension.

127 tected many common causal variants, they are underpowered in identifying disease variants that are to

128 However, GWAS have so far remained largely underpowered in relation to identifying associations in

129 Although underpowered in the context of a changing COVID-19 lands

130 Prior candidate gene studies have been underpowered in their search for dopaminergic processes

131 nderstood because inconsistent findings from underpowered individual studies preclude the identificat

132 , the notion that studies are systematically underpowered is not the full story: low power is far fro

133 Because the study was underpowered, it was unable to reveal firm conclusions a

134 se of their relatively small sample sizes or underpowered methodologies.

135 Although the study was underpowered, no adverse effects were observed.

136 Although the study was underpowered, no significant difference in efficacy was

137 The one-sided 95% CI for the underpowered non-inferiority test on the hazard ratio wa

138 terol (TC) concentration have been small and underpowered: not surprisingly, the findings have been i

139 886 meta-analyses, all included studies were underpowered; only 2,588 (17%) included at least two ade

140 been tested in numerous phase II studies and underpowered or flawed phase III studies.

141 ance of power analysis, an experiment may be underpowered or overpowered.

142 ped to correct for the bias, they are either underpowered or theoretically invalid.

143 However, studies are contradictory, underpowered, or do not control for confounders.

144 e size of patients with no mismatch may have underpowered our analysis.

145 ries: underpowered (29%), overpowered (32%), underpowered/overpowered (32%), and unrelated (3%).

146 neutral results might be because COSSACS was underpowered owing to early termination of the trial, an

147 o significant differences were seen using an underpowered parallel analysis for energy intake during

148 to psychiatric drug development beyond often underpowered phase 1 studies, or into clinical care.

149 y, we report possible reasons that cause the underpowered phenomenon and show how the power of the VC

150 nger form of triaging and mitigating against underpowered PheWAS associations.

151 Available evidence, from underpowered pooled data, neither supports nor refutes a

152 In this prematurely terminated and thus underpowered randomized trial, early prophylactic ICD im

153 ere found in any of the other comparisons in underpowered RCT data.

154 ol of major sources of bias, a single small, underpowered RCT, or expert consensus.

155 es of bias or from a meta-analysis of small, underpowered RCTs.

156 and the end of funding, which left the study underpowered relative to its primary study end point.

157 ulk aggregation methods are conservative and underpowered relative to mixed models.

158 longitudinal feature of the data, leading to underpowered results and less biologically meaningful re

159 Nevertheless, there is a risk for underpowered results.

160 east two adequately powered and at least one underpowered, results were compared with and without und

161 nical characteristics, scanning methods, and underpowered samples.

162 Previous studies of AUD used underpowered single-cell analysis or bulk homogenates of

163 neuroscience: on average, studies are indeed underpowered-some very seriously so-but many studies sho

164 tcomes and its associated factors might have underpowered strategies to provide adequate care and pre

165 So far, only three small, underpowered studies and one single-centre trial have be

166 e fact that initially exciting findings from underpowered studies are so often not replicated in larg

167 relative influence of adequately powered and underpowered studies in published meta-analyses has not

168 However, underpowered studies made up the entirety of the evidenc

169 sets are often regarded as a panacea to the underpowered studies of the past.

170 meta-analyses reported by Cochrane reviews, underpowered studies often contribute little information

171 hrane reviews, and investigate the impact of underpowered studies on meta-analysis results.

172 onsider whether it will solve the problem of underpowered studies or whether it is another affliction

173 e of replication; for these, false negative, underpowered studies probably contribute to inconsistent

174 Last, we underscore how underpowered studies that have aimed to associate neurob

175 In the subset examined, odds ratios in underpowered studies were 15% lower (95% CI 11% to 18%,

176 f 11% (inter-quartile range -1% to 35%) when underpowered studies were omitted; and between-study het

177 eviously thought, resulting in statistically underpowered studies, inflated effect sizes and replicat

178 of the crisis have been identified, such as underpowered studies, publication bias, imprecise theori

179 attributed to the fallacies that arise from underpowered studies, resulting in overly optimistic or

180 stablish the presence of a genetic signal in underpowered studies, to infer the genetic architecture

181 erate or high amounts can result in severely underpowered studies.

182 ered, results were compared with and without underpowered studies.

183 cacy of OPBS is based on poorly designed and underpowered studies.

184 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have led to underpowered studies.

185 ypes in genetic searches and the reliance on underpowered studies.

186 RQoL to be undermined by poorly designed and underpowered studies.

187 ng NLP-related misclassification may lead to underpowered studies.

188 In this early, underpowered study evaluating treatments for neovascular

189 had a higher QoL than did Caucasians in this underpowered study that used self-reported dietary data.

190 use of the limited sample size leading to an underpowered study, and need to be confirmed in future l

191 This underpowered study, when considered together with previo

192 Our approach forgoes the daunting and underpowered task of one-annotation-at-a-time enrichment

193 Although the study was slightly underpowered, the results suggest that pausing BTKi arou

194 Although underpowered, this randomized clinical trial of patients

195 Although underpowered, this second randomization in MINDACT did n

196 However, the trial was underpowered to address the effect of routine induction

197 randomized controlled trials on weaning are underpowered to address this issue.

198 een studied, and most studies conducted were underpowered to allow definitive conclusions.

199 ardiovascular trials have traditionally been underpowered to assess advanced chronic kidney disease (

200 cteristics; individual randomized trials are underpowered to assess benefit for relatively small subg

201 The study was underpowered to assess intravenous/intraosseous drug int

202 Limitations include being underpowered to assess the impact on nonviable births, b

203 tical changes in 22q11DS, but were generally underpowered to characterize neuroanatomic abnormalities

204 Study was underpowered to conclusively validate the efficacy, but

205 imited value due to poor recruitment and are underpowered to definitively answer these questions.

206 n the recipient (OR=0.46), but the study was underpowered to demonstrate this unforeseen effect (P=0.

207 analysis, although this latter analysis was underpowered to detect a causal effect of BMI on HIF3A m

208 o early termination, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference

209 However, the study may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference

210 for administrative reasons and may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference

211 However, the trial was possibly underpowered to detect a clinically relevant difference.

212 two disorders, although the sample is likely underpowered to detect a modest shared signal.

213 The study may have been underpowered to detect a significant difference in incid

214 e probability that the study might have been underpowered to detect a significant reduction in mortal

215 However, the study may have been underpowered to detect a small but potentially clinicall

216 asurement error, in a group of studies often underpowered to detect a smaller-than-expected effect of

217 h in this study, the trial was substantially underpowered to detect a statistically significant morta

218 l outcomes at 1 year; however, the study was underpowered to detect a treatment effect.

219 infection or disease, although the study was underpowered to detect an effect against disease.

220 of randomised trials is sparse and they are underpowered to detect any meaningful difference.

221 ies (GWAS), the standard association test is underpowered to detect associations between loci with mu

222 ty variants, although most studies have been underpowered to detect associations of a realistic magni

223 As single variant testing is underpowered to detect associations, the development of

224 entified common toxicities but may have been underpowered to detect cardiovascular and pulmonary adve

225 cerns and the possibility that the study was underpowered to detect clinically important differences

226 WAS) of HIV-1-infected populations have been underpowered to detect common variants with moderate imp

227 controlled trials of HIV therapies that are underpowered to detect CVD end points, and small interve

228 Individual ASP studies are underpowered to detect differences in mortality.

229 s currently available, this approach remains underpowered to detect drivers, particularly in less stu

230 the active form of vitamin D, the study was underpowered to detect effects smaller than an OR of 1.3

231 ential expression analysis methods are often underpowered to detect genes affected by CRISPR perturba

232 ority of COPD candidate gene era studies are underpowered to detect genetic effect odds ratios of 1.2

233 gh prevalence means that the sample is still underpowered to detect genetic effects typical for compl

234 ple size for the genetic analysis, which was underpowered to detect genome-wide significance, the eva

235 Given that our sample size was underpowered to detect genome-wide significance, we appl

236 Phase II trials of asundexian were underpowered to detect important differences in bleeding

237 Studies can be underpowered to detect improvement with chemotherapy as

238 Furthermore, these studies were generally underpowered to detect meaningful clinical difference or

239 ry, most COPD candidate gene era studies are underpowered to detect moderate-sized genetic effects.

240 evere sepsis that target crude mortality are underpowered to detect mortality differences due to inte

241 The trial was therefore underpowered to detect significant differences in mortal

242 However, the study was underpowered to detect significant differences in safety

243 bserved survival differences, CALGB 9633 was underpowered to detect small but clinically meaningful i

244 However, the study may have been underpowered to detect small but potentially important d

245 Although still underpowered to detect small differences for infrequent

246 erm effects of CHVs; the trial may have been underpowered to detect small to moderate effects due to

247 procedure, although the trial may have been underpowered to detect smaller differences between group

248 Current TVR HIV cure studies are underpowered to detect statistically significant changes

249 prevalence, although the study was probably underpowered to detect such an association.

250 tween the two groups, although the trial was underpowered to detect such differences.

251 , Bonferroni-derived thresholds are severely underpowered to detect the vast majority of associations

252 disorder, but previous studies may have been underpowered to detect these effects.

253 The study was underpowered to detect treatment effect of ACE inhibitor

254 rity of studies in the Vannucci model vastly underpowered to detect true treatment effects due to the

255 They were also underpowered to disentangle genetic from environmental f

256 ggested efficacy in AMA women, though it was underpowered to draw firm conclusions.

257 rtant, and it is possible that the study was underpowered to establish statistical significance.

258 rata and oncogenic mechanisms, but have been underpowered to examine effects of ethnicity, smoking an

259 Previous studies, underpowered to examine hospital admission, have found a

260 actor for predicting CVD, but they have been underpowered to examine whether this is true for differe

261 ath by suicide separately, but the study was underpowered to explore familial liability for this asso

262 , the study was stopped early and likely was underpowered to find a statistically and clinically impo

263 population, although the study may have been underpowered to identify a clinically important differen

264 This study may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference.

265 However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference.

266 However, the study may have been underpowered to identify a small increase in risk.

267 However, the study may have been underpowered to identify an early clinically important d

268 Exome-sequencing studies have generally been underpowered to identify deleterious alleles with a larg

269 imited by their single-center design and are underpowered to identify risk factors for serious advers

270 However, the BMS subset may have been underpowered to identify such differences, and further t

271 i, the majority of studies are statistically underpowered to isolate the many contributing variants,

272 mispheric infarction, although the trial was underpowered to make definitive conclusions because it w

273 However, the trial may have been underpowered to meet this criterion and further research

274 nia or mood disorders, although the study is underpowered to observe rare events.

275 Due to a high withdrawal rate, the study was underpowered to prove a difference in BOS-free survival.

276 ndividual studies are often inconsistent and underpowered to provide definitive results.

277 trial was terminated early and was therefore underpowered to reach conclusions about the effect of an

278 However, these models were underpowered to reliably detect effects at common precli

279 Additionally, previous studies have been underpowered to robustly assess heterogeneity of effects

280 or organ space SSI rates after TJAs, it was underpowered to see a significant difference when accoun

281 While we are underpowered to see small differences, we do not find si

282 Given that the study was underpowered to statistically assess interactions, these

283 ociation studies to date have generally been underpowered to systematically evaluate the phenotypic i

284 sult, all three trials will be substantially underpowered to test the specific hypotheses of total ho

285 Our underpowered trial provides no indication that nocturnal

286 Overestimation may lead to an underpowered trial.

287 We conclude that underpowered trials are ethical in only 2 situations: sm

288 So-called underpowered trials might be acceptable if investigators

289 s that are owed to potential participants in underpowered trials so they may make autonomous enrollme

290 moral issues associated with the conduct of underpowered trials, the disclosures that are owed to po

291 uture meta-analyses may justify individually underpowered trials.

292 the potentially devastating consequences of underpowered trials.

293 ed model methods may be poorly calibrated or underpowered under family sampling bias and/or case-cont

294 Individual studies will remain underpowered unless sample size is increased or improvem

295 ics, focusing on quality control rather than underpowered verification studies.

296 ging included sample sizes that tended to be underpowered, were not sufficiently representative of na

297 onomic and political traits are dramatically underpowered, which implies a high false discovery rate.

298 This study is underpowered, which limits definitive conclusions about

299 Many subgroup analyses were underpowered, which may have resulted in false-negative

300 of which were retrospective cohort studies, underpowered with no significant differences in survival