ライフサイエンスコーパス: paired t-test

1 es derived from the mothers (P < 0.0001 by a paired t test).

2 29 [88] mum; P = .01, determined by use of a paired t test).

3 pulses s(-1)) (P < 0.05 for each comparison; paired t test).

4 d P = 0.02, respectively, as determined by a paired t test).

5 ly higher than mean serum levels (P </=0.02; paired t test).

6 gnificantly enhanced with OSEM-3D (P < .001, paired t test).

7 BA(A) currents by 70+/-8% (n=8, P< or =0.005 paired t test).

8 left ventricular (LV) surface area (P < .05, paired t test).

9 ent; 4, very poor) for six colonic segments (paired t test).

10 +/- 2.0 micromol/kg body wt per d; P < 0.05, paired t test).

11 in early group (0.56 cm3 +/- 0.39; P =.004, paired t test).

12 -fold higher in BCC than controls (P < 0.01, paired t test).

13 ystematically overestimated MGV (P = 0.0005, paired t test).

14 ly lower, 0.78 +/- 0.11 (P = 0.006; 2-tailed paired t test).

15 unit accuracy in seven regions of interest (paired t test).

16 3% less starch digested at 90 min, P < 0.05, paired t test).

17 d point (core cancer length) was calculated (paired t test).

18 o eyes (P = 0.69 and P = 0.43, respectively, paired t-test).

19 -R(-/-): P < 0.01; alpha2A-R(-/-): P < 0.05, paired t-test).

20 microm vs. 506.4 +/- 31.8 microm, P = 0.005, paired t-test).

21 (P = 0.0016 and P = 0.0022, respectively, by paired t-test).

22 for the comparison of the left areas by the paired t-test).

23 th reference values at 95% confidence level (paired t-test).

24 l normalization (12.7% vs. 6.2%, P < 0.0001, paired t-test).

25 -0.26) significantly decreased (P < .005 in paired t tests).

26 nt in dimensional measurements was compared (paired t tests).

27 old greater than in control sites (P < 0.01, paired t tests).

28 and P < 0.03 for static and dynamic balance; paired t tests).

29 lated and values were compared by means of a paired t test.

30 tested for statistical significance with the paired t test.

31 contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) by using the paired t test.

32 mparisons using Dunnett or Tukey methods and paired t test.

33 uble and single fields were compared using a paired t test.

34 tial function, and data were compared with a paired t test.

35 ntion and non-intervention hospitals using a paired t test.

36 Signal intensity was evaluated by using a paired t test.

37 after sonication were compared by using the paired t test.

38 The PET uptake was compared using a paired t test.

39 parisons within groups were performed with a paired t test.

40 cell viabilities were compared by using the paired t test.

41 NS were compared to prestimulus values using paired t test.

42 Comparisons were made by using a paired t test.

43 d with the DBM method and Student two-tailed paired t test.

44 tistical analysis was performed by using the paired t test.

45 Statistical comparisons were made using the paired t test.

46 .5 and 3.0 T were analyzed with a two-sample paired t test.

47 es multivariate analysis of variance and the paired t test.

48 e and lesions in patients were tested with a paired t test.

49 tained at the time of the procedure with the paired t test.

50 as geometric mean (95% CI), were compared by paired t test.

51 d statistical significance was tested with a paired t test.

52 ing examinations were performed by using the paired t test.

53 dalities were determined with the two-tailed paired t test.

54 oelectron volts) and phantom size by using a paired t test.

55 es of CL and IOL groups were compared with a paired t test.

56 Group comparisons were analyzed with a paired t test.

57 Significance testing was done with the paired t test.

58 Statistical analysis was performed with the paired t test.

59 isons were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney or paired t test.

60 en baseline and week 8 were calculated using paired t test.

61 ty of statistical testing, especially of the paired t-test.

62 igned rank test, and the JSW was compared by paired t-test.

63 nd post-laser IOP values were compared using paired t-test.

64 e groups were compared with McNemar test and paired t-test.

65 ere performed using analysis of variance and paired t tests.

66 was performed with Wilcoxon signed rank and paired t tests.

67 mean values in each phase were compared with paired t tests.

68 lustered on subjects was used, together with paired t tests.

69 d posttherapy studies were compared by using paired t tests.

70 Data were analyzed with multiple paired t tests.

71 re- and postdiet condition were tested using paired t tests.

72 f-interest (ROI) size were compared by using paired t tests.

73 and relative function were compared by using paired t tests.

74 stole) were quantified and compared by using paired t tests.

75 y repeated-measures analysis of variance and paired t tests.

76 d-measures analysis of variance, followed by paired t tests.

77 values in the ICS treatment period by using paired t tests.

78 Statistical comparisons used paired t tests.

79 ifferences in tube voltage, were tested with paired t tests.

80 and health outcome measures evaluated using paired t tests.

81 d volume measurement were also compared with paired t tests.

82 and after vertebroplasty were evaluated with paired t tests.

83 tictal epochs within epileptic patients with paired t tests.

84 nd mean values were compared with two-tailed paired t tests.

85 Statistical analyses included paired t tests.

86 Data were analyzed with paired t tests.

87 evaluated by using two-tailed nonpaired and paired t tests.

88 ast-to-noise differences were evaluated with paired t tests.

89 etween groups using analysis of variance and paired t-tests.

90 , with post hoc analysis employing ANOVA and paired t-tests.

91 ect longitudinal changes were assessed using paired t-tests.

92 post-test within subjects was analysed with paired t-tests.

93 repeated-measures analysis of variance, and paired t testing.

94 those after placebo administration by using paired t testing.

95 was determined with the Student t test, the paired t test, a mixed random effects model, one-way ana

96 n with paired comparison procedures by using paired t tests across individual time points supplemente

97 tial least-squares-discriminant analysis and paired t tests adjusted for multiple testing.

98 cal spatial positions were compared by using paired t test (alpha = .05).

99 Paired t test analyses were also performed to determine

100 Paired t test analysis revealed numerous genes that were

101 Paired t test analysis showed volumes from methods 2 and

102 Mean values were compared by using paired t test analysis.

103 Paired t test, analysis of variance, and chi(2) tests we

104 Paired t tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and analys

105 = 5 mm pockets at baseline and 1 year using paired t tests, analysis of variance, chi-square analysi

106 Data were analyzed by using a combination of paired t tests, analysis of variance, contingency tables

107 S </= 3 + 4 and GS >/= 4 + 3 tumors by using paired t tests, analysis of variance, receiver operating

108 Paired t test and 95% confidence interval analyses were

109 Individual groups were analyzed using paired t test and analysis of variance.

110 f LGE quantification was calculated with the paired t test and Bland-Altman statistics.

111 Paired t test and Friedman test with Dunn's post hoc tes

112 nostic confidence were compared by using the paired t test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively.

113 d statistical analysis involving a voxelwise paired t test and one-way analysis of variance for metab

114 ll-dose sequences were compared by using the paired t test and Pearson correlations.

115 in values and weight was performed with both paired t test and unpaired Student t test.

116 atistical analysis was performed by 2-tailed paired t test and with nonparametric tests where appropr

117 For statistical analysis, paired t tests and a Wilcoxon signed rank test were perf

118 n FBP and ADMIRE were compared by using both paired t tests and analysis of variance tests at the 95%

119 y, and 3D tractograms were analyzed by using paired t tests and analysis of variance.

120 Data were analyzed with paired t tests and Bland-Altman limits of agreement.

121 rements across TAE stages were compared with paired t tests and linear regression.

122 Statistical analysis comprised paired t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, as well as Pear

123 of variance with multiple comparisons and/or paired t tests and regression analysis were used for ana

124 of variance with multiple comparisons and/or paired t tests and regression analysis, as appropriate.

125 h- and low-dose scans were compared by using paired t tests and the signed rank test.

126 Variables were expressed as mean +/- SD; paired t-test and chi(2) test were used as appropriate.

127 A paired t-test and linear regression analyses were used t

128 with each Statistical analysis was based on paired t-test and linear regression analysis.

129 ere compared with those of fellow eyes using paired t-tests and with those of control eyes using inde

130 r (11)C-tariquidar (+27% +/- 15%, P = 0.014, paired t test) and (11)C-elacridar (+21% +/- 15%, P = 0.

131 4 versus 8017 +/- 1103 micromol/d; P < 0.03, paired t test) and NO(2)/NO(3) (18.1 +/- 1.1 versus 22.9

132 creased orientation dispersion (P < 0.001 by paired t-test) and lower fractional anisotropy (P < 0.00

133 ' normal-appearing cortical grey matter T2* (paired t-test) and with mean cortical T2* in controls (l

134 with DXA, did not differ from DXA (P = .15, paired t test), and was able to identify osteoporosis (a

135 ysis was performed with the chi(2) test, the paired t test, and analysis of variance with repeated me

136 sis, repeated-measures analysis of variance, paired t test, and Bland-Altman analysis were used; for

137 The Wilcoxon signed rank test, paired t test, and Friedman analysis of variance were co

138 The Student t test, paired t test, and Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA were use

139 distributed variables were compared by using paired t tests, and categorical data were compared by us

140 ponders and nonresponders were analyzed with paired t tests, and OS was calculated with the Kaplan-Me

141 tabolism between on and off conditions using paired t tests, and Pearson linear correlations were use

142 with repeated-measures analysis of variance, paired t tests, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

143 r-observer reproducibility, unpaired t-test, paired t-test, and Bland-Altman analyses to determine li

144 Paired t-tests, ANOVA and generalized-estimating-equatio

145 Similarly, paired t tests are common when comparing means from the

146 glucose transporter, and hexokinase assays (paired t test), as well as pharmacologic assays against

147 ion and MR imaging were evaluated by using a paired t test, as were differences between lesion-to-ver

148 sis of variance and Bland-Altman analysis; a paired t test assessed change from baseline to after tre

149 Data were analyzed by paired t test at rest, at ventilatory threshold (VTh), a

150 k, peak value, and slope of enhancement in a paired t test at the 95% significance level.

151 ) significantly decreased by 3.5% (P = .012, paired t test) at 1 month and 4.2% (P = .007) at 3 month

152 Student paired t tests based on a logarithmic scale were perform

153 ignificant difference tests, independent and paired t tests, Bland and Altman analyses, correlations,

154 Ventricular volumes were compared with paired t tests, Bland-Altman analysis, and correlation c

155 ve and postoperative MRD2 and lagophthalmos (paired t test, both P < .0001).

156 Based on paired t tests, both groups had significant improvement

157 7 versus 8449 +/- 1086 micromol/d; P < 0.05, paired t test) but was not additive to bosentan.

158 At 6 months, paired t test comparisons within groups showed statistic

159 Paired t test comparisons yielded significant difference

160 Paired t-test comparisons were all statistically signifi

161 One-way analysis of variance, paired t tests, concordance and Bland-Altman tests, and

162 Student paired t-test confirmed a statistically significant diff

163 anges during treatment were determined using paired t-tests corrected for multiple hypothesis testing

164 Measurements were compared with paired t test, correlation, and Bland-Altman analysis.

165 tireader multicase data and with the Student paired t test for analysis of observer-specific paired d

166 arison of CT fluoroscopy times, a two-tailed paired t test for comparison of age and tumor size, and

167 yses were performed by using a single-tailed paired t test for comparison of CT fluoroscopy times, a

168 (6-month) data were compared using Student's paired t test for parametric data and the Wilcoxon match

169 Using a paired t test for the estimated areas under the receiver

170 othelium, and the opposite pattern with VWF (paired t test for TM and EPCR, each P < .001; for VWF, P

171 as means +/- SD and were analyzed using the paired t test for univariate analysis and restricted/res

172 fferences in mound volume were detected with paired t tests in 14 patients with early and late sonogr

173 n change of FA for regions that survived the paired t tests in patients treated with chemotherapy.

174 n detectability than 2D (P < 0.025, 2-tailed paired t test) in patients of normal size (body mass ind

175 nted mice to 0.9 +/- 0.3 FU (n = 4, P < .02, paired t test) in supplemented mice.

176 Results of a paired t-test indicate that the eye wearing the medium-D

177 Paired t-tests indicated a significant decrease of muscl

178 ction and autorefraction were compared using paired t-tests, intraclass correlations, and Bland-Altma

179 Statistical analyses included paired t tests, Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, and

180 re compared with the baseline score by using paired t tests (level of significance, P < .007).

181 Wilcoxon signed-rank test, paired t test, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient

182 tistical analysis was performed by using the paired t test, linear regression, and Bland-Altman analy

183 d with microsphere MBF measurements by using paired t tests, linear correlation, and Bland-Altman ana

184 intracellular volume fraction (P = 0.015 by paired t-test), lower myelin-sensitive contrast (P = 0.0

185 Statistical analyses included the paired t test, Mann-Whitney nonparametric test for group

186 ally by means of descriptive statistics, non-paired t-test, Mann-Whitney rank sum test, Spearman rank

187 e analyzed using descriptive statistics, the paired t test, McNemar test, and a general linear model.

188 tatistical analysis was conducted by using a paired t test, multilevel analysis, and analysis of cova

189 eld in saline injected controls, P < 0.05 by paired t-test, n = 10).

190 T-1 compared with the control eye (P = 0.01, paired t-test, n = 15 animals).

191 EM) after 4 weeks of elevated IOP (P = 0.01, paired t-test, n = 5 animals per group).

192 +/- 7.9%, P = 0.01; mean reduction +/- SEM, paired t-tests, n = 5 animals per group, four duplicate

193 ycan synthesis to 43% of controls (P < 0.02, paired t-test; n = 16) and produced a relative inhibitio

194 ially expressed genes, results from standard paired t-test of normalized data are compared with those

195 Paired t-tests of tumor/normal tissues identified 511 ge

196 ve and operative groups were compared using: paired t test on a propensity score-matched subset and m

197 acid (DHA)-rich fish oil for 1 mo (P < 0.05, paired t test on final rod threshold); and movement skil

198 han when only the SO was stimulated (P<0.02, paired t-test on five preparations).

199 ttreatment variables were analyzed using the paired t test or Wilcoxon rank test.

200 Within-group changes were analyzed with paired t tests or repeated measures analysis of variance

201 tion, the k1 and k2 significantly increased (paired t test P = 0.046 and P = 0.023, respectively).

202 tralateral saline-treated muscle (one-sample paired t test p=0.002).

203 NNA treatment (mean 42.9% [range 12.0-62.1]; paired t test p=0.0070), which was sustained for up to 2

204 erformance differences are significant (with paired t-test p-values less than 0.05).

205 D) (placebo 1.3 (0.2); citalopram 1.4 (0.2); paired t-test P=0.003).

206 T2-weighted MR images by means of a Student paired t test (P = .05).

207 cts with SCH (19.5 +/- 5.3 vs. 23.7 +/- 4.1, paired t test, p < .0001); however, no correlations were

208 visit after starting binimetinib treatment (paired t test, P < .001).

209 ability Index, EQ-5D, and pain interference (paired t test, P < .013).

210 on, glucose uptake, and hexokinase activity (paired t test, P < .05).

211 compared with matched normal breast tissues (paired t test, P < 0.0001) and a general inverse correla

212 g the number of perforin(+) (84 +/- 3.6%; by paired t test, p < 0.001) and CD27(+) (from 28 to 67%; b

213 A and protein levels by quantitative RT-PCR (paired t test, P < 0.015), immunoblot, and immunohistoch

214 between PET/CT and PET/MR images was found (paired t test, P = .95).

215 , p < 0.001) and CD27(+) (from 28 to 67%; by paired t test, p = 0.01) tHLA(+) T cells.

216 ervention localities (95% CI from 29.2-50.6; paired t test, p<0.003).

217 3.6 dB in right and left eyes, respectively (paired t-test, P < 0.01).

218 ased and ALCS depth increased significantly (paired t-test, P < 0.01); no change in RNFL thickness wa

219 ined at 40 degrees contralateral (two-tailed paired t-test, P<0.0001).

220 djacent normal in 54% of the examined cases (paired t-test, P<0.001).

221 quency tuning (i. e. Q(n) values, two-tailed paired t-test, P<0.01).

222 ples (mean yield = 7.6 micro g/two brushes) (paired t test: p < 0.001), while DNA yields from cheek a

223 %), gait (49%) and postural stability (56%) (paired t-tests: P < 0.001).

224 l oxygen/mL brain tissue/min after recovery (paired t test; P < 0.05).

225 Measurements were compared with a paired t test; P </= .05 indicated a significant differe

226 ose of the phenotypically wild-type retinas (paired t-test; P < 0.01 and P < 0.01, respectively).

227 ant RGC-specific loss in Brn3b(-/-) retinas (paired t-test; P < 0.01).

228 ly higher in M versus IF in soils post-1940 (paired-t test; p < 0.001).

229 in patients with TLE than controls (p<0.05, paired t-test), particularly to neocortical regions incl

230 left carotid arteries were analyzed by using paired t tests; possible sex differences, by using unpai

231 Paired t test, repeated measures analysis of variance (A

232 nalyzed by using one-sample, two-sample, and paired t tests, respectively.

233 Voxel-based paired t tests revealed significantly decreased activati

234 Paired t tests show that tissue metabolite profiles can

235 Paired t tests showed no significant differences between

236 tients with HIVN, semiquantitative analysis (paired t test) showed statistically significant differen

237 acquired 120 min after injection (P < 0.001, paired t test; signal-to-noise ratio at 60 min after inj

238 e data by ANOVA [F(1,10) > 9, p < 0.013] and paired t-test [t(9) = -3.675, p = 0.005].

239 , 0.82 +/- 0.11 and 0.84 +/- 0.10; Student's paired t-test, t = 2.79, P = 0.02; t = 2.80, P = 0.02; a

240 +/- 1.4 to 5.5 +/- 1.2 l min(-1) (P = 0.003, paired t test), tended to decrease stroke volume from 97

241 test (6.3 minutes) was shorter (P < 0.0001, paired t-test) than the FT test (11.8 minutes).

242 We used a paired t test to compare ICP with insufflation and desuf

243 ges during the 12-month follow-up period and paired t tests to compare HSK-affected eyes with fellow

244 Statistical analysis included paired t tests to detect any differences in responses to

245 In all groups, we used paired t tests to study changes in neuropsychologic test

246 ogic test scores and whole-brain voxel-based paired t tests to study changes in WM fractional anisotr

247 the contralateral eye was achieved employing paired t tests to the visual function measures.

248 sets for each group were then compared using paired t-tests to detect differences between the 2 popul

249 ally tested for intraindividual differences (paired t tests) to avoid effects resulting from variatio

250 Paired t tests used to compare images obtained before an

251 (PECO) (P < 0.05, MANOVA, post hoc Student's paired t test vs. Stim) and fell to 9.27 +/- 4.4 ms mmHg

252 A paired t test was conducted with the subject as the unit

253 Paired t test was performed to compare excess foci befor

254 Paired t test was used for the statistical analysis.

255 Paired t test was used to analyze changes in readability

256 The paired t test was used to compare biparietal diameter (B

257 was used to compare image rating scores, the paired t test was used to compare CRs, and kappa statist

258 The paired t test was used to compare the time to interventi

259 A paired t test was used to determine significant differen

260 Paired t-test was performed to compare the macular thick

261 The paired t-test was used for statistical analysis with a 0

262 sures general linear model and the Student's paired t test were used to analyze changes in laboratory

263 inear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and paired t testing were performed.

264 One-sided matched-paired t tests were performed to compare data from healt

265 correlations with the reference values, and paired t tests were performed to compare the means.

266 Paired t tests were performed to test within-group diffe

267 Two-sided Fisher exact and paired t tests were used for categorical and continuous

268 Two-tailed paired t tests were used for statistical analysis.

269 Paired t tests were used to assess improvement before an

270 The chi2 and paired t tests were used to assess these findings in pat

271 Paired t tests were used to assess whether mean measurem

272 Two-tailed paired t tests were used to compare change in tumor hemo

273 naccuracies across sound-masking levels, and paired t tests were used to compare each sound-masking l

274 nd-Altman, and reclassification analyses and paired t tests were used to compare results.

275 Paired t tests were used to compare SI and SI ratios (DN

276 The Wilcoxon signed rank and paired t tests were used to compare the difference betwe

277 Paired t tests were used to compare tumor-to-liver contr

278 Paired t tests were used to determine statistical signif

279 Paired t tests were used to estimate and evaluate the si

280 d using conditional logistic regression, and paired t tests were used to evaluate case-control differ

281 Paired t tests were used to evaluate changes in HRQL ove

282 Match paired t tests were used to evaluate for dyadic differen

283 Paired t tests were used to identify differences in outc

284 nt analyses, multiple linear regression, and paired t tests were used to select biomarkers of interes

285 Pearson's correlations and paired t-tests were used to compare the age at SLE diagn

286 Paired and non-paired t-tests were used to determine differences betwee

287 Student's paired t-tests were used to determine the significance o

288 Discriminant validity was described using paired t tests, whereas internal consistency was describ

289 27.2 +/- 13.1 mL/min per 1.73 m (P<0.001 on paired t test), which represents a 29.2% drop in the ser

290 tivity in mock-transfected myocytes (P<0.01, paired t test) while having only a slight stimulatory ef

291 ean difference 11.9 +/- 6.0 mum, P < 0.0001, paired t-test), while there was no significant differenc

292 Activation maps were obtained from a paired t test with a P value of.0005 (uncorrected).

293 ween cleaning methods were compared by using paired t tests with Bonferroni correction for 3 comparis

294 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.05; post hoc paired t test) with reduced penetration-aspiration score

295 +/- 15.2% (66.1 +/- 146 feet, p < 0.0001, by paired t test), with an intraclass correlation coefficie

296 d SSDE size-specific dose estimate was made (paired t tests), with Bonferroni adjustment.

297 McNemar test and procedural times by using a paired t test, with P < .05 indicating a significant dif

298 were compared in the two groups by means of paired t test, with subsequent histologic analysis to co

299 Statistical analysis was performed by using paired t tests, with P<.05 considered to indicate a sign

300 he two procedures led to comparable results (paired t-test, with t<tcrit).