Table_14_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.XLSX by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Table_3_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.XLSX by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Table_11_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.DOCX by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Table_15_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.XLSX by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Table_5_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.DOCX by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Data_Sheet_1_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.PDF by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Table_9_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.DOCX by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Table_4_Meta-analysis of hybrid immunity to mitigate the risk of Omicron variant reinfection.XLSX by Huiling Zheng (49699)

“…The effectiveness of hybrid immunity (incomplete vaccination) in mitigating the risk of reinfection was 37.88% (95% CI, 28.88–46.89%) within 270–364 days, and decreased to 33.23%% (95% CI, 23.80–42.66%) within 365–639 days; whereas, the effectiveness after complete vaccination was 54.36% (95% CI, 50.82–57.90%) within 270–364 days, and the effectiveness of booster vaccination was 73.49% (95% CI, 68.95–78.04%) within 90–119 days.…”

Image 3_CS Ratio is an immune-related prognostic biomarker for cervical cancer.tiff by Peiqin Shi (22130170)

“…The CS polarization state reflects a highly coordinated network of pro-tumor anti-tumor variables offering a simplified yet effective immune response indicator for the complex TME. …”

Intermittent fasting enhances long-term memory consolidation, adult hippocampal neurogenesis and expression of longevity gene Klotho (Microarray dataset) by Sandrine Thuret (10326662)

“…Relatively loose criteria were initially used to filter the data (to minimize analytical false negatives), but genes were required to pass these criteria for each of the four methods to be considered further (four out of four methods) to minimize analytical false positives. </p> <p>A fold change of 1.2 along with a t-test p-value of less than 0.05 was used in RMA and dChip, and a confidence of 50% or higher was used in the Drop Method. …”

Image 2_CS Ratio is an immune-related prognostic biomarker for cervical cancer.tiff by Peiqin Shi (22130170)

“…The CS polarization state reflects a highly coordinated network of pro-tumor anti-tumor variables offering a simplified yet effective immune response indicator for the complex TME. …”

Image 1_CS Ratio is an immune-related prognostic biomarker for cervical cancer.tiff by Peiqin Shi (22130170)

“…The CS polarization state reflects a highly coordinated network of pro-tumor anti-tumor variables offering a simplified yet effective immune response indicator for the complex TME. …”

S1 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

S3 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

S2 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

S5 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

S6 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

S4 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

S7 Data - by Renjie Wang (1986553)

“…Notably, moderate (D2) and severe (D3) drought treatments led to negative GD values. GD decreased by 23.79%, 114.85%, and 175.50% for D1, D2, and D3 treatments, respectively, while reductions of 40.00%, 73.33%, and 90.00% in GD were observed compared to the control (CK). …”

Factors affecting LLINs usage at household level. by Job Oyweri (22041452)

“…Not owning a bed decreased the likelihood of net usage by 13.3% [aOR=0.867 (95% CI = 0.816–0.920), p < 0.001]. …”