Search alternatives:
teer decrease » greater decrease (Expand Search)
0 decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
teer decrease » greater decrease (Expand Search)
0 decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
-
10141
Long-term impact of changing childhood malnutrition on rotavirus diarrhoea: Two decades of adjusted association with climate and socio-demographic factors from urban Bangladesh
Published 2017“…In the adjusted model, a decrease in monthly proportion of underweight [coef.: -0.189 (95% CI:-0.376, -0.003)] and wasting [-0.265 (-0.455, -0.075)] were significantly and inversely associated with rotavirus infection. …”
-
10142
Temporal Trend in Young-Onset Type 2 Diabetes - the Macrovascular and Mortality Risk: Study of UK Primary Care Electronic Medical Records
Published 2020“…The incidence rates of ASCVD and ACM declined in people aged ≥50 years, but did not decrease in people <50 years. Compared to people aged ≥50 years, those aged 18-39 years at diagnosis had higher obesity (71% obese), higher HbA1c (8.6%), 71% had high LDL-C, while only 18% were on cardio-protective therapy. …”
-
10143
Image 5_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.png
Published 2025“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
-
10144
Image 9_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
-
10145
Image 1_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.jpeg
Published 2025“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
-
10146
Image 2_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
-
10147
Image 8_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
-
10148
Image 7_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
-
10149
Image 10_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
-
10150
Image 4_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
-
10151
Image 6_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
-
10152
Image 3_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff
Published 2025“…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
-
10153
-
10154
-
10155
yorku.forest.October25.2016.csv
Published 2016“…It was hypothesized as the temperature decreases the number of invertebrates found in the forest will decrease. …”
-
10156
Contrast responses under stimulus contrasts distributing in different ranges.
Published 2013“…<i>B</i>: The mean response of the 33 cells to 50% contrast decreased when the mean of the contrast range increased. …”
-
10157
-
10158
-
10159
-
10160