Showing 201 - 220 results of 6,314 for search '(( i ((values decrease) OR (larger decrease)) ) OR ( a ((linear decrease) OR (teer decrease)) ))', query time: 0.58s Refine Results
  1. 201
  2. 202
  3. 203

    Threading Behavior and Dynamics of Ring-Linear Polymer Blends under Poiseuille Flow by Deyin Wang (6028850)

    Published 2024
    “…When the flow field strength exceeds this critical value, ring-linear polymer blends will aggregate into a cluster due to the combination of entanglement between polymers and the large differences in the velocities of the polymers. …”
  4. 204
  5. 205
  6. 206
  7. 207
  8. 208

    Study-related adverse events. by Benjamin R. Lewis (22279166)

    Published 2025
    “…We recorded 12 study-related, Grade 1–2 AEs and no serious AEs. In a linear mixed model analysis (LMM), the MBSR + PAP arm evidenced a significantly larger decrease in QIDS-SR-16 score than the MBSR-only arm from baseline to 2-weeks post-intervention (between-groups effect = 4.6, 95% CI [1.51, 7.70]; <i>p</i> = 0.008). …”
  9. 209

    Study flow chart. by Benjamin R. Lewis (22279166)

    Published 2025
    “…We recorded 12 study-related, Grade 1–2 AEs and no serious AEs. In a linear mixed model analysis (LMM), the MBSR + PAP arm evidenced a significantly larger decrease in QIDS-SR-16 score than the MBSR-only arm from baseline to 2-weeks post-intervention (between-groups effect = 4.6, 95% CI [1.51, 7.70]; <i>p</i> = 0.008). …”
  10. 210

    Study CONSORT diagram. by Benjamin R. Lewis (22279166)

    Published 2025
    “…We recorded 12 study-related, Grade 1–2 AEs and no serious AEs. In a linear mixed model analysis (LMM), the MBSR + PAP arm evidenced a significantly larger decrease in QIDS-SR-16 score than the MBSR-only arm from baseline to 2-weeks post-intervention (between-groups effect = 4.6, 95% CI [1.51, 7.70]; <i>p</i> = 0.008). …”
  11. 211
  12. 212
  13. 213
  14. 214
  15. 215
  16. 216

    Study 1_CFA1. by Chen-Yueh Chen (9740047)

    Published 2025
    “…Findings from Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) in Study II indicate that in Experiment I, positive electronic word of mouth does not help improve value co-creation among spectators while negative electronic word of mouth does decrease value co-creation among spectators. …”
  17. 217
  18. 218
  19. 219
  20. 220