Table 1_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.docx by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…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). …”

Image 5_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.png by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…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). …”

Image 9_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…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). …”

Image 1_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.jpeg by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…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). …”

Image 2_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…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). …”

Image 8_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…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). …”

Image 7_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…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). …”

Image 10_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…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). …”

Image 4_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…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). …”

Image 6_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…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). …”

Image 3_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

“…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). …”

Supplementary Material for: The Impact of the Selective Cytopheretic Device on Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratios and Hematological Parameters in AKI: A Pooled Analysis by figshare admin karger (2628495)

“…NLR reductions in the SCD group were driven by decreases in neutrophils and increases in lymphocytes. …”

Data Sheet 1_Development and validation of a sliding type continuous passive motion automation device for evaluation and rehabilitation of frozen shoulder: a pilot study.pdf by Jewoo Lee (22028855)

“…Passive stiffness in the intervention group significantly decreased in abduction (p = 0.010) and external rotation (p < 0.001). …”

Presentation 1_Changes to inflammatory markers during 5 years of viral suppression and during viral blips in people with HIV initiating different integrase inhibitor based regimens... by Nicholas T. Funderburg (9422033)

“…Levels of D-dimer, sCD14, and TNFR1 decreased significantly from baseline in all treatment arms, with no significant differences between arms at any timepoint. …”

Image 1_Phage (cocktail)-antibiotic synergism: a new frontier in addressing Klebsiella pneumoniae resistance.tif by Chandrasekar Karthika (21255878)

“…In vitro investigations demonstrated that the phage cocktail significantly decreased both planktonic and sessile cells. …”

Image 5_Phage (cocktail)-antibiotic synergism: a new frontier in addressing Klebsiella pneumoniae resistance.tif by Chandrasekar Karthika (21255878)

“…In vitro investigations demonstrated that the phage cocktail significantly decreased both planktonic and sessile cells. …”

Table 2_Phage (cocktail)-antibiotic synergism: a new frontier in addressing Klebsiella pneumoniae resistance.doc by Chandrasekar Karthika (21255878)

“…In vitro investigations demonstrated that the phage cocktail significantly decreased both planktonic and sessile cells. …”

Image 3_Phage (cocktail)-antibiotic synergism: a new frontier in addressing Klebsiella pneumoniae resistance.tif by Chandrasekar Karthika (21255878)

“…In vitro investigations demonstrated that the phage cocktail significantly decreased both planktonic and sessile cells. …”

Image 6_Phage (cocktail)-antibiotic synergism: a new frontier in addressing Klebsiella pneumoniae resistance.tif by Chandrasekar Karthika (21255878)

“…In vitro investigations demonstrated that the phage cocktail significantly decreased both planktonic and sessile cells. …”

Image 2_Phage (cocktail)-antibiotic synergism: a new frontier in addressing Klebsiella pneumoniae resistance.tif by Chandrasekar Karthika (21255878)

“…In vitro investigations demonstrated that the phage cocktail significantly decreased both planktonic and sessile cells. …”