Search alternatives:
significant protective » significant positive (Expand Search), significant potential (Expand Search), significant proteomic (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
protective decrease » progressive decrease (Expand Search)
significant protective » significant positive (Expand Search), significant potential (Expand Search), significant proteomic (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
protective decrease » progressive decrease (Expand Search)
-
881
-
882
-
883
Between-group differences in 95% Area, Y Sway Amplitude and LFS during postural training.
Published 2025Subjects: -
884
-
885
Consolidation of training-induced changes in unipedal stance: 95% Area, Y Sway Amplitude and LFS.
Published 2025Subjects: -
886
-
887
-
888
-
889
-
890
Preference for the EIA – conjoint results.
Published 2025“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
891
Marginal means – Pooled across scenarios.
Published 2025“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
892
Sample attribute table.
Published 2025“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
893
Subgroup analysis – Political affiliation.
Published 2025“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
894
Sample scenario description.
Published 2025“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
895
AMCEs – Pooled across scenarios.
Published 2025“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
896
Methodological flowchart.
Published 2025“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
897
Preference for the EIA vs. ETA across scenarios.
Published 2025“…A randomized conjoint experiment and a follow-up choice experiment revealed that support for the EIAs decreased sharply as their accuracy gap grew, although impact parity was prioritized more when ETAs produced large outcome discrepancies. …”
-
898
Immunogenicity results of different vaccination schemes at different time points.
Published 2024Subjects: -
899
-
900