Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
higher decrease » higher degrees (Expand Search), highest increase (Expand Search)
higher degree » high degree (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
higher decrease » higher degrees (Expand Search), highest increase (Expand Search)
higher degree » high degree (Expand Search)
-
1901
EF-24 treatment significantly reduces cell viability in leukemia cell lines.
Published 2025Subjects: -
1902
-
1903
-
1904
Imaging CDK4/6 Broaden Options of Breast Cancer Diagnostics with Positron Emission Tomography
Published 2025Subjects: -
1905
Imaging CDK4/6 Broaden Options of Breast Cancer Diagnostics with Positron Emission Tomography
Published 2025Subjects: -
1906
Imaging CDK4/6 Broaden Options of Breast Cancer Diagnostics with Positron Emission Tomography
Published 2025Subjects: -
1907
Imaging CDK4/6 Broaden Options of Breast Cancer Diagnostics with Positron Emission Tomography
Published 2025Subjects: -
1908
Imaging CDK4/6 Broaden Options of Breast Cancer Diagnostics with Positron Emission Tomography
Published 2025Subjects: -
1909
Imaging CDK4/6 Broaden Options of Breast Cancer Diagnostics with Positron Emission Tomography
Published 2025Subjects: -
1910
Imaging CDK4/6 Broaden Options of Breast Cancer Diagnostics with Positron Emission Tomography
Published 2025Subjects: -
1911
-
1912
Linear covariate analysis of prognostically significant metabolites. Presenting the effect sizes of metabolites that showed significant differences among prognostic groups in ICU-treated COVID-19 patients....
Published 2025“…<p>Linear covariate analysis of prognostically significant metabolites. Presenting the effect sizes of metabolites that showed significant differences among prognostic groups in ICU-treated COVID-19 patients. …”
-
1913
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. …”
-
1914
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. …”
-
1915
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. …”
-
1916
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. …”
-
1917
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. …”
-
1918
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. …”
-
1919
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. …”
-
1920
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. …”