Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
we decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), nn decrease (Expand Search)
-
41
Image 2_Kidney sparing surgery versus radical nephroureterectomy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review.tif
Published 2025“…In the comparison between the endoscopic management (EM) and RNU groups, EM was associated with worse overall survival outcomes (HR,1.40; 95%CI,1.08-1.82; P=0.01) based on multivariable Cox regression analysis, and the upper tract recurrence rate (OR,39.06; 95%CI, 14.55-104.85; P<0.00001) was significantly higher in the EM group. …”
-
42
Model-derived results show increased social following in individuals with disrupted utility-based risky decision-making.
Published 2024“…Post-hoc analyses revealed that the difference was specific to individuals with insula lesions (NC vs insula: <i>P</i> = 0.0043; NC vs dACC: <i>P</i> = 0.14, BF<sub>null</sub> = 1.17; dACC vs insula: <i>P</i> = 0.36, BF<sub>null</sub> = 1.71). <b>(d)</b> We tested a link between decreased utility-based risk processing (measured by negative log likelihood in Solo trials; −LL) and increased ω<sub>follow</sub>. …”
-
43
Table 1_Prevalence and prognostic value of sarcopenia in patients with bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.docx
Published 2025“…The results of meta-analysis showed that the pooled prevalence of sarcopenia was estimated to be 49% (95% CI: 41% to 57%, I<sup>2</sup> = 95.3%, P < 0.001), which was based on a random-effects model. We observed that BC patients with sarcopenia had a worse OS (HR:1.64, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.97, I<sup>2</sup> = 76.5%, P < 0.001} and CSS (HR:1.86, 95% CI: 1.45 to 2.27, I<sup>2</sup> = 0.0%, P < 0.001).…”