Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
significantly larger » significantly lower (Expand Search), significantly higher (Expand Search), significantly better (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
decrease risk » increased risk (Expand Search), increases risk (Expand Search), disease risk (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
significantly larger » significantly lower (Expand Search), significantly higher (Expand Search), significantly better (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
decrease risk » increased risk (Expand Search), increases risk (Expand Search), disease risk (Expand Search)
-
41
Scheme of g-λ model with larger values λ.
Published 2024“…The findings suggest that when λ is respectively equal to 4.19, 8.57, 10, and 12.15, the peak particle velocity (PPV) of the transmitted waves is significantly close to the incident wave amplitude. Furthermore, when λ is fixed, the energy transmission coefficient increases with the incident wave amplitude but decreases with the incident wave frequency. …”
-
42
QUIPS risk of bias assessment.
Published 2023“…Higher estimates of peak, measured and as a percentagege of predicted, showed significant associations with a lower risk of mortality [MD: 3.66, 95% CI: 0.88; 6.43 and MD: 16.49, 95% CI: 6.92; 26.07] and fewer complications [MD: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.12; 3.00 and MD: 9.82, 95% CI: 5.88; 13.76]. …”
-
43
-
44
-
45
-
46
Variants with an unknown significance or conflicting interpretation of clinical significance.
Published 2022Subjects: -
47
-
48
Restricted cubic spline plots showing the association between changes in PAL and risk of CVD.
Published 2025Subjects: -
49
-
50
-
51
-
52
-
53
-
54
-
55
-
56
-
57
Spatial information is significantly decreased in dCA1 and vCA1 in APP/PS1 mice.
Published 2024“…The spatial information in dCA1 was significantly larger than circularly shuffled spike trains with similar mean firing rates for C57BL/6 mice (mean ± std: empirical = 0.132 ± 0.048, shuffled = 0.124 ± 0.035, p < 0.001, two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, n<sub>empirical</sub> = 305 units from 5 recording sessions, n<sub>shuffled</sub> = 30500 simulated units from 5 recording sessions), but not for APP/PS1 mice (mean ± std: empirical = 0.128 ± 0.051, shuffled = 0.123 ± .047, p = 0.39, two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, n<sub>empirical</sub> = 180 units from 4 recording sessions, n<sub>shuffled</sub> = 18000 simulated units from 4 recording sessions). …”
-
58
-
59
-
60