Search alternatives:
significant limitations » significant implications (Expand Search), significant variations (Expand Search), significant variation (Expand Search)
largest decrease » largest decreases (Expand Search), marked decrease (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
significant limitations » significant implications (Expand Search), significant variations (Expand Search), significant variation (Expand Search)
largest decrease » largest decreases (Expand Search), marked decrease (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
-
121
-
122
-
123
-
124
-
125
-
126
Features and limitations of the existing models.
Published 2024“…<div><p>Early Lung Cancer (LC) detection is essential for reducing the global mortality rate. The limitations of traditional diagnostic techniques cause challenges in identifying LC using medical imaging data. …”
-
127
-
128
-
129
Risk of Bias summary for RCTs included.
Published 2025“…After removing duplicates and screening, 10 studies (6 RCTs, 4 non-RCTs) published between 2010 and 2023 with 602 participants met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The random effects model showed significant improvement in sleep quality with music therapy (SMD: −0.79; 95% CI, −1.25 to −0.33; P < .001). …”
-
130
Risk of bias for RCTs studies included.
Published 2025“…After removing duplicates and screening, 10 studies (6 RCTs, 4 non-RCTs) published between 2010 and 2023 with 602 participants met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The random effects model showed significant improvement in sleep quality with music therapy (SMD: −0.79; 95% CI, −1.25 to −0.33; P < .001). …”
-
131
-
132
-
133
-
134
-
135
Included studies.
Published 2025“…However, there is a significant limitation in the accuracy of mosaic embryos.…”
-
136
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). …”
-
137
-
138
-
139
-
140