Showing 1,241 - 1,260 results of 2,520 for search '(( significant linear decrease ) OR ( significantly ((weaker decrease) OR (greater decrease)) ))', query time: 0.29s Refine Results
  1. 1241

    Hourly power generation of solar and wind. by Nouman Qamar (21511939)

    Published 2025
    “…This work proposed a stochastic model for REH using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to optimally handle the associated uncertainties of RES and PEHVs, which was then solved using GAMS software. …”
  2. 1242

    Cooling power of SREH in Case Study-IV. by Nouman Qamar (21511939)

    Published 2025
    “…This work proposed a stochastic model for REH using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to optimally handle the associated uncertainties of RES and PEHVs, which was then solved using GAMS software. …”
  3. 1243

    Technical features of PHEV battery. by Nouman Qamar (21511939)

    Published 2025
    “…This work proposed a stochastic model for REH using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to optimally handle the associated uncertainties of RES and PEHVs, which was then solved using GAMS software. …”
  4. 1244

    Electrical power of SREH in Case Study-III. by Nouman Qamar (21511939)

    Published 2025
    “…This work proposed a stochastic model for REH using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to optimally handle the associated uncertainties of RES and PEHVs, which was then solved using GAMS software. …”
  5. 1245

    Heating power of SREH in Case Study-III. by Nouman Qamar (21511939)

    Published 2025
    “…This work proposed a stochastic model for REH using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to optimally handle the associated uncertainties of RES and PEHVs, which was then solved using GAMS software. …”
  6. 1246

    Conceptual framework of REH under study. by Nouman Qamar (21511939)

    Published 2025
    “…This work proposed a stochastic model for REH using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to optimally handle the associated uncertainties of RES and PEHVs, which was then solved using GAMS software. …”
  7. 1247

    Energy hub architecture. by Nouman Qamar (21511939)

    Published 2025
    “…This work proposed a stochastic model for REH using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to optimally handle the associated uncertainties of RES and PEHVs, which was then solved using GAMS software. …”
  8. 1248

    Electricity and gas prices. by Nouman Qamar (21511939)

    Published 2025
    “…This work proposed a stochastic model for REH using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to optimally handle the associated uncertainties of RES and PEHVs, which was then solved using GAMS software. …”
  9. 1249

    Technical features of central devices. by Nouman Qamar (21511939)

    Published 2025
    “…This work proposed a stochastic model for REH using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to optimally handle the associated uncertainties of RES and PEHVs, which was then solved using GAMS software. …”
  10. 1250

    Results for Case Study-I. by Nouman Qamar (21511939)

    Published 2025
    “…This work proposed a stochastic model for REH using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to optimally handle the associated uncertainties of RES and PEHVs, which was then solved using GAMS software. …”
  11. 1251

    Technical features of wind turbine. by Nouman Qamar (21511939)

    Published 2025
    “…This work proposed a stochastic model for REH using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to optimally handle the associated uncertainties of RES and PEHVs, which was then solved using GAMS software. …”
  12. 1252

    Heating power of SREH in Case Study-IV. by Nouman Qamar (21511939)

    Published 2025
    “…This work proposed a stochastic model for REH using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to optimally handle the associated uncertainties of RES and PEHVs, which was then solved using GAMS software. …”
  13. 1253

    Electrical power of SREH in Case Study-IV. by Nouman Qamar (21511939)

    Published 2025
    “…This work proposed a stochastic model for REH using mixed integer linear programming (MILP) to optimally handle the associated uncertainties of RES and PEHVs, which was then solved using GAMS software. …”
  14. 1254

    Participant interview topics. by Lex D. de Jong (22138778)

    Published 2025
    “…Outcomes were evaluated with a multilevel linear regression analysis at baseline, 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. …”
  15. 1255

    The participants’ baseline characteristics. by Lex D. de Jong (22138778)

    Published 2025
    “…Outcomes were evaluated with a multilevel linear regression analysis at baseline, 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. …”
  16. 1256
  17. 1257

    Changes in best-corrected visual acuity and total area reduction ratio of the epiretinal membrane (ERM) during follow-up. by Su Hwan Park (15158181)

    Published 2025
    “…<p>(a) During the follow-up period, the stable group showed no significant change in visual acuity, whereas the progression group exhibited a decrease compared to baseline starting at 12 months, with greater changes than those in the stable group beginning at 6 months. …”
  18. 1258

    Data. by Su Hwan Park (15158181)

    Published 2025
    “…Participants in the progression group were younger (60.7 vs. 65.7 years, P = 0.015) and showed a larger BCVA change (0.20 vs. 0.04, P < 0.001) and greater ERM area decrease (34.2% vs. 11.7%, P < 0.001) during the follow-up period. …”
  19. 1259

    Baseline characteristics of patients. by Su Hwan Park (15158181)

    Published 2025
    “…Participants in the progression group were younger (60.7 vs. 65.7 years, P = 0.015) and showed a larger BCVA change (0.20 vs. 0.04, P < 0.001) and greater ERM area decrease (34.2% vs. 11.7%, P < 0.001) during the follow-up period. …”
  20. 1260

    Variability in performance and response to task dynamics. by Daniel Ramandi (10047543)

    Published 2025
    “…(B) The analysis of trajectory variability, quantified as DTW distance of consecutive trials, showed a non-significant trend towards greater variability in zQ175 mice, peaking later compared to WT mice (RM two-way ANOVA, genotype p = 0.070 F(1, 20) = 3.660, trial p = 0.0005 F(4.291, 85.82) = 5.351, interaction p = 0.542 F(19, 380) = 0.9329). …”