Search alternatives:
changed decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search), change increases (Expand Search), caused decreased (Expand Search)
significant cost » significant cause (Expand Search), significant amount (Expand Search), significant causal (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
cost decreased » costs decreased (Expand Search), costs increased (Expand Search), content decreased (Expand Search)
changed decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search), change increases (Expand Search), caused decreased (Expand Search)
significant cost » significant cause (Expand Search), significant amount (Expand Search), significant causal (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
cost decreased » costs decreased (Expand Search), costs increased (Expand Search), content decreased (Expand Search)
-
121
-
122
-
123
Test of standardized percentage bias across covariates before and after propensity score matching.
Published 2022Subjects: -
124
-
125
Test of propensity score distribution before and after propensity score matching.
Published 2022Subjects: -
126
-
127
Impact of the NEPHSP on the outpatient and inpatient expenditure after PSM.
Published 2022Subjects: -
128
-
129
-
130
Comparison of inpatient expenditure of treatment and control comparison before and after PSM (RMB).
Published 2022Subjects: -
131
-
132
-
133
-
134
-
135
Percentage of US adults with health insurance coverage by income-level, age 60 to 70 years.
Published 2022Subjects: -
136
Costs and Benefits of Popular <i>P</i>‑Value Correction Methods in Three Models of Quantitative Omic Experiments
Published 2023“…No correction method can guarantee a low FDP in a single experiment, but the probability of a high FDP is small when a high number and proportion of corrected <i>p</i>-values are significant. On average, correction decreased sensitivity, but the sensitivity costs of BH and permutation were generally modest compared to the FDR benefits. …”
-
137
-
138
-
139
-
140