Search alternatives:
significantly lower » significantly higher (Expand Search)
longer decrease » larger decrease (Expand Search), largest decrease (Expand Search)
linear decrease » linear increase (Expand Search)
lower decrease » larger decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search), we decrease (Expand Search)
significantly lower » significantly higher (Expand Search)
longer decrease » larger decrease (Expand Search), largest decrease (Expand Search)
linear decrease » linear increase (Expand Search)
lower decrease » larger decrease (Expand Search), teer decrease (Expand Search), we decrease (Expand Search)
-
1921
Original data2.
Published 2025“…Our analysis revealed that <i>RP11-502I4.3</i> expression was lower in the retinas of diabetic rats and HG-stimulated HRMECs compared with normal glucose conditions. …”
-
1922
Original data1.
Published 2025“…Our analysis revealed that <i>RP11-502I4.3</i> expression was lower in the retinas of diabetic rats and HG-stimulated HRMECs compared with normal glucose conditions. …”
-
1923
-
1924
-
1925
-
1926
Descriptive statistics and variable definitions.
Published 2024“…The findings indicate that consumption inequality has a significant negative impact on SWB. Specifically, for every unit increase in consumption inequality, the probability of individuals rating their SWB as “Happy” and “Very happy” decreases by 0.37% and 5.45% respectively. …”
-
1927
The results of endogenous analysis.
Published 2024“…The findings indicate that consumption inequality has a significant negative impact on SWB. Specifically, for every unit increase in consumption inequality, the probability of individuals rating their SWB as “Happy” and “Very happy” decreases by 0.37% and 5.45% respectively. …”
-
1928
Correlation test.
Published 2024“…The findings indicate that consumption inequality has a significant negative impact on SWB. Specifically, for every unit increase in consumption inequality, the probability of individuals rating their SWB as “Happy” and “Very happy” decreases by 0.37% and 5.45% respectively. …”
-
1929
S1 Dataset -
Published 2024“…The findings indicate that consumption inequality has a significant negative impact on SWB. Specifically, for every unit increase in consumption inequality, the probability of individuals rating their SWB as “Happy” and “Very happy” decreases by 0.37% and 5.45% respectively. …”
-
1930
The mediation of confidence.
Published 2024“…The findings indicate that consumption inequality has a significant negative impact on SWB. Specifically, for every unit increase in consumption inequality, the probability of individuals rating their SWB as “Happy” and “Very happy” decreases by 0.37% and 5.45% respectively. …”
-
1931
Robustness test.
Published 2024“…The findings indicate that consumption inequality has a significant negative impact on SWB. Specifically, for every unit increase in consumption inequality, the probability of individuals rating their SWB as “Happy” and “Very happy” decreases by 0.37% and 5.45% respectively. …”
-
1932
The effects of consumption inequality on SWB.
Published 2024“…The findings indicate that consumption inequality has a significant negative impact on SWB. Specifically, for every unit increase in consumption inequality, the probability of individuals rating their SWB as “Happy” and “Very happy” decreases by 0.37% and 5.45% respectively. …”
-
1933
-
1934
Baseline characteristics.
Published 2025“…However, the body fat mass (BFM) and body mass index (BMI) decreased significantly in the ST group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). …”
-
1935
Data ste.
Published 2025“…However, the body fat mass (BFM) and body mass index (BMI) decreased significantly in the ST group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). …”
-
1936
Comparison of post-experimental outcome measures.
Published 2025“…However, the body fat mass (BFM) and body mass index (BMI) decreased significantly in the ST group (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). …”
-
1937
-
1938
-
1939
-
1940