Search alternatives:
greatest decrease » treatment decreased (Expand Search), greater increase (Expand Search)
teer decrease » greater decrease (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), gy decreased (Expand Search)
greatest decrease » treatment decreased (Expand Search), greater increase (Expand Search)
teer decrease » greater decrease (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), gy decreased (Expand Search)
-
1461
-
1462
-
1463
-
1464
-
1465
-
1466
-
1467
-
1468
-
1469
-
1470
-
1471
-
1472
-
1473
Predictors in ordinal regression model for GDS.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Results</p><p>The sample had a mean BMI of 27.53 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (95% CI [26.99, 28.07], SD = 5.49), with an obesity prevalence of 31.82%. …”
-
1474
Classification of hand grip strength.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Results</p><p>The sample had a mean BMI of 27.53 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (95% CI [26.99, 28.07], SD = 5.49), with an obesity prevalence of 31.82%. …”
-
1475
Rating scale for functional severity [28].
Published 2025“…</p><p>Results</p><p>The sample had a mean BMI of 27.53 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (95% CI [26.99, 28.07], SD = 5.49), with an obesity prevalence of 31.82%. …”
-
1476
Regression model coefficients.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Results</p><p>The sample had a mean BMI of 27.53 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (95% CI [26.99, 28.07], SD = 5.49), with an obesity prevalence of 31.82%. …”
-
1477
ICOPE screening positive participant’s responses.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Results</p><p>The sample had a mean BMI of 27.53 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (95% CI [26.99, 28.07], SD = 5.49), with an obesity prevalence of 31.82%. …”
-
1478
WHO BMI classification for adults.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Results</p><p>The sample had a mean BMI of 27.53 kg/m<sup>2</sup> (95% CI [26.99, 28.07], SD = 5.49), with an obesity prevalence of 31.82%. …”
-
1479
Histogram of the extracted parameters.
Published 2025“…No significant associations were found with long-term outcomes.…”
-
1480
Summary statistics of key variables.
Published 2024“…Our results suggest the importance of addressing urban agglomeration costs as a means to facilitate innovative activity.</p></div>…”