Search alternatives:
linear decrease » linear increase (Expand Search)
lower decrease » larger decrease (Expand Search), we decrease (Expand Search), showed decreased (Expand Search)
teer decrease » mean decrease (Expand Search), greater decrease (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), mean decrease (Expand Search)
linear decrease » linear increase (Expand Search)
lower decrease » larger decrease (Expand Search), we decrease (Expand Search), showed decreased (Expand Search)
teer decrease » mean decrease (Expand Search), greater decrease (Expand Search)
nn decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), a decrease (Expand Search), mean decrease (Expand Search)
-
1781
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. …”
-
1782
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. …”
-
1783
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. …”
-
1784
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. …”
-
1785
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. …”
-
1786
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. …”
-
1787
-
1788
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). …”
-
1789
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). …”
-
1790
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). …”
-
1791
-
1792
-
1793
-
1794
-
1795
S1 File -
Published 2025“…</p><p>Results</p><p>Participants had significantly lower odds (AOR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.12–0.65) of reporting difficulty in accessing syringes later in the pandemic. …”
-
1796
Chicago COVID-19 mitigation policy timeline.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Results</p><p>Participants had significantly lower odds (AOR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.12–0.65) of reporting difficulty in accessing syringes later in the pandemic. …”
-
1797
Demographic and ocular features.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Results</p><p>In the PCG group, H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> and MDA levels were notably higher than in controls (p < 0.001, <i><i>p</i> </i>= 0.020), while TAS levels were significantly lower (p = 0.043). Adjusting for age and gender, the serum TAS (OR = 0.07, 95% CI 0.01–0.85, <i><i>p</i></i> = 0.037), H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.09–1.35, <i><i>p</i></i> = 0.001) and MDA (OR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.00–1.34, <i><i>p</i></i> = 0.034) were determined to be independent risk/protective factors for PCG. …”
-
1798
Machine learning model to diagnose PCG.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Results</p><p>In the PCG group, H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> and MDA levels were notably higher than in controls (p < 0.001, <i><i>p</i> </i>= 0.020), while TAS levels were significantly lower (p = 0.043). Adjusting for age and gender, the serum TAS (OR = 0.07, 95% CI 0.01–0.85, <i><i>p</i></i> = 0.037), H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.09–1.35, <i><i>p</i></i> = 0.001) and MDA (OR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.00–1.34, <i><i>p</i></i> = 0.034) were determined to be independent risk/protective factors for PCG. …”
-
1799
ROC curves of TAS + SOD + MDA to diagnose PCG.
Published 2025“…</p><p>Results</p><p>In the PCG group, H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> and MDA levels were notably higher than in controls (p < 0.001, <i><i>p</i> </i>= 0.020), while TAS levels were significantly lower (p = 0.043). Adjusting for age and gender, the serum TAS (OR = 0.07, 95% CI 0.01–0.85, <i><i>p</i></i> = 0.037), H<sub>2</sub>O<sub>2</sub> (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.09–1.35, <i><i>p</i></i> = 0.001) and MDA (OR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.00–1.34, <i><i>p</i></i> = 0.034) were determined to be independent risk/protective factors for PCG. …”
-
1800