Showing 3,861 - 3,880 results of 9,629 for search 'significantly ((((((lower decrease) OR (we decrease))) OR (larger decrease))) OR (linear decrease))', query time: 0.56s Refine Results
  1. 3861

    Table 5_Global burden and trends of norovirus-associated diseases from 1990 to 2021 an observational trend study.xlsx by MengLan Zhu (20517257)

    Published 2025
    “…For trend analysis, we employed annual percentage change (EAPC) through linear regression and applied Joinpoint analysis to identify significant changes over time. …”
  2. 3862

    Table 3_Global burden and trends of norovirus-associated diseases from 1990 to 2021 an observational trend study.xlsx by MengLan Zhu (20517257)

    Published 2025
    “…For trend analysis, we employed annual percentage change (EAPC) through linear regression and applied Joinpoint analysis to identify significant changes over time. …”
  3. 3863

    Image 1_Global burden and trends of norovirus-associated diseases from 1990 to 2021 an observational trend study.png by MengLan Zhu (20517257)

    Published 2025
    “…For trend analysis, we employed annual percentage change (EAPC) through linear regression and applied Joinpoint analysis to identify significant changes over time. …”
  4. 3864

    Table 1_Global burden and trends of norovirus-associated diseases from 1990 to 2021 an observational trend study.xlsx by MengLan Zhu (20517257)

    Published 2025
    “…For trend analysis, we employed annual percentage change (EAPC) through linear regression and applied Joinpoint analysis to identify significant changes over time. …”
  5. 3865

    Table 4_Global burden and trends of norovirus-associated diseases from 1990 to 2021 an observational trend study.xlsx by MengLan Zhu (20517257)

    Published 2025
    “…For trend analysis, we employed annual percentage change (EAPC) through linear regression and applied Joinpoint analysis to identify significant changes over time. …”
  6. 3866

    <b>The moderating effect of financial literacy on risk preferences and time preferences</b> by Calvin Mudzingiri (22188109)

    Published 2025
    “…Additionally, the study concluded that time preferences significantly moderate financial literacy. An increase in financial literacy is associated with a decrease in time preferences, indicating that as financial literacy rises, subjects become more patient. …”
  7. 3867

    Supplementary Material for: A retrospective analysis of the diagnosis of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) at The Ottawa Hospital Cancer Centre (TOHCC) over t... by Alrehaili M. (19737907)

    Published 2024
    “…Despite endoscopy closures and disruption of some diagnostic services during the pandemic, cases of GEP-NETs for all stages did not decrease.…”
  8. 3868

    Table 1_Linking the Planetary Health Diet Index to sarcopenia: the mediating effect of the non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (N... by Huan Chen (6545)

    Published 2025
    “…Analysis of the dose–response curve suggested a linear relationship between PHDI and sarcopenia. Furthermore, a significant positive association was identified between NHHR and sarcopenia [OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.16], with NHHR found to decrease as PHDI increased [beta coefficient (β) = −0.09, 95% CI: −0.11, −0.06]. …”
  9. 3869

    Data_Sheet_1_Optimizing residue return with soil moisture and nutrient stoichiometry reduced greenhouse gas fluxes in Alfisols.PDF by Dharmendra Singh (572349)

    Published 2024
    “…A significant decrease in CH<sub>4</sub> emission by ca. 46% in most RR treatments was observed in 100% FC compared with the R0. …”
  10. 3870

    Image 5_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.png by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

    Published 2025
    “…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
  11. 3871

    Image 9_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

    Published 2025
    “…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
  12. 3872

    Image 1_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.jpeg by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

    Published 2025
    “…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
  13. 3873

    Image 2_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

    Published 2025
    “…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
  14. 3874

    Image 8_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

    Published 2025
    “…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
  15. 3875

    Image 7_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

    Published 2025
    “…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
  16. 3876

    Image 10_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

    Published 2025
    “…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
  17. 3877

    Image 4_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

    Published 2025
    “…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
  18. 3878

    Image 6_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

    Published 2025
    “…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
  19. 3879

    Image 3_Unexpected estradiol decline during ovarian stimulation monitoring affects cumulative live birth.tiff by Haixiao Chen (12565087)

    Published 2025
    “…In both unmatched and matched cohorts, the CLBRs were significantly decreased (unmatched cohort: 66.3% versus 55%, P<0.001, adjusted OR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.76,0.91; matched cohort: 59% versus 55%, P = 0.003, adjusted OR 0.84, 95%CI: 0.75,0.94). …”
  20. 3880

    Data Sheet 1_Impact of implementing a pediatric early warning system on outcomes in hematopoietic stem cell transplant units in South America and Europe.docx by Monica L. Quijano-Lievano (22808537)

    Published 2025
    “…There was a non-significant decrease in clinical deterioration event mortality post-PEWS implementation (24%, n = 17/71 vs. 15%, n = 22/150, p = 0.1335).…”