349) over which specific interventions have an effect in relation to nursing home residen |
350) educing the body weight, possible adverse effect in the brain cannot be ignored. |
351) hieved a remarkable synergistic treatment effect in the maturation of DCs and activa |
352) hieved a remarkable synergistic treatment effect in the maturation of DCs and activa |
353) 47, which further enhanced its phagocytic effect in vitro and tumor suppressor activ |
354) current inactivation without significant effect in voltage-dependent activation to |
355) However, part of this effect was also associated with emission c |
356) However, only in few publications this effect was confirmed by metagenomic, metab |
357) This effect was confirmed by overexpression of |
358) This combinational effect was confirmed in 13 clinical isolat |
359) iability in control cells (Ctr), but this effect was differentially mitigated in cel |
360) A significant two-way interaction effect was found between impact location a |
361) No effect was found on the quality of life in |
362) nt effects on these aspects, although its effect was inferior to that of laser thera |
363) conferring the worst prognosis, but this effect was less marked than the pre-morbid |
364) VP37D was restored by donepezil, and the effect was more significant at low dose th |
365) A dose-dependent blocking effect was observed with CP-101,606 (0.5-1 |
366) caused decreased cell viability, and this effect was potentiated in cells treated wi |
367) The strongest age effect was seen in the pallidum region, wh |
368) to Detail scores and the size of the N400 effect was significantly mediated by the s |
369) Overall, the effect was strongest for basic compounds w |
370) optosis and, thereafter, the hit compound effect was validated in vivo in a sub-acut |
371) Effect size analysis for known potential e |
372) r risk (RR=0.83, p<0.05), with a large effect size (Hedges g=0.55), but high hete |
373) 1.0 (RR=0.86, p<0.017, N=24) and large effect size (Hedges g=0.66), but did not d |
374) was not significant and had a negligible effect size (RR=1.12, p=0.3, Hedges g=0.02 |
375) e no longer significantly associated with effect size after adjusting for covariates |
376) The magnitude of effect size analysis for known potential e |
377) re replicated in Project Viva with strong effect size and remained in the meta-analy |
378) leveraged the second simulation to derive effect size guidelines for network loading |
379) Although some studies reported the effect size of the factors, the values wer |
380) d that for the SA model, either the slope effect size or the autocorrelation credibl |
381) Statistical Manual (DSM)-III had a larger effect size than measures based on DSM-IV |
|