Exact(7)
After multivariate adjustment, we observed no significant associations between any semen parameter and urinary BPA concentration.
After multivariate adjustment we observed no improvement in MACE or survival and an increased risk of major bleeding.
After adjustment, we observed minimal evidence of genomic inflation (λGC = 1.042), thereby suggesting that this well-described method of controlling for population stratification was adequate in our study.
Even with this highly conservative adjustment, we observed significant bias in splice site choice in more than 14% of the Difference Regions.
After statistical adjustment, we observed no detectable differences between the groups in weight-for-age z score (WAZ), weight-for-height z score (WHZ), and underweight or wasting prevalence.
After adjustment, we observed that non-optimally controlled patients had higher risks for hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00 1.23), ED visits (HR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06 1.25), and mortality (HR 1.29; 95% CI 1.09 1.53) than diabetic patients with optimal control.
Similar(53)
By making two adjustments, we observed essentially the same behavior (not shown) using the cells from Fig. 6A and C. We reduced the cell- cell attachment probability toward zero, but not to zero; within analogues, adhesion and attachment were synonymous.
Possibly, the anticipatory phase-adjustment we observe is controlled by similar top-down mechanisms.
Of the 100 patients from the comparison cohort reviewed by a GP for a diagnosis of reaction to severe stress and adjustment disorder, we observed seven patients with this diagnosis.
For the sampling rate adjustment, we also observed the variation of the utility and privacy information along with the adjustment of the sampling rate.
After full adjustment, we also observed that prehospital catheter and fluid was associated with reduced odds of increasing organ failures during hospitalization (OR =0.58, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.98).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com