Results from the MANOVA done upon the MASS corrected data are quite different from the analyses upon the original unscaled data.
The HRs and 95% CIs of the adjusted models in the sensitivity analyses were not materially different from the analyses with age as time scale.
Different from the analyses for diabetes predicting depression, an increased risk of diabetes in patients with depression was observed in all age-groups, with the exception of men ≥55 years of age and women >64 years of age in this study.
We conducted sensitivity analyses in which 1) stature component exposures were replaced by z scores of the corresponding variable, 2) leg length models were additionally adjusted by height, and 3) weight at 18 years was included in model 4. In each of these analyses, the results were not materially different from the primary analyses (data not shown).
In this regard, the results of the sensitivity analyses were encouraging since these were not substantially different from the main analyses when all those lost to follow-up were assumed not to have experienced a CVD event.
Temporal trends for different parameters from the analyses of the 10 virus data sets.
Multivariate RRs in the analyses that included all 349 diagnosed pancreatic cancer case subjects were not substantially different from the primary analyses for women (RR=1.16, 95% CI, 0.81 1.66), men (RR=0.96, 95% CI, 0.52 1.75), or women and men combined (RR=1.10, 95% CI, 0.81 1.50).
We also adjusted for all major confounders and, although data were not available for all subjects, the results of restriction analyses including only those patients who had data on these confounders were not different from the main analyses.
Due to various distributions of scatterers, LOS wave existence, and mutual coupling effect among antennas, the Doppler spectrum of SISO and MIMO channels in actual environments are, in general, different from the theoretical analyses.
(Of course, there further two alternatives are crucial to Lewis' overall analysis of the passage: essentially, Lewis suggests that Anselm equivocates between an invalid argument with plausible premises and a valid argument with question-begging premises. In this respect, Lewis' analysis is quite different from the other analyses currently under discussion).
This result is different from the network analyses because individuals BC_ F_spi tend to be closer to natural individuals of F_spi than BC_ F_ves to natural individuals of F_ves.
