Univariate anaylsis was used to compare outcome groups.
Additionally, exclusively expressed transcripts were identified for both outcome groups.
Results: Good and poor coma outcome groups were similar in terms of demographics, except for time to ROSC.
At a disaggregate level by outcome groups, providing a package of training and financing is more effective for labor activities.
In total, 44 (57%) patients received NMB during the period of TTM, with no difference in the NMB dosage between both outcome groups (p = 0.804; Table 2).
No significant differences with respect to an improvement in tissue status were found when the good outcome and poor outcome groups were compared.
There were no major differences in cardiorespiratory variables between outcome groups and causes of death and were judged not to relate, in general, to HSV-1.
Weight at baseline was not different comparing outcome groups (p = 0.17).
Molecular correspondence of high- and low-risk outcome groups between training and validation datasets was demonstrated using Subclass Mapping.
Previously established molecular phenotypes in the 2nd validation set were correlated with high and low-risk outcome groups.
Figure 3A illustrates the systemic progression-free survival for the good and poor outcome groups in the PSA controls.
