Exact(6)
Clinical heterogeneity was assessed by noting the difference in the distribution of participants' characteristics among trials (age, gender, specific diagnosis/diagnostic subtypes, duration of disorder and associated diseases).
For the negative trials, age effects were significant for Intercept, Linear slope and Quadratic slope.
Twenty-four trials enrolled school-age children and young adults, although the exact age-range varied; age six to 20 years (16 trials), age five to 18 years (three trials), age two to 23 years (five trials).
In an effort to limit size differences between transgenic and nontransgenic parr during the paired behavioural trials, age differences existed between competing parr in some of the trials.
The inclusion criteria for age and body mass index (BMI) were similar in the six trials: age of ≥ 18 and ≤ 80 years and BMI of ≤ 40 kg/m.
For the positive trials, age effects were only significant for the Intercept, with older subjects requiring more time to decide whether or not a stimulus was part of the target set than younger subjects.
Similar(54)
The gross and net savings could not be adequately explained from the factors considered: control costs, severity, type of trial, age and gender.
This review aims to assess the clinical reality and clinical trial age mismatch to evaluate implications for elderly cancer patients and to identify how this situation may be addressed.
Add to that the fact that young adults are generally outliers on clinical trial age ranges -- both pediatric and adult -- and that research infrastructure and commitment to research can range from full engagement to no connection at all and, well, you can see the quandary we face.
All models adjusted for trial, age, sex, geographic location of participant, and time after transplantation to randomization.
The variations in open trials, trial age eligibility criteria and extent of trial activation in treatment centres in part explain this observation.
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