“a favorable trend”

The desirability function, in balancing multiple objectives, identifies this trade-off, hence slightly lowering the optimal MF at the highest temperatures despite a favorable trend at moderate ones.

Most studies in the consistency model showed a favorable trend toward NBO treatment in headache recovery, and only the trial by Annane et al.

While 5-year OS showed a favorable trend (HR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.67–1.02), statistical significance was not achieved.

In contrast, a favorable trend and a significant difference by PCPI were observed for BMI in women.

Specifically, remdesivir showed a significant reduction in hospitalization and respiratory failure, while for ICU admission and mortality, there was a favorable trend, although the wide confidence interval and lack of statistical significance suggest insufficient evidence.

Even after adjusting for potential confounders, HBOT showed a favorable trend (OR = 2.32), although it did not reach statistical significance.

Subgroup analyses identified a favorable trend toward a lower occurrence of major cardiovascular events in diabetic patients with both high triglyceride (≥ 204 mg/dl) and low HDL-C (≤ 34 mg/dl) levels (12.3% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.06).

In contrast, NRAS mutations were linked to improved survival (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.94; P = .027), whereas IDH1 (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.31-1.09; P = .092) and IDH2 (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.30-1.02; P = .057) mutations showed a favorable trend nearing significance.

In an early study comparing GP and PF, although a favorable trend in locoregional control was observed for the GP group, there were no significant differences in any of the endpoints [ 13 ].

In a direct comparison between coronary MRA and CTA no significant difference was shown for the detection of coronary artery stenosis between 3 T MR and 64-slice CTA, although CTA showed a favorable trend toward higher diagnostic performance [ 38 ••].

For all-cause mortality, both DAPA-HF and the EMPEROR trials demonstrated a favorable trend, although reductions were not statistically significant in all subgroups, including non-diabetic patients [ 9 - 11 ].

In contrast, within the subgroup recommended for mastectomy by DSME, mastectomy showed a favorable trend (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.27–1.02; IPW‐adjusted HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.22–1.19; PSM‐adjusted HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.24–0.97).

Although the study failed to meet statistical significance, it still showed a favorable trend. 2.

The primary endpoint of dyspnea amelioration (7 points Likert Scale) was not achieved but a favorable trend was observed with higher doses and also a reduction in episodes of worsening of HF.

Although PRF had a favorable trend compared to FDBA, it was not statistically significant due to high heterogeneity, while FDBA did not show a consistent benefit over blood clot. 3.6.

These findings suggested that SK generally demonstrated a favorable trend, although larger studies or pooled analyses are required to clarify its efficacy in specific subgroups.

45%) and a favorable trend in OS (5-year OS 66% vs. 57%; HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46–1.00) [ 8 , 9 ].

Nonetheless, we observed a favorable trend with LCPT.

A favorable trend for raloxifene 120 mg compared to placebo was also reported, respectively [22·2%, N = 4 vs. 0·0%, N = 0, OR = 5·41 (95% C.I.: 0·86–NE), RD = 0·22 (95% C.I.: −0·03–0·45)] ( Figure 2 ).

Despite a favorable trend, the small number of events and wide confidence intervals limit the strength of the conclusions.

Plants that were well-watered but did not get H 2 O 2 and recovered plants that got 2× H 2 O 2 exhibited a favorable trend for photorespiration but a negative tendency for starch and total soluble sugars.

Regarding safety, major bleeding was comparable to SOC with a favorable trend observed for DOACs ( RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.26–1.55).

This may not be a favorable trend since there is at present no certainty that citizens will reap any direct benefits from the technical developments.

The blastocyst development rate demonstrated a favorable trend in the Q300TM group (54.3%) compared to the control group (43.2%), though this difference was not statistically significant ( p = 0.056).

The CAT score, TS-VAS score, FEV1/FVC ratio, and IRR of exacerbation showed significant improvement compared with baseline; mMRC score and FEV1 showed a favorable trend, but did not show statistical significance.