Faculdades Pequeno Príncipe, Rebouças, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Centro de Genética Molecular e Pesquisa do Câncer em Crianças (CEGEMPAC) at Universidade Federal do Paraná, Agostinho Leão Jr., Glória, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Search for other papers by Emanuelle Nunes-Souza in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mônica Evelise Silveira in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculdades Pequeno Príncipe, Rebouças, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Centro de Genética Molecular e Pesquisa do Câncer em Crianças (CEGEMPAC) at Universidade Federal do Paraná, Agostinho Leão Jr., Glória, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Search for other papers by Monalisa Castilho Mendes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Departamento de Medicina, PUC-PR, Prado Velho, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Search for other papers by Seigo Nagashima in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Departamento de Medicina, PUC-PR, Prado Velho, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Search for other papers by Caroline Busatta Vaz de Paula in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Departamento de Medicina, PUC-PR, Prado Velho, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Search for other papers by Guilherme Guilherme Vieira Cavalcante da Silva in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Departamento de Medicina, PUC-PR, Prado Velho, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Search for other papers by Giovanna Silva Barbosa in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculdades Pequeno Príncipe, Rebouças, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Search for other papers by Julia Belgrowicz Martins in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Departamento de Medicina, PUC-PR, Prado Velho, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Search for other papers by Lúcia de Noronha in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Luana Lenzi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Centro de Genética Molecular e Pesquisa do Câncer em Crianças (CEGEMPAC) at Universidade Federal do Paraná, Agostinho Leão Jr., Glória, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Search for other papers by José Renato Sales Barbosa in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rayssa Danilow Fachin Donin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Juliana Ferreira de Moura in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Laboratório Central de Análises Clínicas, Hospital de Clínicas, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Centro, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
Search for other papers by Gislaine Custódio in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculdades Pequeno Príncipe, Rebouças, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Centro de Genética Molecular e Pesquisa do Câncer em Crianças (CEGEMPAC) at Universidade Federal do Paraná, Agostinho Leão Jr., Glória, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Search for other papers by Cleber Machado-Souza in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Enzo Lalli in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculdades Pequeno Príncipe, Rebouças, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Centro de Genética Molecular e Pesquisa do Câncer em Crianças (CEGEMPAC) at Universidade Federal do Paraná, Agostinho Leão Jr., Glória, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil
Departamento de Saúde Coletiva, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
Search for other papers by Bonald Cavalcante de Figueiredo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
expression for each biomarker was obtained by quantitative analysis (morphometry). Immunopositive areas of each photomicrograph, in square micrometers, were transformed into a percent by high power field value (HPF). We also counted hematoxylin and immune
Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Department of Endocrinology, Hospital of Southwest Jutland, Esbjerg, Denmark
Search for other papers by Jakob Høgild Langdahl in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Search for other papers by Anja Lisbeth Frederiksen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by John Vissing in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Steno Diabetes Center Odense, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Search for other papers by Morten Frost in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Steno Diabetes Center Odense, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Search for other papers by Knud Bonnet Yderstræde in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Per Heden Andersen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
varying proportions of m.3243A>G subjects with DM, IGT and NGT. In addition, low statistical power could explain the diverging results. Our study provides additional evidence for insulin resistance in the early stages of the development of mitochondrial
Search for other papers by Boju Pan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Anqi Wang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Junyi Pang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Yuhan Zhang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ming Cui in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jian Sun in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Zhiyong Liang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
inconsistent, ranging from <1 to >10 mitoses/10 high-power fields (HPF). Additionally, the Ki-67 index ranged from 1 to 20% (mean, 8%). In addition, the atypical mitosis, necrosis and nucleolus in the carcinoma samples were variable. Almost all the patients in
Search for other papers by Weiwei He in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bin Wang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Kaida Mu in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jing Zhang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Yanping Yang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Wei Yao in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sheli Li in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jin-an Zhang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
make a sufficient power over 80% required at least 331 cases and 265 controls for rs153109, and at least 799 cases and 640 controls for both rs181206 and rs17855750. The final sample size in our case-control study led to a statistical power of over 95
Search for other papers by Chao-bin He in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Yu Zhang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Zhi-yuan Cai in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Xiao-jun Lin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
statistically significant. Independent risk factors identified in the multivariate analysis were used to construct nomogram to predict OS. Competing risk nomogram was built on the basis of Fine and Grey’s model. The discrimination and calibration power were
Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Search for other papers by Laura P B Elbers in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Laboratory of Experimental Intensive Care and Anesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Search for other papers by Marije Wijnberge in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Plasma Proteins, Sanquin Research, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Search for other papers by Joost C M Meijers in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dennis C W Poland in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Search for other papers by Dees P M Brandjes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Eric Fliers in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Search for other papers by Victor E A Gerdes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
assumption of an effect size of 0.5 (calculated as the difference of the means divided by the mean of the standard deviations), with a power of 80% and an alpha error of 0.05. Performing a secondary analysis with all patients with vitamin D deficiency at
Department of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Leicester Royal Infirmary, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
Search for other papers by Hamidreza Mani in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Yogini Chudasama in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Michelle Hadjiconstantinou in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Danielle H Bodicoat in
Google Scholar
PubMed
The Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, Leicester and Loughborough, UK
Search for other papers by Charlotte Edwardson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Miles J Levy in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Laura J Gray in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Janette Barnett in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Heather Daly in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Trevor A Howlett in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Kamlesh Khunti in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Melanie J Davies in
Google Scholar
PubMed
approval by East Midlands’ Research Ethics Committee 11/EM/0141, Clinical Trials.Gov registration number Nbib1462864). The intervention was a single seven-hour, group-based, face-to-face structured education programme. The study was powered to detect a mean
Search for other papers by Tiemo S Gerber in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Arno Schad in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nils Hartmann in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Erik Springer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ulrich Zechner in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Thomas J Musholt in
Google Scholar
PubMed
from the patients was retrieved and reviewed using the Turin consensus algorithm, in the course of which necrosis, the number of mitotic cells per ten high-powered fields (mitotic index) and the extrathyroidal and vascular invasion were determined. The
Search for other papers by Panisa Hantrakun in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rattanaporn Sekararithi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Thidarat Jaiwongkam in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sirinart Kumfu in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Chatree Chai-adisaksopha in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Nipon Chattipakorn in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Theera Tongsong in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Phudit Jatavan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
power of 90% at a 95% CI with the acceptable error of 0.1. This estimation is based on a study reported by Holmes et al . ( 30 ), who showed the mean P-selectin 55.4 ± 17.1 ng/mL vs 40.7 ± 16.9 ng/mL in the cases and controls. Results During
Search for other papers by Rafaella Sales de Freitas in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Thiago F A França in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sabine Pompeia in
Google Scholar
PubMed
status and kisspeptin concentrations ( 1 , 7 , 9 , 15 , 18 , 19 ), we controlled for these factors. Participants’ SES was assessed based on family purchasing power, in accordance with the guidelines of the Brazilian Association of Market Research