## What is/are Propensity Score Adjusted?

Propensity Score Adjusted - Propensity score-adjusted group differences in outcomes after one and two years were analysed by linear and logistic regression analyses.^{[1]}033) and propensity score-adjusted analyses (p = 0.

^{[2]}Risk of death was significantly higher for those with Medicaid or no insurance than for those with private insurance in multiple propensity score-adjusted models (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]=1.

^{[3]}Propensity score-adjusted logistic regression was used to compare clinical outcomes between those with and without admission delays.

^{[4]}Propensity score-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

^{[5]}Additionally, propensity score-adjusted pairwise assessments of modalities were performed.

^{[6]}Overall, the propensity score-adjusted model showed that antidepressant usage in PD patients was not significantly associated with the risk of IHD (HR = 1.

^{[7]}Propensity score-adjusted modeling was used to control for confounding.

^{[8]}Between-group differences were assessed using propensity score-adjusted regression analyses.

^{[9]}The impact of opioid-related MEs was assessed in a propensity score-adjusted logistic regression models.

^{[10]}Propensity score-adjusted pairwise assessments of modalities were also performed.

^{[11]}In a propensity score-adjusted multivariable Cox proportional hazard analysis in the whole cohort, camostat mesylate therapy was independently associated with a lower risk of in-hospital death, right censored at 60 days (relative hazard 0.

^{[12]}PA was inversely associated with mortality, with propensity score-adjusted HRs (95% confidence intervals) of 0.

^{[13]}Association between BZF exposure and mortality or need for liver transplantation (LT) was assessed using time-dependent, multivariable-and propensity score-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

^{[14]}There was no significant difference in the propensity score-adjusted risk difference for stroke between FET and ET (-0.

^{[15]}In addition, these results were validated in propensity score-adjusted analyses.

^{[16]}Cumulative incidence plots were generated and analyzed by Gray’s test, and propensity score-adjusted competing risk models were generated with the probability of treatment as a function of age at metastatic diagnosis, presence of visceral metastasis, presence of de novo metastases, as well as number of prior therapies.

^{[17]}Sensitivity analyses using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models along with two propensity score-adjusted methods demonstrated consistent results.

^{[18]}In the propensity score-adjusted comparison of late versus early DOAC-start groups, there was no statistically significant difference in the hazard of recurrent AIS (aHR=1.

^{[19]}We conducted a propensity score-adjusted analysis of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer to identify the therapeutic advantages of these standard therapies.

^{[20]}Propensity score-adjusted analysis with CIRT versus FSRT as the dependent variable yielded a significant overall survival advantage for the CIRT group (median OS 8.

^{[21]}67 times higher in the NGT group than in the PEG group in the propensity score-adjusted logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 4.

^{[22]}Rates of locoregional control (LRC), overall survival, and acute/late toxicities were compared between the groups using propensity score-adjusted analyses.

^{[23]}Patients were also stratified into 3 subsets based on age, and propensity score-adjusted Cox regression analyses were conducted to examine survival effect of anticoagulants in each subset.

^{[24]}Patients were also stratified into three subsets based on age, and propensity score-adjusted Cox regression analyses were conducted to examine survival effect of anticoagulants in each subset.

^{[25]}We used a propensity score-adjusted logistic and Cox proportional-hazards regressions and instrumental variable model to adjust for known and unknown confounders.

^{[26]}We performed crude and propensity score-adjusted comparisons by surgical approach (ST vs TT).

^{[27]}In the propensity score-adjusted analysis, there was no significant difference between the THP-COP and CHOP groups in the OS of the total sample [hazard ratio (HR) 0.

^{[28]}Surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups in a propensity score-adjusted cohort.

^{[29]}In the inverse probability of treatment weighting-propensity score-adjusted cohort, similar differences were found for functional and safety outcomes.

^{[30]}Propensity score-adjusted Cox regression analysis was used to account for baseline differences related to DAPT duration.

^{[31]}These results were confirmed after propensity score-adjusted analysis.

^{[32]}Additionally, the propensity score-adjusted model showed a significant correlation between Lactosorb® and postoperative complications (odds ratio 1.

^{[33]}Propensity score-adjusted competing risk modeling showed associations between AVS and higher cumulative incidences of major adverse valve-related events, valve-related morbidity, combined structural valve deterioration and nonstructural valve dysfunction, and aortic regurgitation ≥2+ (all P <.

^{[34]}Methods: We utilize propensity score-adjusted models to simulate hypothetical trials under alternative endpoints and enrollment criteria.

^{[35]}Patients receiving SRT+IT had a longer intracranial Local Progression Free Survival (iLPFS) (propensity score-adjusted p=0.

^{[36]}Results: A hierarchical multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to construct a propensity score-adjusted index to identify non-responders compared to responders to CPM-task.

^{[37]}Results We included three RCTs and six observational studies (4 of which were propensity score-adjusted studies) with a total of 3133 patients.

^{[38]}Propensity score-adjusted comparisons were performed.

^{[39]}Propensity score-adjusted linear regression models revealed significant association between breastfeeding duration and performance on neurocognitive tests representing General Ability, but no evidence of a strong association with Executive Function or Memory.

^{[40]}At the propensity score adjusted Cox multivariable analysis, DM (HR = 1.

^{[41]}From the last consecutive 136 patients, matched control group [cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA)<40 mm, n=30] and matched imbalance group (≥40 mm, n=30) were selected based on their propensity score adjusted for age, sex, cervical alignment, and preoperative Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score.

^{[42]}Participation in exercise-related physical activity (yes/no), weekly duration of exercise-related physical activity and the change in exercise-related physical activity between baseline and follow-up were examined for associations with residential greenness, adjusting for socio-demographic factors, propensity score adjusted participation in cardiac rehabilitation and health-related covariates after multiple imputation for missing variables.

^{[43]}Propensity score adjusted, and probability-weighted multinomial multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations of PNVI and SNVI with frailty.

^{[44]}Using a propensity score adjusted model with inverse probability treatment weighting, adjusted hazard ratios for overall survival were calculated, including an interaction term between BT and race.

^{[45]}The results were similar in propensity score adjusted analyses which used inverseprobabilityoftreatment weights to try to account for differences in baseline characteristics of the two groups (confounding by indication), and when using a 30% decline in eGFR as an alternate outcome (adjusted hazard ratio compared vitamin K antagonist exposure vs nonexposure, 1.

^{[46]}Propensity score adjusted logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for complications and death within 90 days of surgery, comparing patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy or not.

^{[47]}CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this a population-based propensity score adjusted analysis ESWT + therapy was superior than therapy alone in ameliorating symptoms and quality of life.

^{[48]}Patient and provider factors that influence choice of therapy were controlled using propensity score adjusted models.

^{[49]}Propensity score adjusted analysis also showed a longer median OS for chronic ASI users.

^{[50]}

## 95 % confidence

Risk of death was significantly higher for those with Medicaid or no insurance than for those with private insurance in multiple propensity score-adjusted models (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]=1.^{[1]}Propensity score-adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

^{[2]}PA was inversely associated with mortality, with propensity score-adjusted HRs (95% confidence intervals) of 0.

^{[3]}

## exercise related physical

Participation in exercise-related physical activity (yes/no), weekly duration of exercise-related physical activity and the change in exercise-related physical activity between baseline and follow-up were examined for associations with residential greenness, adjusting for socio-demographic factors, propensity score adjusted participation in cardiac rehabilitation and health-related covariates after multiple imputation for missing variables.^{[1]}

## propensity score adjusted analysi

CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this a population-based propensity score adjusted analysis ESWT + therapy was superior than therapy alone in ameliorating symptoms and quality of life.^{[1]}Propensity score adjusted analysis also showed a longer median OS for chronic ASI users.

^{[2]}The correlations between periodontal disease and hypertension were investigated using univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses and propensity score adjusted analysis.

^{[3]}In a propensity score adjusted analysis, patients with CKD had a significant increase in MACE (HR = 2.

^{[4]}Propensity score adjusted analysis suggested no adjuvant RT benefit (OR 2.

^{[5]}Patients were matched using propensity score adjusted analysis.

^{[6]}

## propensity score adjusted model

Using a propensity score adjusted model with inverse probability treatment weighting, adjusted hazard ratios for overall survival were calculated, including an interaction term between BT and race.^{[1]}Patient and provider factors that influence choice of therapy were controlled using propensity score adjusted models.

^{[2]}With each trial we used three Cox regression models to determine hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival including univariable, multivariable, and propensity score adjusted models.

^{[3]}Ischemic (death, stroke, or myocardial infarction) and bleeding (BARC 2–5) events within 12 months were compared in a propensity score adjusted model.

^{[4]}

## propensity score adjusted logistic

Propensity score adjusted logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for complications and death within 90 days of surgery, comparing patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy or not.^{[1]}Propensity score adjusted logistic regressions were invoked to delineate the independent association between VAD and child growth failure, both linear and ponderal.

^{[2]}

## propensity score adjusted hazard

Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to estimate that the use of RA in addition to BIMA did not affect the late mortality (propensity score adjusted hazard ratio, 1.^{[1]}The elderly group as compared to the control group did not affect midterm mortality via cox proportional hazard regression (propensity score adjusted hazard ratio, 1.

^{[2]}