1 The redox activity of 1 and
comparison between 1 and its reduction product by (57)Fe
2 on in the ganglion cell layer and axons, and
comparison between 3-month-old wild-type and Dnm1l+/- mi
3 Our findings are based on
comparisons between 3D anisotropic tomography images and
4 This was a head-to-head
comparison between (
68)Ga-labeled prostate-specific memb
5 The
comparison between a bare and light trapping cell shows
6 Metabolomics for the straightforward
comparison between a complex mixture and single compound
7 performed for the first time a comprehensive
comparison between a high mass resolution Fourier-transf
8 We conducted a global RNA-seq
comparison between a resistant genotype (S54) and a susc
9 rvention 2013) (all p < 0.001 [i.e., for all
comparisons between a pre- and post-intervention phase])
10 Purpose To perform an intra-animal
comparison between (
a) three-dimensional (3D) molecularl
11 Comparison between AAL toxin treated jai1 and its WT rev
12 The X-ray absorption spectroscopy
comparisons between Ac(III) and Am(III) in HCl solutions
13 study provides the first detailed proteomic
comparison between Accumulibacter-enriched floccular and
14 that hippocampal mismatch signals reflect a
comparison between active predictions and current outcom
15 (RCTs) and prospective studies with data on
comparison between adjunctive locally delivered statin u
16 We primarily report the
comparison between adolescents and young adults.
17 Comparison between aerobic and anaerobic results showed
18 Direct
comparison between AFM data obtained on glass and on mic
19 experimental design that allowed for direct
comparisons between analogous masked and unmasked contex
20 Comparisons between ancestral and evolved genotypes sugg
21 Detailed
comparison between angle-resolved photoemission spectros
22 Complementary to Gowdy & Krall's
comparison between ants and humans, I use economy scalin
23 ica has limited our ability to make a direct
comparison between archaic and modern human genomes.
24 in those who received placebo (P = 0.03 for
comparison between arms).
25 tion, in all those situations that require a
comparison between averaged quantities.
26 method across multiple taxa would facilitate
comparisons between bacteria in invertebrate vectors and
27 Nodule-to-nodule
comparison between baseline and follow-up was performed
28 Primary outcomes for the
comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occu
29 lack a solid empirical foundation: rigorous
comparisons between body size and vocalization frequenci
30 sed abundance of the Bacteroidetes phylum in
comparisons between both Ghanaian RVV responders and non
31 Comparison between BR-responsive, BZR1-targeted, auxin-r
32 Comparison between bulk and NC calculations shows that t
33 ong chromosomes 3, 5, and 9 were detected in
comparison between C. baccatum and the two other peppers
34 Furthermore, genomic
comparisons between C. amylolentus and related pathogeni
35 Comparisons between C3 and C4 grasses often utilize C3 s
36 tative PCR platform and perform side-by-side
comparison between cardiac progenitor cells (CPCs) and c
37 re recruited at baseline for cross-sectional
comparison between cases and non-cases.
38 s, we applied two phenotypic approaches: (1)
comparisons between categorical AD cases and supernormal
39 CI, 0.827 to 0.903) for CISNE (P = .002 for
comparison between CISNE and MASCC).
40 Comparison between cognitively matched normal adult subg
41 A
comparison between common stress genes and genes that we
42 8 kg (95% CI: -2.9, -0.6 kg) andP= 0.003 for
comparison between community controls and the P-RUTF gro
43 3 kg (95% CI: -2.4, -0.1 kg) andP= 0.034 for
comparison between community controls and the SMS-RUTF g
44 if strength bias, is critical in making fair
comparisons between competing methods.
45 The
comparison between control and exposure groups highlight
46 as neutrophil independent, as suggested by a
comparison between control and neutrophil-depleted mice,
47 er our work provides the first transcriptome
comparison between cork oak and holm oak outer bark, whi
48 Kinetic
comparisons between Cre and Flp, and between their deriv
49 Comparisons between cryo-EM structures of Env trimer com
50 Model-based
comparison between current standard (CD4 count at presen
51 Comparisons between current hydrogen peroxide diffusion
52 y instructed to make and act on quantitative
comparisons between datasets, and between data and model
53 rain valuation system, choices are framed as
comparisons between default and alternative options, whi
54 omatic mutations in this disease, a rigorous
comparison between different patient populations has not
55 on of the appropriate distribution, allowing
comparison between different synthetic techniques.
56 A
comparison between different temperatures showed an incr
57 led data, and permit only limited systematic
comparison between different time periods or geographic
58 tion of parameters necessary to ensure valid
comparisons between different adsorbents.
59 Structural
comparisons between different O-methyltransferases revea
60 icult, if not impossible, to make meaningful
comparisons between different peripheral nerve interface
61 data, but also allow for better statistical
comparisons between different populations of motor prote
62 ractions and enables off-targeting potential
comparisons between different siRNA designs.
63 ter that quantifies the mechanism and allows
comparisons between different systems.
64 Although there have been numerous
comparisons between diploid and (usually) tetraploid tax
65 A
comparison between displacement amorphized nc-SiC and me
66 Comparison between division mutants and the severe photo
67 cells, the present study attempted a careful
comparison between dopamine and norepinephrine in their
68 Comparisons between eDNA, community DNA, taxonomy and UK
69 emergency surgery patients may bias outcome
comparisons between elective and emergency cases.
70 For toxicity, peak-to-peak
comparisons between ERG studies before and after OAC tre
71 medium-term data are available on the random
comparison between everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vasc
72 Comparisons between evolutionary outcomes and catalytic
73 A direct
comparison between exchanges occurring at short and long
74 e composition have been generally limited to
comparisons between exclusively breastfed and formula-fe
75 The explicit
comparison between experiment and simulation, that we ob
76 is now amenable to a very direct mechanistic
comparison between experiment and simulation.
77 Global minimum searches and
comparison between experiment and theory show that PrB7(
78 that GISAXS analysis may allow more powerful
comparison between experiment and theory than had previo
79 Our results allow quantitative
comparison between experiment, modelling and theory, and
80 anipulation) for a subset of birds, allowing
comparison between experimental and non-experimental yea
81 two-dimensional (2D) materials based on the
comparison between experimental lattice constants and la
82 l engineering efforts and facilitates direct
comparisons between experimental and computational predi
83 Comparisons between experimental samples and historical
84 Direct
comparison between factors revealed that the temporal fa
85 Here, we present a temperature (T) dependent
comparison between field-effect and Hall mobilities in f
86 Comparison between Fitzpatrick SPTs showed patients with
87 he QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and
comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24
88 No direct
comparison between FST and SCM is available.
89 The
comparison between G-V and Q-V with/without NavBeta1 ind
90 The
comparison between genetic maps and the reference genome
91 ses using a standardized taxonomy allowing a
comparison between global health research and global bur
92 In the
comparison between good and poor adherence groups, excep
93 Contrary to our hypothesis, based on the
comparison between gravitational and lobar perfusion dat
94 The structural
comparison between groups of GASright dimers of differen
95 Our main outcome measures for
comparison between groups were (1) the average and minim
96 t not in the control subjects (p = 0.002 for
comparison between groups).
97 but not in control subjects (p = 0.0002 for
comparison between groups).
98 Univariate
comparisons between groups were made with a combined fol
99 Comparisons between groups were performed using propensi
100 A quantitative proteomic
comparison between heat-stressed LVS and the isogenic Lo
101 P that can be further improved and points of
comparison between HiTS-RAP and two other recently devel
102 defined by molecular modeling and amino acid
comparisons between HLA alleles and the HLAMatchmaker al
103 These data provide valuable
comparisons between hNoV and surrogate molecular signals
104 Aim of this study was to draw
comparisons between human colonic and jejunal ischemia-r
105 The
comparison between hyperfractionated radiotherapy and co
106 Moreover, we provide
comparisons between iGluSnFR and genetically encoded cal
107 Finally, a
comparison between in-cell and in vitro folded RNA struc
108 our knowledge is derived from interspecific
comparisons between inbreeding species and their outcros
109 Comparisons between initial and age-modified simulations
110 ted at different hospitals so that equitable
comparisons between institutions can be made.
111 Our results suggest that the
comparison between instruments is nearly impossible and
112 Statistical
comparisons between intervention and delayed-control pat
113 Comparisons between Ir-catalyzed deborylations and Pd-ca
114 , we present the first informative molecular
comparison between isolates from North America and Europ
115 Group
comparisons between key differential diagnostic challeng
116 Comparisons between lamprey and jawed vertebrates have y
117 Comparison between LH2s and CPs shows the importance of
118 This study describes a
comparison between Lujo and Lassa virus infection in cyn
119 Thirty-two of these studies allowed
comparisons between macular and RNFL parameters.
120 Direct
comparison between matched pre-treatment and relapse sam
121 s development and reported in order to allow
comparisons between measurements.
122 significant because they now exclude simple
comparisons between members of the kinesin superfamily a
123 ve maintenance and the latter supporting the
comparison between memory contents and incoming sensory
124 nanoparticle size down to <30 nm facilitates
comparison between mesoporous silica nanoparticles and s
125 goal of this paper was to perform a relative
comparison between methods for identifying and character
126 n animal models, but there have been limited
comparisons between methods and the accuracy of detectin
127 The
comparison between microbial sequencing data is critical
128 study we present a structural and functional
comparison between MNEI and a sweeter mutant Y65R, conta
129 A
comparison between model predictions and observations fo
130 Model performance is assessed through
comparisons between model predictions and controlled rel
131 materials are explained, including extensive
comparisons between modeling and laboratory measurements
132 scovered with genomic sequencing, but direct
comparisons between models and "omics" data are lacking.
133 We excluded studies that did not allow
comparison between more or less advantaged groups.
134 However, no head-to-head
comparisons between MRE and ARFI for diagnosing NAFLD fi
135 e GC-qMS was validated in an interlaboratory
comparison between Munich and Neuchatel with the same ty
136 Comparisons between mutant ER-containing MCF7 and T47D c
137 Furthermore, a
comparison between neighboring neurons showed no cluster
138 Analyses requiring exact
comparisons between networks are computationally intract
139 rack a visual target, thus precluding direct
comparisons between neural activity and behavior.
140 ints, 95% CI, -2.5 to -8.5 points, p < .001;
comparison between nitrous oxide and placebo, p < .001).
141 However, there are no direct, randomized
comparisons between NOACs, and therefore, selecting amon
142 In light of this diversity, making tight
comparisons between nonhuman and human primates is parti
143 Comparisons between number of muscle deficits (low muscl
144 As regards the
comparison between objective and subjective density valu
145 Comparisons between observations and a dispersion model,
146 Comparisons between observations and modelling of the ev
147 A
comparison between observed and predicted (3)JHalphaHbet
148 or signed rank test was used for statistical
comparisons between or within groups, and Pearson and Sp
149 d somatic differentiation, permitting direct
comparisons between organisms with different lifestyles.
150 The
comparison between our proposed PDNAsite method and the
151 The
comparison between paediatric clinical trials and adult
152 ific patterns of incidence (P < .001 for all
comparisons between pairs of curves).
153 Comparisons between patients with GS, those with common
154 Comparisons between PIM-TMN-Trip and structurally simila
155 oth comparisons vs. EC aspirin; p = 0.30 for
comparison between plain aspirin and PL2200).
156 spatial structuring effects may not confound
comparison between plot-scale treatments, temporal chang
157 A similar
comparison between populations of dopamine neurons revea
158 n-mediated trafficking in T. cruzi, allowing
comparison between protein cohorts and other trypanosome
159 This parallel
comparison between PrV and EBV gH function brings new in
160 This study provides a direct
comparison between quantification methods throughout a c
161 ation (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.80) for the
comparison between quintiles.
162 erstadial onsets as tie-points allows direct
comparison between radiocarbon dates and Greenland clima
163 We demonstrate that direct empirical
comparisons between rainfall and streamflow provide a me
164 TOPIC: A
comparison between ranibizumab and bevacizumab of the in
165 Comparisons between rat liver and RPH, and those between
166 The
comparison between RCAT and RTSS results showed a strong
167 n = 77) in a stepped wedge fashion, allowing
comparisons between recipients and nonrecipients as well
168 Additionally, a region-of-interest
comparison between reconstructed PET data, corrected usi
169 Comparisons between reconstruction algorithms and other
170 ctivity within each framework, to facilitate
comparisons between related structures, and to fundament
171 Genome
comparison between representatives of the A1/D1 West and
172 Comparison between resin and glass microspheres revealed
173 Comparison between resin and glass microspheres revealed
174 Comparisons between results, stratified by examination t
175 The
comparison between rice and Arabidopsis show that despit
176 Statistical
comparisons between sample groups are made only by analy
177 analysis of the switching response, enabling
comparison between samples and measurement systems.
178 nd how to control for variations when making
comparisons between samples.
179 Close
comparison between Sb2S3 and Sb2Se3 up to 10 GPa reveals
180 Return on investment was based on
comparison between screening program costs and potential
181 Based on
comparisons between several theoretical and experimental
182 adjustment for covariates, with the primary
comparison between sham control and 0.2 mug/day FAc.
183 ntrol and through-fall exclusion) enabling a
comparison between short- and long-term plasticity in tr
184 A
comparison between simulated and empirically obtained re
185 nctional theory calculations was assessed by
comparison between simulated and experimental anomalous
186 formance XPCI system, we provide qualitative
comparison between simulated and experimental images.
187 gical and distance-based tree statistics for
comparison between simulated and observed trees.
188 Comparison between single-crystal and powder PL decay cu
189 ations of clustering methods based on simple
comparisons between splice isoform expression levels.
190 Comparisons between split GFPs and other photosensory pr
191 Genome
comparisons between ST459 and serotype V ST1 GBS identif
192 Comparison between strains demonstrated increased adhesi
193 Comparisons between strains revealed a stark area of con
194 nectome fingerprint that allows for a direct
comparison between structural connectomes.
195 This hinders
comparison between studies of this widely used quality i
196 not sufficiently standardized to allow valid
comparisons between studies.
197 tions from the CLUSE tool in predicting CLE,
comparisons between summary scores for the dichotomous q
198 Genome
comparison between T. sp. NMC-1 and six relatives showed
199 thane leakage over time enables a meaningful
comparison between technologies, using both economic and
200 Genome
comparison between the 2 C. amylolentus isolates identif
201 However,
comparison between the 22-mer and 35-mer systems show th
202 The kappa coefficients of the
comparison between the 3 graders and the angiography wer
203 We report a direct
comparison between the activity of ZnCu and ZnO/Cu model
204 c10 and provide the first detailed molecular
comparison between the anti-idiotype surface and its ana
205 A
comparison between the apo and complex structures reveal
206 A
comparison between the Au279 and Au309 cuboctahedral sup
207 Furthermore, through a
comparison between the axonal lysosome accumulations at
208 ligned to a BCR (-) template for statistical
comparison between the BCR (+) and BCR (-) groups.
209 A
comparison between the calculated and observed Schottky
210 However, when possible, a
comparison between the catalytic performances of N-funct
211 Comparison between the cis and trans isomers of 1,2-dime
212 Furthermore, a
comparison between the conventional and phase-conjugated
213 ity was also apparent around the time of the
comparison between the current and remembered stimulus b
214 te long-term methylation maintenance using a
comparison between the D sub-genome of hexaploid wheat a
215 A
comparison between the declared values and the measured
216 duced pluripotent stem cells approach allows
comparison between the development of various cellular p
217 We make a direct
comparison between the devices made with the macrocyclic
218 Comparison between the distribution of various features
219 Interweaving MALDI and SCF facilitates a
comparison between the experimentally and theoretically
220 ein (GFAP) immunohistochemistry to provide a
comparison between the glycogen and lactate distribution
221 ile levels were statistically significant on
comparison between the healthy and CP groups and between
222 A
comparison between the heat and momentum fluxes during 5
223 zed tomography scan and barium swallow, with
comparison between the HH (n = 42) and control (n = 325)
224 The primary safety outcome was a randomised
comparison between the immediate treatment group and the
225 Through
comparison between the large deceased donor program in S
226 Similarly, a
comparison between the lowest and the highest tertiles o
227 Comparison between the measured surface charge and Gouy-
228 om modern and ancient DNA data, the unbiased
comparison between the mtDNA and Y-chromosome population
229 A
comparison between the new EA methods and an established
230 A
comparison between the proposed model and experimental d
231 Comparison between the records and multi-decadal atmosph
232 A
comparison between the response surface methodologies ha
233 Comparison between the results of the automated and huma
234 ructural similarity is supported by sequence
comparison between the schistosome myosin II heavy chain
235 Here we present the first, to our knowledge,
comparison between the sequence-level dynamics of adapta
236 On the basis of the
comparison between the single-molecule and bulk analyses
237 A side-by-side
comparison between the soft and hard skin layers after m
238 A
comparison between the structures of the Eb/O-PLP-AFPA c
239 Constant
comparison between the two acids was required to deciphe
240 Comparison between the two states by electron microscopy
241 A
comparison between the two systems allows us to decouple
242 Through a
comparison between the two-magnon scattering and spin-wa
243 fore not included in the safety analysis for
comparison between the vaccine doses and placebo, but we
244 on on patterns of gene expression, including
comparison between the X Chromosome and autosomes.
245 A
comparison between the Z'' and the M'' spectra indicates
246 Pairwise
comparisons between the 3 treatment groups were performe
247 l-based statistical parametric mapping group
comparisons between the AD patients and 15 healthy contr
248 gnificantly different (P < 0.05), except for
comparisons between the CA-PF, CAE-PE, and CA-PE groups.
249 Comparisons between the Critical Care Pain Observation T
250 Through molecular docking and
comparisons between the crystal structures of the Vitis
251 Comparisons between the Discovery MI and SIGNA showed a
252 Comparisons between the dynamical mass, inferred from th
253 The
comparisons between the emission reports and measurement
254 In
comparisons between the groups, the R group showed a 1.5
255 nferoni analysis was used to assess pairwise
comparisons between the groups.
256 Similar patterns were observed in
comparisons between the highest and lowest quintiles.
257 Comparisons between the Jagged and Delta family show a h
258 Comparisons between the model presented in this study an
259 lating ability measurements, for appropriate
comparisons between the molecules tested and chosen refe
260 Similar results were seen in the
comparisons between the newer biologics (e.g. vedolizuma
261 Comparisons between the P-T phase diagrams of Eu(Fe0.925
262 Clinical image
comparisons between the PET/CT systems demonstrated the
263 Additional
comparisons between the phosphomimic mutations and the r
264 Comparisons between the proposed method and the commonly
265 Comparisons between the representative mammal, amphibian
266 w number trait, which was selected to enable
comparisons between the results of XP-GWAS and conventio
267 Comparisons between the two arms were performed using th
268 Comparisons between the two groups were performed after
269 However, a systematic performance
comparison between them has been lacking.
270 40 FPs to enable straightforward and direct
comparison between them.
271 pt, to demonstrate the successful use of the
comparison between theoretical and experimental collisio
272 Its discovery enables new high fidelity
comparisons between theoretical and experimental studies
273 A
comparison between theory and experiment indicates that
274 ch offers an ideal opportunity for judicious
comparison between theory and experiment.
275 Comparison between these viral systems shows that viruse
276 Through expanded architectural
comparisons between these complexes and HIF-1alpha-ARNT,
277 sites within S1 were matched so that direct
comparisons between these two groups could be made.
278 Comparisons between transcriptomic and metatranscriptomi
279 A broad-based metabolite profile
comparison between trauma patients and healthy volunteer
280 Comparisons between trauma patients with differing outco
281 Comparisons between treated and untreated eyes were adju
282 Two-sided t tests were used for
comparisons between treatment groups.
283 yesian NMAs were performed to combine direct
comparisons between treatments with that of indirect sim
284 Genome
comparison between trypanosomatids reveals that these pa
285 The
comparison between tunneling and angle-resolved photoele
286 ng PEG-DET for protein delivery and a direct
comparison between two cationic block copolymers demonst
287 We report an empirical
comparison between two of the most prominent examples of
288 A synchronous clock
comparison between two regions of the 3D lattice yields
289 The
comparison between two tolerant elm varieties, 'Valley F
290 Comparison between unfolding of an NMS construct and tha
291 The
comparison between unipolar and bipolar disorders reveal
292 ession on monocytes and A2Ar on T cells, and
comparison between uveitis patients and healthy controls
293 Head-to-head
comparisons between various medications and comparisons
294 ns for how many cycles are needed to conduct
comparisons between vehicles, such as when comparing fue
295 However, direct
comparisons between VH-IVUS and OCT are lacking and it r
296 Here, we provide a systematic
comparison between visual and prosthetic activations of
297 Comparison between WGS and multilocus sequence typing (M
298 included if they were randomized controlled
comparisons between whole-grain foods and a non-whole-gr
299 Comparisons between wild-type enzyme and a mutant resist
300 to use VBM, (2) failed to report a voxelwise
comparison between youths with CP and typically developi