ライフサイエンスコーパス: comparison of @ with

1 le, highlighting multiple regions, where the comparison of predicted insecticide concentrations with

2 We validate the analysis both through comparison of nanopore-derived methylation patterns with

3 Comparison of solid-state sodium cells with 1) solid ele

4 was assembled to perform a morpho-functional comparison of these taxa with 12 models corresponding to

5 In neuroblastoma, a direct comparison of CLR 124 with (124)I-metaiodobenzylguanidin

6 And we performed a crosswise comparison of homologous age-related genes with 18 tissu

7 rigorous and unbiased benchmark analysis and comparisons of DriverML with 20 other existing tools in

8 A comparison of our isolates with 249 clinical C. jejuni f

9 Further, pairwise comparisons of GVP profiles with 8 SNPs demonstrated gre

10 A comparison of Altona with a laboratory-developed BKV NAA

11 filing of Ccn6(fl/fl) mammary carcinomas and comparison of orthologous genes with a human metaplastic

12 The comparison of our data with a reanalyzed transcriptome d

13 Comparison of outcomes in patients with a relapsing vs n

14 A secondary outcome was a comparison of results in patients with a high sputum eos

15 Comparison of sensor readings with a nearby background s

16 An exploratory comparison of survival with a propensity score-matched c

17 Of note, a comparison of the CCHD/LD1 complex with a previously sol

18 Here, we describe a structural comparison of the isolated RH domain with a domain swapp

19 A comparison of the sandwich hybridization format with a d

20 cts arising from gas injection and recommend comparison of this method with a more standard procedure

21 s of apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), followed by comparisons of cognitive function, with a particular foc

22 (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Glob

23 il/valsartan in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Glob

24 zed patients in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Glob

25 s randomized in the PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Glob

26 in either the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Glob

27 ed ejection fraction (EF) in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Glob

28 In the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Glob

29 In the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI with ACEI to Determine Impact on Glob

30 eening in the PARADIGM-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ACEI to Determine Impact on Glob

31 A comparison of tumors with acquired resistance to HDM201

32 Head-to-head comparisons of conventional influenza vaccines with aden

33 Comparison of micronutrients with adjacent long-term (si

34 The PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With an ACE-Inhibitor to Determine Im

35 A structural comparison of holo-ScNsrR with an apo-IscR-DNA complex s

36 In this framework, the comparison of the results with an independent measuremen

37 On the basis of comparison of this MDFF model with an earlier-derived cr

38 The comparison of lysates with and without previous RNase tr

39 Effectiveness was estimated by comparison of the HIV incidence with and without PrEP us

40 However, there have been no direct comparisons of AKI in hospitalized patients with and wit

41 Comparisons of baseline features between groups with and

42 fects were clinically insignificant based on comparisons of models with and without the effects, resu

43 tures in neurological conditions that allows comparison of human gait with animal models would be of

44 Comparison of simulation data with antibody binding data

45 a from randomization groups 1 and 2, and the comparison of oral anticoagulation with antiplatelet the

46 differences between these strains, enabling comparison of their treatment with antivirals.

47 Structural comparison of the bithionol complex with apo-sAC and oth

48 stages in complex with K(+), Rb(+), or Cs(+) Comparison of these structures with apo TtDdl revealed n

49 The PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With P

50 (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With P

51 nrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With P

52 propeptide were measured in the Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB on Management of Heart Failu

53 A comparison of mouse melanopsin with armadillo melanopsin

54 A comparison of Au-thiolate NCs with Au-phosphine ones fur

55 A comparison of model-predicted flux values with available

56 In addition, the comparison of patients with biallelic and heterozygous m

57 Comparison of both structures, complemented with biochem

58 Comparisons of the North Indian record with both Antarct

59 Comparison of product binding with BSH from Clostridium

60 he absolute configuration was established by comparison of the experimental CD with calculated electr

61 The structural comparison of AsCpf1 with Cas9, a type II CRISPR-Cas nuc

62 Further comparison of PRO-seq data with ChIP-seq/exo data for BC

63 Structural comparisons of HDAC6-inhibitor complexes with class I HD

64 In a nonrandomized comparison of patients with clopidogrel loading before o

65 our knowledge the first large-scale genomic comparison of SBA with colorectal cancer and gastric car

66 d participants from PARADIGM-HF (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor

67 8442 patients randomized in the Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibitor

68 veloped methodology was used, relying on the comparison of removal efficiency predictions (obtained w

69 ngle frames, which enables us to make direct comparisons of cofluctuations of network organization wi

70 To enable the quantitative comparisons of SCF-dependent ubiquitylation reactions wi

71 The comparison of trials with correct (Hits) versus incorrec

72 ffect of educational discontinuity through a comparison of the actual trends with counterfactual tren

73 Comparison of control and intervention clusters with cov

74 Comparison of the experimental results with crystal-fiel

75 carbon cycle simulations can be gained from comparisons of models with current-generation datasets o

76 Comparisons of noncycloplegic with cycloplegic autorefra

77 The comparison of patients' data from HRUM with data from HC

78 Comparison of platelet eQTLs with data from the Genotype

79 Comparison of the Hadza data set with data collected fro

80 Finally, a comparison of the present results with data obtained wit

81 Subsequent comparisons of data from 2003-2004 with data through 201

82 absolute configuration has been assigned by comparison of the experimental ECD spectra with DFT and

83 nt affects the fusion mechanism as well as a comparison of fusion behavior across viruses with differ

84 Comparison of animals with different histories of pregna

85 These strategies enable a quantitative comparison of bead batches with different functionalizat

86 A comparison of electrodes functionalized with different a

87 We conclude that comparison of fluorescence on materials with different n

88 The comparison of the results obtained with different aqueou

89 Comparison of three peptide substrates with different le

90 Detailed comparisons of several mutations with different degrees

91 Moreover, comparisons of the reactivities with different recombina

92 ears) were recruited into the TOMMY trial (A Comparison of Tomosynthesis with Digital Mammography in

93 Comparison of the ultrasonic results with discontinuous

94 The comparison of mouse data with DNA methylation levels of

95 Comparisons of gene essentiality with drug sensitivity d

96 sk factor for prostate cancer (PC), a direct comparison of PC risk for men with each syndrome in a si

97 Comparison of these structures with each other, as well

98 d graft biopsy (index biopsy, IBx), allowing comparison of risk of DCGF associated with early events

99 iana infestation as revealed by a systematic comparison of the model outputs with empirical data, inc

100 Comparison of PDTX with ex vivo tumor cultures and arsen

101 Further, by comparison of human LCM microvessel data with existing h

102 y for CPP by combined mathematical modeling, comparison of predictions from the model with experiment

103 Comparisons of computational predictions with experiment

104 he first direct qualitative and quantitative comparison of our numerical model with experimental stud

105 Comparison of the theory with experiments is excellent f

106 orm an extensive, systematic and transparent comparison of models with explicit age and/or household

107 In addition, comparison of network analysis with expression of gene m

108 Specific comparison of patients with FA and asthmatic patients re

109 Comparison of fadrozole-bound CYP11B1 with fadrozole-bou

110 Comparison of synaptic results with fast glutamate appli

111 Comparison of purely topological characteristics with fl

112 Comparison of IMS with fluorescence detection and electr

113 Bayes factor comparisons of simulated data with [Formula: see text] a

114 The comparison of LipidMS with freely available data depende

115 bsets of pangenomes are selected, as well as comparisons of individual genomes to pangenomes with gen

116 investigations, allowing for the unambiguous comparison of strains with global coverage.

117 Transcriptome comparisons of SOX9+ cells with GLT1+ cells showed that

118 comparison of standard repair with mesh, and comparison of standard repair with graft.

119 Integrative comparison of cHCC-ICC with hepatocellular carcinoma and

120 Pairwise comparisons of individuals with high-impact inherited va

121 Subgroup comparisons of patients with high or low anxiety symptom

122 Comparisons of these collective data with histopathologi

123 Comparison of NgBR/DHDDS with homodimeric cis-PTase stru

124 Comparison of M. musculus dCTPase with homologs from a d

125 Here, we performed a large-scale genomic comparison of bovine commensal E. coli with human commen

126 Comparison of cells with identical oocyte-derived nuclea

127 ient, 3D models of vascularized tissues, and comparison of predictions with in vivo or in vitro exper

128 A comparison of this structure with inactive- and active-s

129 We conducted a retrospective cohort comparison of patients with incidental GBC.

130 Comparison of nucleotide-binding with ionic currents sug

131 n 3000 meters) during the Eocene, based on a comparison of oxygen isotope proxy data with isotope-ena

132 Comparison of EndoV with its homologs RNase H1 and Argon

133 Comparison of PIMS-TS with KD and with KD shock syndrome

134 Comparison of our results with kinetic and structural st

135 A comparison of EBNA3 binding sites with known transcripti

136 This could have resulted in a comparison of fit statin users with less fit nonstatin u

137 of our experimental relaxation curves and by comparison of the data with literature values (in this i

138 This Tric-LUC reporter allowed a direct comparison of luciferase activity with locomotor activit

139 follow-up range: 5-24 y), pooled RRs for the comparison of the highest with lowest categories of tota

140 Comparison of LC-MS with MA revealed that MA inaccuratel

141 ed of a randomized clinical trial design and comparison of the ICD with medical therapy (control) in

142 ptor expression in the Tc17 cell clusters, a comparison of these cells with melanoma-infiltrating CD8

143 igned to one of the three treatment options, comparison of standard repair with mesh, and comparison

144 Comparison of full-field ERG recordings with microfiber

145 The comparison of our neutron spectroscopy data with model s

146 Comparison of the data presented here with model outputs

147 on and condensation surfaces are analyzed by comparison of BKE results with molecular dynamics (MD) s

148 Comparison of our experimental findings with molecular d

149 Comparison of our proteomic data with mouse and human da

150 and interactions by allowing observation and comparison of ligand interactions with multiple proteins

151 Comparison of this statistics-based description with new

152 We performed a case-case comparison of emm32.2 iGAS cases with non-emm32.2 contro

153 Comparisons of exercisers with non-exercisers has sugges

154 Comparison of LCD secondary structure tendencies with nu

155 itial studies demonstrated benefit, a direct comparison of its use with observation and corticosteroi

156 s, and the lack of standardization, make the comparison of ion channel models with one another and wi

157 Systematic comparison of our method with optimized chip-based nanoe

158 Direct comparison of MAV preparations made with or without the

159 Comparison of our results with orthogonal PacBio call se

160 pancy in positive and negative controls, and comparisons of estimated site occupancy with orthogonal

161 Comparison of 2014 funding levels with other malignancie

162 Comparison of both modules with other diseases revealed

163 ted alongside the preparation and reactivity comparison of deconjugated butenolides with other compet

164 A comparison of functional potential with other available

165 A comparison of NPR Scythian mtDNA linages with other cont

166 Comparison of our approach with other integrative approa

167 Finally, we have performed a systematic comparison of the RECQL5 structures with other RecQ fami

168 The comparison of these results with other vertebrates, usin

169 Comparison of this method with other C-H azidation metho

170 es to arsenite and antimonite in contrast to comparisons of arsenite with other metal compounds.

171 Comparisons of gene diversity with other aquatic habitat

172 Comparison of the current XN structure with our previous

173 of the diagnostic image quality at baseline; comparison of baseline administered activity data with p

174 Univariate analyses were used for comparison of different variables, and variables with P

175 Comparison of aril juices with peel and seed extracts is

176 Psychological research shows that social comparison of individuals with peers or others shapes at

177 fracture connectivity is determined through comparison of fracture parameters with permeability.

178 Comparison of cholesterol poses with phospholipid bindin

179 well as host-cell adhesion by Acinetobacter Comparisons of genomic and structural data with pilin pr

180 Structural comparison of PilM with PilM.PilN(1-12) revealed that up

181 djusted hazard ratio for exacerbation in the comparison of brensocatib with placebo was 0.58 (95% con

182 This article reports the results of the comparison of n-3 fatty acids with placebo.

183 the 5-mg dose with placebo; P<0.001 for the comparison of the 10-mg dose with placebo); the rate was

184 the 5-mg dose with placebo; P<0.001 for the comparison of the 10-mg dose with placebo); the score ch

185 ith 33% in the placebo group (P=0.01 for the comparison of the 5-mg dose with placebo; P<0.001 for th

186 -0.18 in the placebo group (P=0.006 for the comparison of the 5-mg dose with placebo; P<0.001 for th

187 This article reports the results of the comparison of vitamin D with placebo.

188 ents in the placebo group (P < .001 for both comparisons of BOT with placebo).

189 he 52-week prednisone taper (P<0.001 for the comparisons of either active treatment with placebo).

190 Systematic comparison of PPI cavities with pockets deduced from dru

191 Comparison of preoperative biometrics with postoperative

192 Comparison of assay results with prediction scores confi

193 Extensive comparison of our results with previous endosymbiont div

194 Finally, a comparison of TIPS-BT1' with previous results obtained f

195 Comparison of the results presented here with previously

196 Comparison of the new data set with prior studies highli

197 mbining a linear-time algorithm for implicit comparison of all pairs of models with profile hashing t

198 Comparison of this data set with publicly available micr

199 Comparison of our EC-TRAP with published single-cell RNA

200 Based on the comparison of our results with published data, we propos

201 Comparison of the overall associations with published re

202 Comparisons of demographics were made with published Eur

203 In direct comparison of pure rPH with pure iPH, severe cerebral WM

204 Finally, comparison of dPCR with qPCR results on clinical samples

205 A comparison of the new temperature reconstruction with ra

206 Comparison of these results with redox Western blots of

207 e this trend via simulations of plasmidomes, comparisons of predictions with reference data for isola

208 Comparison of land movement with relative sea-level rise

209 A comparison of our data with reported methylome changes i

210 The comparison of persistent with resolved MetS and MUO did

211 DeltaFM than to DeltaFFM; however, a direct comparison of the 2 indexes with respect to change in th

212 the ENC, and we focused our analysis on the comparison of the ENC domain with respect to its wild ty

213 Comparison of vertical accretion rates with RSLR rates a

214 Direct comparison of healthy aging populations with schizophren

215 ia, and assessment of computational time and comparison of PSMA PET-derived parameters with serum pro

216 We conducted rigorous and unbiased comparisons of MDEHT with seven commonly used tools in s

217 Further, pair wise comparison of DEGs of double mutant with single mutants

218 Benchmarking the method by comparison of average peptide PFs with site-resolved NMR

219 Comparison of this model with SIV-infected non-CD8(+) ly

220 A structural comparison of SULT1A3 with SULT1A1 (its immediate evolut

221 A comparison of the model results with surface observation

222 A comparison of median scores of participants with symptom

223 Comparison of Lmo2-/- with Tal1-/- Flk-1+ cells further

224 Comparison of combined intervention with TAU, and of int

225 For UMNs, comparison of IM-MS results with TEM and N(2) physisorpt

226 m Thrombolysis) trial was a randomized (1:1) comparison of thrombolysis with tenecteplase versus plac

227 ssion levels in modern maize is supported by comparisons of relative protein levels with teosinte as

228 Comparison of our structure with that of a previously re

229 Comparison of our structure with that of HIV RT explains

230 By comparison of SFTSV Gc with that of the prefusion struct

231 Importantly, comparison of the alkylation fingerprint with that gener

232 Comparison of the reactivity of 2 with that of a more el

233 Comparison of these structures with that of an Rgg in co

234 In this study, a comparison of approaches for dealing with the matrix eff

235 Finally, a comparison of IRAB-B with the IR antagonist S961 shows d

236 We present a quantitative comparison of joint reconstructions with the current cli

237 Comparison of our findings with the simulations of an en

238 A comparison of our results with the N(2) deficits calcula

239 After comparison of PSMA data with the results of the Roach fo

240 ages of TXRF have been presented through the comparison of results with the wavelength-dispersive X-r

241 Clinical diagnosis is dependent on comparison of the affected region with the equivalent re

242 dentify 18,210 structural variants by direct comparison of the assembly with the human reference, ide

243 In a comparison of the baseline period with the EOS calculato

244 As a result of annotation and comparison of the data with the existing data available

245 The comparison of the experimental knowledge with the model

246 s spectrometry (MS) is generally achieved by comparison of the experimental mass spectra with the the

247 Based on the comparison of the observed transient spectra with the on

248 Comparison of the octamer with the hexadecamer structure

249 A comparison of the proposed method with the existing lite

250 delity of our mrdna framework through direct comparison of the simulation results with the results of

251 A comparison of the STSIS technique with the SIS technique

252 Comparison of the UV-detected MWD with the MWD of the "b

253 follow-up, the incidence rate ratio for the comparison of the vaccinated population with the unvacci

254 A comparison of theoretically predicted data with the corr

255 typic or genomic breeding frameworks and the comparison of these approaches with the standard multi-t

256 rce (mostly non-existent) in terms of direct comparison of these novel technologies with the solution

257 A comparison of these reactions with the more commonly use

258 Pho84 was used to study the release of Pi A comparison of this conformation with the model for Pi re

259 Comparison of this reference profile with the sugar comp

260 Comprehensive comparisons of RegLRSD with the state-of-the-art algorit

261 Our comparisons of the taxa associated with the android fat

262 Structural comparison of C2c1 ternary complexes with their Cas9 and

263 Comparison of the experimental lifetime herein with theo

264 rochemical studies is usually undertaken via comparison of the experimental results with theory based

265 ndertaken via heuristic or data optimization comparison of the experimental results with theory based

266 Comparison of adapted populations with those found on le

267 Comparison of macaque retinal types with those of mice r

268 The comparison of our results with those obtained under conv

269 ssful analysis of the IgE in human serum and comparison of results with those from a commercial kit.

270 sures of myelin were also performed to allow comparison of signals in lesions and with those in norma

271 reochemistry was elucidated unambiguously by comparison of the analytical data with those of the repo

272 We furthermore provide a direct comparison of the capabilities of LDA with those of the

273 Comparison of the MD simulation results with those of th

274 Comparison of the nanopore results with those obtained b

275 y analysis of reference material (RM) and by comparison of the results with those obtained using conv

276 A comparison of the spectra with those of comparable rhodi

277 Comparison of the Vv2KGR structure with those of d-isome

278 Comparison of the WFIKKN2 FSD with those of follistatin

279 A comparison of these data with those of the ustilaginoidi

280 Comparison of these genomes with those of related specie

281 Comparison of these kinetoplasts with those obtained aft

282 Comparison of these results with those from other classe

283 The comparison of these results with those from other verteb

284 d CCG258748) in complex with GRK2-Gbetagamma Comparison of these structures with those of analogous b

285 NMR spectroscopic and MS spectrometric data, comparison of this data with those reported for structur

286 By comparison of this method with those only based on chemi

287 Comparison of this sequence with those of closely relate

288 Systematic comparison of R850Q with three other SCN8A epilepsy muta

289 A comparison of our model with traditional and simpler MLR

290 Further comparison of the 5hmC profiles with transcriptomes and

291 tein motifs in three different settings: (1) comparison of DiMotif with two existing approaches on 20

292 Comparisons of 3-Ni with two further U-Ni complexes XU(I

293 Comparison of reactants with various substitution groups

294 Structural comparison of VP24 with VP26 and VP28 reveals opposite e

295 Comparison (of patients with vs. without sub-RPE infiltr

296 In comparisons of mice with vs without neutrophils, we foun

297 Systematic comparisons of GPS with whole-genome bisulfite sequencin

298 Comparison of dKO mice with wild-type (Wt) and single kn

299 Phosphoproteomic comparison of TbDYRK null mutants with wild-type parasit

300 Comparison of these mice with wild type and globally MeC