ライフサイエンスコーパス: between patients

1 treatment for psoriasis, but response varies between patients.

2 ; however, significant heterogeneity existed between patients.

3 per se, would explain variability in memory between patients.

4 The characteristics and severity of XLH vary between patients.

5 ough the number and extent of lesions varied between patients.

6 ethod for ruling out relapse or transmission between patients.

7 This is true to the effect within and between patients.

8 h their dynamic nature and the heterogeneity between patients.

9 eage relationships, but only i12p was shared between patients.

10 be due to variability in dopaminergic damage between patients.

11 upported clusters"), suggesting transmission between patients.

12 hat represents gene expression relationships between patients.

13 ogression, explaining 30% of the differences between patients.

14 = 0.25, p = 0.52) and significantly differed between patients 2- and 17-weeks post-op (p < 0.01, effe

15 The questionnaire score differed between patients according to their tumor location, chem

16 malignant cell types whose abundances varied between patients and between subclones in the same tumor

17 Presentation varies between patients and can vary over time within an indivi

18 s of self-care and the complex relationships between patients and care partners in the context of MCC

19 ections resulted in decreased exposure times between patients and clinic staff, decreased cost per en

20 Discussions of medication costs between patients and clinicians are infrequent and often

21 t efforts can target uncovered misalignments between patients and clinicians to improve communication

22 graphic criteria are significantly different between patients and controls and between the different

23 wise randomized permutation-based comparison between patients and controls and used to classify each

24 nt subcortical volume differences were found between patients and controls at baseline (F(8,52) = 1.7

25 more, a direct comparison of neural activity between patients and controls revealed a dorsal spatiote

26 Potential imaging-based differences between patients and controls with regard to (1) white m

27 eveal differences in functional connectivity between patients and controls, between relapsers and non

28 c background of the HLA-G 3'UTR is identical between patients and controls, certain SNPs have the pot

29 highly significant differences were elicited between patients and controls, confirming the tests' sen

30 No differences in PBMC responses were found between patients and controls.

31 here were no differences in glutamate levels between patients and controls.

32 ostic MSU culture was unable to discriminate between patients and controls.

33 ial volume corrected glutamate concentration between patients and controls.

34 cellular phenotypes significantly different between patients and controls.

35 We compared the morphology between patients and controls; examined their correlatio

36 e professionals; (4) Quality of relationship between patients and health professionals.

37 need to be adopted to support communication between patients and health-care providers.

38 es and cognitive function that do not differ between patients and healthy control subjects.

39 ype increases the accuracy of discriminating between patients and healthy controls.

40 nd easily accessible; enabling communication between patients and multiple providers; and providing a

41 To date information exchange between patients and nurses has not been explored in war

42 Differences between patients and nurses' preferences could jeopardiz

43 est consensus include leadership, visibility between patients and nurses, and nursing team skill mix

44 s are creating a need for cost conversations between patients and physicians.

45 deal starting basis for emerging discussions between patients and providers about deficiencies which

46 reening in patients, or comparative measures between patients and the general population.

47 ctivities/functions or intimate relationship between patients and their partners and management of su

48 notypic and genotypic differences that exist between patients and their tumours.

49 the pattern of diffuse axonal injury varies between patients and they have a correspondingly heterog

50 y injections, variable pharmacokinetics (PK) between patients and various adverse reactions necessita

51 nse to chemotherapy and biological therapies between patients and zPDX.

52 We found substantial variability in subsets between patients, and demonstrated that HDN and LDN reta

53 Routes to metastasis differ between patients, and likely genetic drivers of metastas

54 alized to gain clues about the relationships between patients, and to formulate hypotheses about thei

55 geneity in joint shock and death risks, both between patients at each time point and for each single

56 ividuals but that these are generally unique between patients at risk for developing lung cancer.

57 re significantly improved the discrimination between patients at risk for severe-to-severe acute RHF.

58 As the result of treatment can vary between patients, basing treatment decisions for individ

59 We hypothesize that DNA methylation differs between patients by treatment response to topical steroi

60 models were fit to estimate the relationship between patients' clinical and demographic characteristi

61 Between patients' clinical and procedural characteristic

62 tween ICUs, between types of clinicians, and between patients' clinical status and mood.

63 h nodes without metastasis (ALN(-)) differed between patients diagnosed without ALN(+) (diagnosed-ALN

64 c valve mean gradients or aortic valve areas between patients discharged on AC vs. those not discharg

65 was used to compare postdischarge OSI rates between patients discharged with and without OA after pr

66 , and readiness questionnaire to distinguish between patients eligible for immediate ART dispensing a

67 valence of different disease pathways varies between patients, even within the same severity group.

68 prognostic factors are unequally distributed between patients exposed or not exposed to an interventi

69 tion arm included scripted ACP conversations between patients, family members, and certified facilita

70 Distances between patients' home zip code and high- and low-qualit

71 Round-trip driving times between patients' home ZIP code and hospital addresses w

72 T cell receptor sequence comparison between patients identifies clonal convergence.

73 endent, there is also considerable variation between patients in both the extent of symptoms of enter

74 re was no significant difference in survival between patients in Group I and II (P = 0.849), whereas

75 re were no significant mortality differences between patients in SOS and non-SOS hospitals.

76 of treatment sessions differed significantly between patients in the brief psychosocial intervention

77 ean difference in annualised growth velocity between patients in the vosoritide group and placebo gro

78 to assess for differences in ocular features between patients in XP subgroups with impaired transcrip

79 ificant differences in the clinical features between patients infected with MRMp and those infected w

80 so assessed, revealing trends of association between patients' IQ and affective psychotic symptoms wi

81 to neurodegeneration, but the severity of MS between patients is very variable.

82 Criteria for HT listing do not differ between patients medically managed and those mechanicall

83 The observed differences in postpartum mood between patients of different SES in the context of temp

84 st operational taxonomic units that differed between patients on a GFD with new-onset CD vs healthy c

85 rates of SVR, adherence, and discontinuation between patients on OST and controls as well as between

86 acteristics were not significantly different between patients on the Beat AML sub-studies and those r

87 The gap between patients on transplant waiting lists and availab

88 ent discontinuation during BORA were similar between patients originally assigned benralizumab and th

89 In contrast, no association was found between patients per nurse ratios and in-hospital mortal

90 The disparity between patients' perceptions and guideline assessment o

91 ar whether the clinical presentation differs between patients positive for PLA2R1-Ab or THSD7A-Ab.

92 PP) deficit (i.e., the percentage difference between patients' preillness basal MPP and achieved MPP)

93 The risk of 3-month mortality was similar between patients randomised to intensive BP-lowering tre

94 No difference was observed between patients randomized to treatment with colistin m

95 No difference was observed between patients randomized to treatment with colistin m

96 se of this study was to evaluate differences between patients receiving (18)F-fluciclovine and (68)Ga

97 es (PROMs; secondary outcome measure) differ between patients receiving a topical prostaglandin analo

98 he difference in 30-day cumulative mortality between patients receiving blood stored for 30 to 42 day

99 ed the baseline characteristics and outcomes between patients receiving conventional cardiac monitori

100 Safety was generally similar between patients receiving immediate treatment and those

101 compared the diagnostic performance of cFFR between patients receiving low or iso-osmolality contras

102 ignificant difference in all-cause mortality between patients receiving pirfenidone and those on nint

103 ion of 2645 genes expressed in lesional skin between patients receiving risankizumab and ustekinumab

104 utcomes following open liver resection (OLR) between patients receiving thoracic epidural (EP) versus

105 no impact on stent selection or concordance between patients' stent preference and stent received, s

106 compared the evolutions of those parameters between patients successfully weaned-off extracorporeal

107 ange of physiological variability within and between patients, such as degree of hypoxemia and sleep

108 However, divergent outcomes exist between patients, suggesting distinct underlying tumor b

109 Long-term HR-QOL does not differ between patients surviving PF and those surviving septic

110 Our methods could successfully distinguish between patients taking either anticonvulsant and those

111 course and laboratory metrics were compared between patients that developed venous thromboembolism a

112 CLTs were not different between patients that did or did not experience bleeding

113 ers with significant differential expression between patients that relapsed versus those that did not

114 ay (P = 0.64) or 2-year mortality (P = 0.53) between patients treated nonoperatively and operatively.

115 Nd:YAG laser capsulotomy rates were compared between patients treated postoperatively with topical st

116 e fatality rate did not substantially differ between patients treated with 1 vs 2 classes of antimicr

117 d rates of cardiovascular or all-cause death between patients treated with AF catheter ablation and a

118 in the onset of new allergen sensitizations between patients treated with AIT and pharmacotherapy.

119 haracteristics and infection incidence rates between patients treated with and without bendamustine.

120 rrected QT interval intervals did not differ between patients treated with chloroquine/hydroxychloroq

121 rved in clinical status or overall mortality between patients treated with convalescent plasma and th

122 with clinical disease, but it did not differ between patients treated with or without antibiotics aga

123 no difference in DCCV-related complications between patients treated with or without OAC post-DCCV.

124 e were no measurable differences in outcomes between patients treated with polymer-free versus durabl

125 he likelihood of using no opioids (P = 0.39) between patients undergoing minimally versus open colect

126 cations, procedures, or operative complexity between patients undergoing overlapping surgery and thos

127 evidence shows comparable clinical outcomes between patients undergoing radical cystectomy and TMT.

128 We compared the prevalence of brain injury between patients undergoing venoarterial and venovenous

129 There was no significant difference between patients using lower dose (<= 2 mg/kg day) and h

130 Variability in uptake between patients was analyzed using the coefficient of v

131 cause of hospital readmissions were compared between patients who achieved (optimized group) or did n

132 The study was powered to compare TF between patients who achieved or did not achieve day 2 a

133 ores in the dabrafenib plus trametinib group between patients who did and did not experience the most

134 d posttreatment CA 19-9 levels were compared between patients who did and did not have a pMR on final

135 nd >= 3 and >= 10 ppm (excess) were compared between patients who did and did not undergo appendectom

136 isk of seizure or infection during induction between patients who did or did not receive the two extr

137 count, to identify metabolites that differed between patients who did vs did not develop ACLF and pat

138 I showed good performance for discriminating between patients who died and those who survived (Harrel

139 d microcirculation parameters did not differ between patients who died on extracorporeal membrane oxy

140 Between patients who died versus discharged, we compared

141 On-natalizumab ARRs were similar between patients who discontinued or remained on nataliz

142 t quality of life effects were not different between patients who had ACP conversations and those who

143 ted by examining differences in scale scores between patients who had spent less than 1 and 1 hour or

144 rves did not show any significant difference between patients who had thyroidectomy before or after 1

145 18% higher after RYGB (P < .01), but similar between patients who had undergone SG and controls.

146 Direct comparisons between patients who have behavioural variant FTD (bvFTD

147 Between patients who obtained pCR versus not, a signific

148 inequity in the distribution of health gains between patients who receive a transplant and patients w

149 gnificant difference in mortality at 90 days between patients who received an early and continuous ci

150 The rates of retinal detachment were similar between patients who received an ILM peel (0.79%) and pa

151 in the rates of adverse events was observed between patients who received an initial course of antib

152 er study publication and to compare outcomes between patients who received and did not receive HAT th

153 Subsequent nAMD rates were compared between patients who received BLF IOLs and those who rec

154 There was no difference in L-RFS, MFS, or OS between patients who received FLX or GNP.

155 Results did not differ significantly between patients who received FMTv as their initial ther

156 there was no difference in overall survival between patients who received medical versus surgical th

157 med to compare long-term disability outcomes between patients who started high-efficacy therapies wit

158 found no significant differences in MI risk between patients who started PPIs vs H2RAs for the first

159 f this study was to evaluate the differences between patients who undergo cholecystectomy following i

160 sive complication index (CCI), were compared between patients who underwent hepatectomy in the eras 1

161 PNI rate did not differ between patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and u

162 a significant difference in remission status between patients who underwent thyroidectomy before and

163 a significant difference in remission status between patients who underwent thyroidectomy before and

164 ich is exacerbated by systematic differences between patients who were and were not treated immediate

165 dary procedures did not differ significantly between patients who were randomly assigned to undergo t

166 residual confounding underlying differences between patients who were/were not treated with antibiot

167 and validated to appropriately discriminate between patients who will develop disease from those who

168 pes (presence or absence of an aura) differs between patients whose IS was due to CEAD (CEAD IS) and

169 rithm to learn the morphological differences between patients will implicitly teach it about the biol

170 no statistical significant difference in LRR between patients with <2 mm and >=2 mm negative margins

171 gnificant difference in virus clearance time between patients with (15, 12-19 days) and without (14.5

172 responses were driven by TCR clusters shared between patients with a characteristic trajectory of clo

173 es was not significantly different (P = .27) between patients with a CIED (1.1 mL/min/g; median left

174 re was statistically significantly different between patients with a diagnosis of dementia (median, 1

175 nical or procedural outcomes were elucidated between patients with a history of sternotomy and those

176 Relevant clinical information was compared between patients with a history of sternotomy before tra

177 ribed methodology whereby differences in REE between patients with a metabolic disorder and healthy p

178 The gs-MELD score also discriminated between patients with a poor survival at 180 days (34% s

179 um 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels were compared between patients with active and inactive uveitis and po

180 The quality of life score was compared between patients with acute and chronic CSC.

181 We examine the minor variant frequency between patients with acute EVD who survived infection w

182 TCA, LA, and CVI may differ between patients with AD, MCI, and healthy cognition, wh

183 CV was not significantly different (P > .05) between patients with AF with a normal LVEF (24.5% +/- 2

184 ignificant difference in the causes of death between patients with alcohol AP and controls could be e

185 emiology and clinical outcomes were compared between patients with all negative versus any positive B

186 No clear differences were noted between patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and

187 nd resistive index (RI) values were compared between patients with and patients without appendicitis

188 of advanced CRN did not differ significantly between patients with and those without PIPs.

189 In addition, EVV differed significantly between patients with and those without SAM (10 mL +/- 4

190 Median overall survival was compared between patients with and without a metabolic liver resp

191 gnancy rate, and disease-free survival (DFS) between patients with and without a pregnancy after brea

192 n profiles have been reported to distinguish between patients with and without active tuberculosis (T

193 Observations between patients with and without asthma were similar wh

194 lacement, hospital readmission, or mortality between patients with and without asthma.

195 greater than generally appreciated, differs between patients with and without atrial fibrillation, a

196 erences in morbidity or mortality (P = .894) between patients with and without cancer.

197 Comparisons between patients with and without cholecystectomy reveal

198 on and inflammatory parameters were compared between patients with and without coagulation-associated

199 were no significant differences in OS or EFS between patients with and without concomitant extra-adre

200 arrivals and the start of antibiotic therapy between patients with and without CT before LP were simi

201 ]; P=0.034), with no significant interaction between patients with and without CVD (hazard ratio, 0.8

202 and adverse events were studied and compared between patients with and without DM.

203 ccurrences of newly diagnosed cryptococcosis between patients with and without fluconazole for primar

204 sion analysis was used to assess differences between patients with and without gastritis, oral H. pyl

205 No differences between patients with and without IBD were seen, but pat

206 onomic, and hospital-related characteristics between patients with and without ICH were assessed by c

207 ts, OAS and EFS did not differ significantly between patients with and without PF.

208 Pooled RD between patients with and without pNPWT was -12% (95%CI:

209 lcification and mitral annular calcification between patients with and without PPMI (all P>=0.09).

210 was significantly different for all methods between patients with and without progression.

211 ferences in RV volumes and ejection fraction between patients with and without RVOTO.

212 Both models adequately discriminated between patients with and without SCD events with a c-st

213 ed clinical and radiographic characteristics between patients with and without sICH using chi(2) and

214 ) and were differentially expressed as a set between patients with ASD and controls in postmortem cor

215 d longitudinal changes in cortical thickness between patients with BD and HC subjects across the whol

216 ations between KIRs and KIR ligands differed between patients with BDC and control individuals; patie

217 BPE differed significantly (P < 0.001) between patients with benign and malignant lesions, with

218 differences in (18)F-FDG PET/MRI biomarkers between patients with benign and malignant lesions.

219 ontralateral tumor-free breast tissue, exist between patients with benign and patients with malignant

220 BPU differed significantly between patients with benign lesions (mean, 1.9) and pat

221 hile we identified no consistent differences between patients with BIA-ALCL-affected and contralatera

222 se mortality was not significantly different between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid aortic sten

223 ssion and intubation) and mortality outcomes between patients with cancer and controls.

224 eling with levels in normal hearts (n=5) and between patients with compensated (n=6) versus decompens

225 nt level, a significant difference was found between patients with complete or partial response (210

226 The prevalence of CRC was similar between patients with confirmed serrated polyposis and m

227 The system discriminated between patients with COVID-19 and those without COVID-1

228 elevation of D-dimer levels does not differ between patients with COVID-19 and those without.

229 G) sites that were differentially methylated between patients with Crohn's disease (at diagnosis) and

230 ntrols (8.0 pg/mL, 3.0-14.0; all comparisons between patients with CT-negative MRI-positive findings

231 y describes and compares LUS characteristics between patients with different clinical outcomes.

232 dered a hallmark of coronary artery disease, between patients with different HbA(1c) levels using an

233 (MALT-IPI) also significantly discriminated between patients with different progression-free, overal

234 C% predicted and the ability to discriminate between patients with differing levels of IPF severity.C

235 ol (0.763) were comparable in discriminating between patients with early neoplasia (n = 94) vs no BE.

236 onia and retinal misregistration are similar between patients with ERM associated with CPR-type diplo

237 typic differences in cognition and behaviour between patients with FTD-ALS and bvFTD alone.

238 is hampered by our inability to distinguish between patients with FTLD-TDP and FTLD-tau.

239 ed to identify genes that could discriminate between patients with good versus poor survival.

240 Our aim was to compare outcomes between patients with HCC who underwent SLK and those wh

241 ter cohort study to compare overall survival between patients with HCV infection treated with DAAs an

242 key differences in plasma HDL-P subfractions between patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction

243 ant difference in the rate of positive scans between patients with higher-grade and lower-grade prima

244 diversity indices did not vary significantly between patients with IBD who did or did not achieve cli

245 rine metabolomes also differed significantly between patients with IBS and control individuals, but m

246 ome was differences in specific gut microbes between patients with IBS and controls.

247 mortality and functional outcome at 3 months between patients with ICH with and without IHC.

248 erall mortality did not differ significantly between patients with IgAN-associated ESRD and patients

249 ed with dual-energy CT differs significantly between patients with initial-stage acute pancreatitis a

250 as well as to identify molecular differences between patients with ischemic and nonischemic HF.

251 ients, there were no significant differences between patients with ISR and non-ISR PCI for in-hospita

252 [20%] versus 13/104 [12%]; P = 0.3) differed between patients with K. aerogenes versus Ecc BSI, respe

253 Differences in metabolic adaptation between patients with lean and nonlean NAFLD, at least i

254 anes, we performed propensity score matching between patients with left-sided IE from 1977 to mid-201

255 Clinical distinction between patients with lupus nephritis who have active in

256 Differences between patients with MDD and healthy control subjects i

257 ifferences in the relative metabolite levels between patients with MGUS and MM from an exploratory co

258 e kynurenine metabolite 3-hydroxy-kynurenine between patients with MGUS and MM.

259 ferences in levels of metabolites and lipids between patients with MGUS and MM.

260 LOS did not differ between patients with mild and severe disease according

261 e enriched during COVID-19 and discriminated between patients with mild and severe disease.

262 d immunosuppressive management were compared between patients with mild/moderate and severe disease (

263 TNF-alpha and IL-10 discriminated between patients with MIS-C and severe COVID-19.

264 n of peripheral blood smears may distinguish between patients with MIS-C and those with severe COVID-

265 Mutation profile differences between patients with muscle-invasive and metastatic uro

266 Phenotypic differences between patients with mutations in these 2 genes have be

267 e in macular and peripapillary CVI was found between patients with NA-AION and controls (respectively

268 mpare trends in the development of cirrhosis between patients with NAFLD who underwent bariatric surg

269 ota of the skin, breast, implant and capsule between patients with no clear trend to distinguish BIA-

270 were compared between DM and DBT groups and between patients with no previous DBT examinations and t

271 rsonality (Type D personality) were compared between patients with NOCAD and an age- and sex-matched

272 fecal metabolome that is able to distinguish between patients with non-C. difficile diarrhea and C. d

273 agnosis, there was no significant difference between patients with or without elevated IgG levels.

274 nd an important overlap of individual scores between patients with or without the primary endpoint.

275 Difference in OCT characteristics of ONHD between patients with or without VF defects.

276 overall BMP9 and BMP10 levels did not differ between patients with PAH and control subjects, BMP10 le

277 verall survival did not differ significantly between patients with PDACs with dMMR or MSI vs without

278 recurrent pneumonia and death were compared between patients with persistent growth of the index pat

279 SV/ESV ratios were compared between patients with PH, controls, and disease severity

280 ifferences in left atrial size were observed between patients with POAF and patients without POAF.

281 evealed key clinical and genetic differences between patients with PPP and those with GPP.

282 in patients with diabetes, but were similar between patients with prediabetes and normoglycemia.

283 ear after diagnosis and examined differences between patients with probable (hospitalized or >1 outpa

284 omic or functional differences were detected between patients with PSC with and without IBD.

285 FAAH did not differ significantly between patients with psychotic disorders and healthy co

286 No differences were found between patients with punctate versus linear appearing m

287 ce free survival was significantly different between patients with R0 versus R1 margins (2- and 5-yea

288 Overall survival was significantly different between patients with R0 versus R1 margins but wider res

289 est patient group to date, and to compare it between patients with recent onset (ROS) and established

290 utperformed procalcitonin in differentiating between patients with sepsis and surgical controls in th

291 blood smears, as well as Cts, differentiated between patients with severe COVID-19 and those with MIS

292 The signature was able to discriminate between patients with severe symptoms, patients with mil

293 hether trends in outcomes over time differed between patients with SLE and those without SLE, logisti

294 ence in clinical outcomes throughout 5 years between patients with small vessel disease treated with

295 (1.2%), we found no difference in CAC score between patients with SMI and the comparison group.

296 tral density of electroencephalography (EEG) between patients with SS and those with obstructive slee

297 ptoms on and in the 90 days before diagnosis between patients with these diagnosis codes.

298 evel implants with a partially smooth collar between patients with thin (<=2 mm) and thick (>2 mm) ve

299 her time to surgical explant or TAVR era, or between patients with versus without endocarditis (all p

300 S), and HCC recurrence (HCC-R) were compared between patients within MC (n = 3,570) and beyond MC (n