1 The primary end point was the
comparison between 1.5% RUX cream BID and vehicle in mea
2 Comparison between 145 patients hospitalized with severe
3 We additionally perform a
comparison between 2D and 3D simulation geometry, on whi
4 rfaces coated with the nanobodies provides a
comparison between 2D and three-dimensional adhesion in
5 on in the ganglion cell layer and axons, and
comparison between 3-month-old wild-type and Dnm1l+/- mi
6 Herein, we report a head-to-head
comparison between 5 nm renal clearable and 30 nm non-re
7 This was a head-to-head
comparison between (
68)Ga-labeled prostate-specific memb
8 is work, we performed the first side-by-side
comparison between a CI-Orbitrap and the widely used atm
9 ajority of research papers is devoted to the
comparison between a numerical modelling and experimenta
10 We conducted a global RNA-seq
comparison between a resistant genotype (S54) and a susc
11 In this work,
comparisons between a NaCl-only and a multi-cation-chlor
12 We present here the results of
comparisons between Abbott ID Now COVID-19 and Cepheid X
13 abs transported in viral transport media and
comparisons between Abbott ID Now COVID-19 and Cepheid X
14 Our study helps enable valuable
comparisons between able-bodied and impaired gait, inclu
15 ich was based upon an objective, topographic
comparison between abnormal points on the 10-2 VF and OC
16 els of inflammatory markers were verified in
comparison between AD, MCI and control, supporting the n
17 (RCTs) and prospective studies with data on
comparison between adjunctive locally delivered statin u
18 We primarily report the
comparison between adolescents and young adults.
19 Articles were selected when reporting a
comparison between advanced practice providers and physi
20 Furthermore,
comparison between analytical and numerical calculations
21 e employed a novel approach to this problem:
comparisons between angiosperms and Marsileaceae, a fami
22 e possibility is that flies perform frequent
comparisons between anterior and posterior sensory input
23 Comparisons between antibiotic types, doses, administrat
24 in those who received placebo (P = 0.03 for
comparison between arms).
25 The
comparison between baseline and acquired-resistant tumou
26 And the
comparison between BCREval and Bismark (Krueger and Andr
27 The
comparison between BCVA before vitreoretinal surgery (me
28 lack a solid empirical foundation: rigorous
comparisons between body size and vocalization frequenci
29 The post-operative
comparison between both groups was in favor of CPCS grou
30 Comparison between bulk and NC calculations shows that t
31 analysis of data availability, along with a
comparison between CEPHT's indicator system and other tr
32 le and female humans by conducting voxelwise
comparisons between cerebral blood flow (CBF) and tau po
33 A
comparison between cholesterol poses and resolved phosph
34 Finally, cross-species
comparisons between Ciona and the mouse evoke the deep e
35 Comparison between climbing fiber and simple spike activ
36 Comparisons between clinical features of tetracycline-in
37 strating essential functions for AAGAG RNAs,
comparisons between closely related Drosophila species s
38 Comparisons between clustering algorithms tend to focus
39 There is minimal literature available on the
comparison between combined MBP+OAB versus no preparatio
40 A
comparison between common stress genes and genes that we
41 This allows for a direct
comparison between computational and experimental regene
42 Most importantly, it allows the
comparison between computed and reference maps (e.g., ex
43 The computational
comparison between continuous and batch cultures could e
44 timating equations were used for sensitivity
comparisons between conventional CT and dual-energy CT,
45 er our work provides the first transcriptome
comparison between cork oak and holm oak outer bark, whi
46 he interpretation of global rankings, making
comparison between countries more significant and useful
47 Phenotypic
comparison between CpMV1-free and -infected isogenic str
48 These factors also mean that
comparisons between CR and ICR are subject to multiple c
49 To have a precise
comparison between CT scanners and related doses and ima
50 udy falls short in providing a comprehensive
comparison between current MRI techniques and ultrasound
51 In contrast,
comparisons between Def and E- or E+ accessions showed a
52 omatic mutations in this disease, a rigorous
comparison between different patient populations has not
53 led data, and permit only limited systematic
comparison between different time periods or geographic
54 tion of parameters necessary to ensure valid
comparisons between different adsorbents.
55 an analysis pipeline that allows statistical
comparisons between different conditions, we observed th
56 functional annotation of modified mRNAs, and
comparisons between different groups or specific gene se
57 val variant appears to derive estimates from
comparisons between different mothers, not within mother
58 icult, if not impossible, to make meaningful
comparisons between different peripheral nerve interface
59 data, but also allow for better statistical
comparisons between different populations of motor prote
60 his correlation approach may facilitate data
comparisons between different studies on several cetacea
61 aken) and non-adherence (<90% adherent) with
comparisons between dosing patterns.
62 teal (FP) interventions, but few data on the
comparison between drug-coated balloons (DCBs) and drug-
63 Comparisons between eDNA, community DNA, taxonomy and UK
64 ocated at the corners of the images to allow
comparison between equidistant regions unaffected by atr
65 Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a
comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is n
66 gnitive decline on a global scale, including
comparisons between ethno-regional groups.
67 complementary to other methods of structural
comparison between ex vivo fibrils and fibrils generated
68 A direct
comparison between exchanges occurring at short and long
69 es released and can be used for quantitative
comparison between exocytosis and vesicular content in i
70 The
comparison between experiment and theory indicates that
71 e absolute configurations were determined by
comparison between experimental and theoretical ECD spec
72 two-dimensional (2D) materials based on the
comparison between experimental lattice constants and la
73 The
comparison between experimental observations and model p
74 sure may help us to think more clearly about
comparisons between experimental and nonexperimental res
75 Qualitative and quantitative
comparisons between experimental and numerical results s
76 Comparisons between experimental and simulated cell moti
77 Comparisons between experimental and simulated data were
78 A
comparison between experiments and the theory of ballist
79 95% CI: 0.14, 0.76; Ptrend = 0.013) for the
comparison between extreme quintiles.
80 Comparisons between extreme skin types II and VI showed
81 = .05, corrected for the voxel-wise multiple
comparisons) between FA values and multiple BSID subscal
82 ary care office visits in 2017 and performed
comparisons between female and male physicians in the sa
83 ical cues in decellularized ECM with notable
comparisons between fetal and adult brain-derived ECMs.
84 Analyses included
comparisons between first- and second-treated eyes by vi
85 iver, followed by experimental and numerical
comparisons between FM pre-amplified receivers and singl
86 In a two-way
comparison between foam sclerotherapy and surgery, 54.5%
87 An extensive
comparison between FPOP and other footprinting technique
88 No direct
comparison between FST and SCM is available.
89 The
comparison between gene signatures obtained from the in
90 The
comparison between generic and brand-name initiators inv
91 phies were acquired so that correlations and
comparisons between geometric parameters and Brillouin f
92 Here we use cross-species regulatory
comparisons between gnathostomes and lamprey, a jawless
93 In the
comparison between good and poor adherence groups, excep
94 severity (odds ratio, 1.59; P = .001 for the
comparison between grade 1 and grade 3 severity), CSF ne
95 Moreover, direct
comparison between Groups 1 and 2 demonstrated that 4 pr
96 The structural
comparison between groups of GASright dimers of differen
97 Our main outcome measures for
comparison between groups were (1) the average and minim
98 stly significant difference were applied for
comparison between groups, and multivariate regression m
99 ng on previous research, our approach avoids
comparisons between groups that limited previous finding
100 No statistical
comparisons between groups were planned.
101 Comparisons between groups, supervised learning methods,
102 We will provide a critical
comparison between growth pathways in vapour- and liquid
103 ed, 759 up-regulated) were identified in the
comparison between heat-tolerant pigs and heat-susceptib
104 These data provide valuable
comparisons between hNoV and surrogate molecular signals
105 To enable
comparisons between home visiting programmes, relevant d
106 In the multivariable model mortality
comparisons between HP groups, HP2-2 as reference, were
107 Comparison between human umbilical vein endothelial cell
108 ative nuclear speckle distances in pair-wise
comparisons between human cell lines (H1, HFF, HCT116, K
109 of human EECs and to provide a cross-species
comparison between humans and mice.
110 e and competence-to encourage "species-fair"
comparisons between humans and machines.
111 hness impacts into global impacts allows for
comparisons between impacts and facilitates the estimati
112 Comparison between in silico-calculated channel cross-se
113 our knowledge is derived from interspecific
comparisons between inbreeding species and their outcros
114 n-independent reactions, making possible the
comparison between individual compounds in different sce
115 periments and lower yield hampered the cross
comparison between individual lines and between experime
116 Our results suggest that the
comparison between instruments is nearly impossible and
117 identified, we included 75 studies with 122
comparisons between intervention and control groups and
118 res for exons and genes, making possible the
comparisons between introns and exons.
119 We contextualize all results by making
comparisons between islands and to various standards, as
120 cation evaluation and will enable phenotypic
comparisons between isolated viruses.
121 Thus,
comparisons between lampreys and gnathostomes can identi
122 Comparisons between ligated and nicked helices show that
123 cortical processing, but direct quantitative
comparisons between low- and high-level plasticity have
124 ain treatment effects, as well as the direct
comparison between lutein plus zeaxanthin and beta-carot
125 Comparisons between male and the female microbiomes anal
126 nd overall survival (OS) without statistical
comparison between management groups.
127 Direct
comparison between measurements and fluid mechanical mod
128 Four studies made a direct
comparison between menstrual cups and usual products for
129 A quantitative proteomic
comparison between metaphase-arrested cell lysates and c
130 n animal models, but there have been limited
comparisons between methods and the accuracy of detectin
131 scovered with genomic sequencing, but direct
comparisons between models and "omics" data are lacking.
132 Based upon
comparisons between models and observations, process und
133 ps onto these landscapes and enable detailed
comparisons between molecular and mitotic histories.
134 We excluded studies that did not allow
comparison between more or less advantaged groups.
135 A structural
comparison between MoSto and UMP kinase provides valuabl
136 A
comparison between mouse liver development and human hep
137 The
comparison between mTORi-CNI and MMF/MPA-CNI did not sho
138 Comparison between multiple high-quality draft genome se
139 Comparison between multiple methods provided valuable ad
140 Here we present a pertinent
comparison between multiple satellite-based datasets and
141 pidly falling costs of sequencing now allows
comparisons between multiple experiments to identify com
142 yses presents a major challenge for accurate
comparisons between mutant and wild-type cells.
143 Comparisons between mutant ER-containing MCF7 and T47D c
144 Comparison between native wheat, waxy corn and potato st
145 rial dysfunction in a NDD-CKD cohort.For the
comparison between NDD-CKD and HC populations, skeletal
146 devices is lacking, especially regarding the
comparison between new-generation drug-eluting stents wi
147 e 12 studies (n = 118 844) that allowed risk
comparison between newer and older GBCAs, 37 NSF cases d
148 When a direct
comparison between NPS (myeloid) and mGPS (liver) was ca
149 Comparisons between number of muscle deficits (low muscl
150 As regards the
comparison between objective and subjective density valu
151 Comparisons between observations and a dispersion model,
152 Core genomic
comparisons between one isolate and the type strain reve
153 or signed rank test was used for statistical
comparisons between or within groups, and Pearson and Sp
154 Additionally, a
comparison between our approach and existing cancer hots
155 Mechanistic studies and
comparison between our methodology and similar metal-cat
156 nic nitrogen (DIN) amendment incubations and
comparisons between our sampling campaigns suggested tha
157 at self-selected walking speed; quantitative
comparisons between our simulation and experimental data
158 ction relationships are discussed, including
comparisons between "
outer sphere" mechanisms and "metal
159 ific patterns of incidence (P < .001 for all
comparisons between pairs of curves).
160 provide a uniform methodology that improves
comparisons between past and future studies.
161 into 3 discrete clusters enabling a balanced
comparison between patient groups.
162 ith a voxelwise randomized permutation-based
comparison between patients and controls and used to cla
163 T cell receptor sequence
comparison between patients identifies clonal convergenc
164 Direct
comparisons between patients who have behavioural varian
165 Comparisons between patients with and without cholecyste
166 d healthy controls (8.0 pg/mL, 3.0-14.0; all
comparisons between patients with CT-negative MRI-positi
167 The
comparison between perceived and expected weight during
168 tions between two sets of genes based on the
comparison between permutation null models and the empir
169 Comparisons between PIM-TMN-Trip and structurally simila
170 oth comparisons vs. EC aspirin; p = 0.30 for
comparison between plain aspirin and PL2200).
171 A
comparison between predicted feedback and actual feedbac
172 onal (3D) network, we could perform a direct
comparison between predictions based on fluid flow veloc
173 statistical analyses were conducted: (i) FC
comparisons between preoperative CM and HC; (ii) correla
174 frailty with patient-reported outcomes, and
comparisons between preoperative frailty instruments are
175 standardization creates an uneven field for
comparison between products.
176 ation (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.80) for the
comparison between quintiles.
177 Moreover, the experimental and theoretical
comparison between racemic and enantiopure samples revea
178 We demonstrate that direct empirical
comparisons between rainfall and streamflow provide a me
179 In particular,
comparisons between ranked genealogies facilitate the st
180 Comparison between receptors reveals ICL2 as a key domai
181 Comparisons between reconstruction algorithms and other
182 Comparison between recordings of chemically fixed and un
183 While most
comparisons between regular and nonregular users achieve
184 A
comparison between regulated membranes with commonly stu
185 tiple strains and macrophage sources, making
comparisons between reports remains difficult.
186 Genome
comparison between representatives of the A1/D1 West and
187 Comparison between resin and glass microspheres revealed
188 Comparison between resin and glass microspheres revealed
189 The
comparison between rice and Arabidopsis show that despit
190 Direct
comparisons between samples of the two lines identified
191 In a direct
comparison between schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, t
192 We perform a
comparison between several different hypothesis ranking
193 Based on
comparisons between several theoretical and experimental
194 e and female C57BL/6J mice and allows direct
comparisons between sexes.
195 Direct
comparisons between SFAs varying in chain length, specif
196 gical and distance-based tree statistics for
comparison between simulated and observed trees.
197 We find a close and direct
comparison between simulation and experiment, validated
198 , bang sensitivity and climbing behaviour in
comparison between single and pairwise dosage manipulati
199 Even though those differences hamper
comparisons between some studies, a comparative work has
200 Assembling meaningful
comparisons between species is a major limitation in stu
201 Comparison between strains demonstrated increased adhesi
202 of prostate-specific antigen which enables a
comparison between strategies.
203 into regional binding pockets to facilitate
comparisons between structures, and explore similarities
204 tention/turnover data were used to guide the
comparison between studies and appropriate measures of c
205 an be evaluated with respect to posology and
comparison between studies is facilitated.
206 A
comparison between studies is problematic, due to differ
207 design and methodological differences limit
comparison between studies, particularly for immunity an
208 not sufficiently standardized to allow valid
comparisons between studies.
209 aging time in seconds) for synchronous clock
comparisons between sub-ensembles within the tweezer arr
210 -loops, have so far not allowed quantitative
comparisons between such conditions.
211 Secondary endpoints included
comparisons between survivors and nonsurvivors.
212 Comparisons between synthetic cis-regulatory elements an
213 SUV in tumor lesions and healthy tissues for
comparison between systems.
214 Core variables should enable reasonable
comparisons between systems and are considered essential
215 tified reference materials, a methodological
comparison between tandem and time-of-flight mass spectr
216 1.58 in the placebo group (P = 0.67 for the
comparison between the 12-mg group and the placebo group
217 A
comparison between the 2 breeds revealed that Ruminococc
218 o pool adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each
comparison between the 2 databases.
219 The endpoint was the
comparison between the 2 groups for overall survival (OS
220 p and the placebo group and P = 0.01 for the
comparison between the 40-mg group and the placebo group
221 c10 and provide the first detailed molecular
comparison between the anti-idiotype surface and its ana
222 Comparison between the contour plots from the scripted a
223 near the top for all comparisons, except the
comparison between the control vs incident TB groups.
224 Furthermore, a
comparison between the conventional and phase-conjugated
225 A
comparison between the declared values and the measured
226 duced pluripotent stem cells approach allows
comparison between the development of various cellular p
227 pproximate analytical argument, based on the
comparison between the different characteristic timescal
228 A
comparison between the different powering methods is pro
229 A transcriptomic
comparison between the dwarf mutant and the WT leaves re
230 ile levels were statistically significant on
comparison between the healthy and CP groups and between
231 A
comparison between the herring genome assembly with othe
232 This paper presents a detailed
comparison between the latent functionally thermal fluid
233 Comparison between the measured surface charge and Gouy-
234 dicted global GDT-TS value; (ii) interactive
comparison between the model and other known protein str
235 A
comparison between the multilabel and single-label appro
236 In addition, a
comparison between the period 1980-1998 and the period 1
237 Both visual and quantitative
comparison between the PET- and MR-driven methods showed
238 We also make a like-to-like
comparison between the prenatal oestrogens and androgens
239 in serum fluids has been confirmed through a
comparison between the recommended technique and tedious
240 A
comparison between the response surface methodologies ha
241 A side-by-side
comparison between the soft and hard skin layers after m
242 An in-depth genomic
comparison between the ST313 isolate D23580 and the well
243 icating that Imc responses reflect an online
comparison between the strengths of the competing stimul
244 Comparison between the transcriptome of H. schachtii and
245 Constant
comparison between the two acids was required to deciphe
246 The head-to-head
comparison between the two point-of-care tests and HPLC
247 Comparison between the two states by electron microscopy
248 A
comparison between the two systems allows us to decouple
249 A
comparison between the vibrational circular dichroism sp
250 This study provides the first histologic
comparison between the wound healing of FDBA and SDBA ov
251 Novel reciprocal case-control
comparisons between the 22q11.2DS and population-based c
252 ing patient-controlled analgesia in pairwise
comparisons between the 4 groups (multiplicity-adjusted
253 Comparisons between the broiler and Fayoumi transcriptom
254 gnificantly different (P < 0.05), except for
comparisons between the CA-PF, CAE-PE, and CA-PE groups.
255 ization, and provide tools for comprehensive
comparisons between the CCF and FP labels.
256 Comparisons between the clusters were performed using th
257 Through molecular docking and
comparisons between the crystal structures of the Vitis
258 Comparisons between the Discovery MI and SIGNA showed a
259 Comparisons between the dynamical mass, inferred from th
260 ircuits are involved in the initial temporal
comparisons between the ears, centered on the medial and
261 The
comparisons between the emission reports and measurement
262 Detailed
comparisons between the extant and ancestor forms reveal
263 Statistical
comparisons between the groups were performed using the
264 Hubs created unique
comparisons between the hierarchies, enabling inferences
265 Similar patterns were observed in
comparisons between the highest and lowest quintiles.
266 Comparisons between the Jagged and Delta family show a h
267 Comparisons between the model presented in this study an
268 Similar results were seen in the
comparisons between the newer biologics (e.g. vedolizuma
269 ria and physician diagnosis (p = 0.549), but
comparisons between the other definitions revealed that
270 Comparisons between the P-T phase diagrams of Eu(Fe0.925
271 Clinical image
comparisons between the PET/CT systems demonstrated the
272 Comparisons between the Raman spectra of the neat precur
273 ramework that allows performing quantitative
comparisons between the reviewed MPM instruments.
274 Extensive
comparisons between the serogroup Y sublineages of all c
275 However, studies of LUT function with
comparisons between the sexes have remained sparse, espe
276 We present
comparisons between the sharpness and spatial resolution
277 an be reversed, allowing us to make relative
comparisons between the structures using a proteinase K
278 Comparisons between theoretical and experimental peak fr
279 The satisfactory
comparison between theory and experiment for the phonons
280 A
comparison between theory and experiment indicates that
281 ch offers an ideal opportunity for judicious
comparison between theory and experiment.
282 f our knowledge, no prospective head-to-head
comparison between these tests has been done so far.
283 reasingly used as second-line agents, direct
comparisons between these treatments are insufficient.
284 The
comparison between those structures shows dynamic intera
285 diversity of output formats hinders accurate
comparisons between tools and precludes data sharing and
286 Comparison between treatment with daily oral lithium (n
287 Two-sided t tests were used for
comparisons between treatment groups.
288 yesian NMAs were performed to combine direct
comparisons between treatments with that of indirect sim
289 T) from 58 gastric cancer patients, enabling
comparisons between tumor, TNT, and normal tissue.
290 ere generated using Kaplan-Meier method, and
comparison between two independent groups (high and low
291 We present a direct
comparison between two independent methods for the measu
292 The
comparison between two tolerant elm varieties, 'Valley F
293 Comparisons between two versions of the bispecific antib
294 The remaining associations in sibling
comparisons between uncontrolled asthma in Grade 9 and s
295 housands of cells, 3) enable integration and
comparison between user-provided data and publicly avail
296 tocol, we present here a direct side-by-side
comparison between vectors produced with either method i
297 set of differentially expressed genes in all
comparisons between women with and without these four co
298 Comparisons between WT and homozygous G2435R-RYR1 mitoch
299 y include both sexes and potentially provide
comparisons between young and older people.
300 Comparison between zebrafish and a human cell line demon