ライフサイエンスコーパス: difference

1 responsible for the previously noted genetic difference.

2 tand the clinical importance of the observed differences.

3 should identify reasons for these geographic differences.

4 tal areas of the brain, as opposed to global differences.

5 ps (P < 0.05) without significant intergroup differences.

6 dpoints did not reveal any significant group differences.

7 pecies level to the finest scales of genetic differences.

8 previously unexploitable narrow physiologic differences.

9 , P < 0.001] and HbA1c change [mean adjusted difference -0.5% (95% CI -0.9 to -0.2); P < 0.001] than

10 vention vs 27.3% with placebo; adjusted risk difference, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.2; P = .58) or in 30

11 oup and 55% in the open group (between-group difference, 0.5 percentage point [95% CI, -11.3 to 12.3

12 eks in the BGM group (adjusted between-group difference, -0.37% [95% CI, -0.66% to -0.08%]; P = .01).

13 SAT-6, a 6-kDa-secreted protein of region of difference 1, is known to play a crucial role in virulen

14 r initial SLT compared with repeat SLT (mean difference, 1.0 mmHg; 95% CI, 0.2-1.8 mmHg; P = 0.02).

15 s were similar to double-Maddox values (mean differences: -1.2 degrees and 0.1 degrees , respectively

16 -19] versus 11 [6-18]; absolute standardized difference, 11.2%) and a higher prevalence of cardiovasc

17 (-37.5 vs -58.0, respectively; between-group difference, 20.5 [95% CI, -11.2 to 52.2]; P = .21), and

18 le range, 22 to 112), respectively (absolute difference, 22 hours; 95% CI, 14 to 30).

19 e, -3.1 letters) and a thicker maculae (mean difference, +26 mum) at baseline than those receiving ra

20 esion size (-33 mm2 vs -6 mm2; between-group difference, -27 mm2 [95% CI, -127 to 73 mm2]; P = .60) o

21 tile range, 0 to 17), respectively (absolute difference, 28 hours; 95% CI, 22 to 34); the conservativ

22 ing aflibercept showed a lower mean VA (mean difference, -3.1 letters) and a thicker maculae (mean di

23 2% of infants in the placebo group (absolute difference, -3.9% [95% CI, -6.8% to 1.4%]; relative risk

24 follow-up was 61.0% and 55.8%, respectively (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, -3.2% to 13.2%]).

25 vs -16.8 in the placebo group; between-group difference, 5.2 [95% CI, -2.3 to 12.8]; P = .17), change

26 ctam and 21.3% with piperacillin/tazobactam (difference, -5.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -11.9%

27 omplications (28% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 7% [95% CI, 5.8%-8.8%]; P < .001).

28 (31.1%) receiving aspirin plus clopidogrel (difference, -8.2 percentage points; 95% CI for noninferi

29 hole-body insulin sensitivity [between-group difference (95% CI): 1.89 (0.18, 3.60); P = 0.03; eta2p

30 hed-chain amino acids (BCAAs) [between-group difference (95% CI): 266 (77, 455) nmol.min-1.kg-1.180 m

31 etal muscle uptake of glucose [between-group difference (95% CI): 4266 (261, 8270) mumol.min-1.kg-1.1

32 experienced greater BMI loss [mean adjusted difference (95% confidence interval, CI) -3.1 kg/m (-4.4

33 ering concordance analyses demonstrated some differences across analytical approaches, with RAxML hav

34 ximum likelihood analyses, a k-mer-based set difference algorithm, and random forest algorithms to id

35 rol foetuses, while there was no significant difference among IUGR groups.

36 This study analyzed sex differences among cornea specialists with regards to aca

37 allenge in biology is to associate molecular differences among progenitor cells with their capacity t

38 trials may be difficult to interpret due to differences among the studies with regards to patient po

39 However, the functional similarities and differences among these proteins are largely unknown.

40 rnacular English-to reduce these performance differences and ensure speech recognition technology is

41 ark to investigate their seasonal home range differences and habitat preferences.

42 The difference, and its significance, in rates of RNFLT chan

43 ld compounds by assessing prevalence ratios, differences, and changes in the concentration of pathoge

44 PL) using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach.

45 , or decreased suggest that these functional differences are associated with fiber development in the

46 ons exhibit high heterogeneity), the average differences are potentially associated with important cl

47 The mechanisms behind these host differences are still unclear.

48 lthy donor neutrophils, we observed profound differences as compared to the soluble variant and the h

49 Molecular features with m/z differences as small as 1.79 mDa were resolved and ident

50 The difference at day 85 in the change from baseline in the

51 olar molecule, while for the VP4, amino acid differences at position D195G was radical in nature and

52 After accounting for baseline differences, at study end the proportion of people livin

53 provide a plausible molecular basis for the differences based on a full-length homology modeling app

54 The algorithm minimizes the difference between an estimated parametrical distributio

55 A striking difference between cv HI10 and cv Spence was the high st

56 /- 3.39 mm, with a statistically significant difference between dentate and edentulous quadrants (P <

57 of-day effect is large, and exceeds the time difference between gold and silver medal in 40%, silver

58 riority margin corresponds to a 12% absolute difference between groups in Functional Assessment of Ca

59 nts, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups, including in-hospital mortali

60 No significant difference between Mirococept at 10 mg and control was d

61 al control subjects (all P < .001) without a difference between PXS and control eyes.

62 We identified a novel, biological difference between RV and LV fibroblasts that might unde

63 Mean difference between the 2 observers using standard GAT wa

64 The difference between the 20-mg and 10-mg groups was 0.3 st

65 The difference between the 20-mg and 10-mg groups was 1.2 pe

66 .4% vs 78.8%), whereas there was no relevant difference between the beginning and end of 8 h day shif

67 The difference between the morphs is controlled by an S-locu

68 mass spectrometric method and no significant difference between the results was observed.

69 There was no difference between the two interventions on the tested o

70 ing in statistically significant (P < 0.005) differences between benign and malignant lesions were a

71 ks', which have been widely used to identify differences between chronological age and biological age

72 They also reveal stunning differences between compensatory processes operating in

73 aking into account both the similarities and differences between different participants and symptoms,

74 iscous FIL/ILs, revealing higher performance differences between FIL/IL absorbents.

75 The statistical analysis showed significant differences between genotypes and pollination time as we

76 lower in IMB than in CTL (P < 0.05), with no differences between groups.

77 We used this technology to study differences between healthy controls and patients with c

78 Here, I discuss the similarities and differences between MIS-C and Kawasaki disease, focusing

79 ing the algorithm to learn the morphological differences between patients will implicitly teach it ab

80 Differences between prasugrel and ticagrelor were not st

81 Despite the minimal structural differences between receptor types, selectivity can be a

82 t that exogenous factors, such as procedural differences between red and white wine production and en

83 Most of differences between repeated measures did not exceed 0.5

84 ion of THF-doped DOM in APPI resolved subtle differences between riverine DOM that was absent from ES

85 lem in mouse retina by analysing the kinetic differences between rod flash responses and recent volta

86 ogy analyses highlight both similarities and differences between the mood disorders, particularly in

87 ave used different approaches to analyze the differences between the parental species and the hybrids

88 ing deletion mutants, we observed functional differences between the two ESCRT-III proteins implicate

89 Our results indicate there are distinct differences between the UBE2K-Ub and UBE2K-Ub(2) complex

90 The differences between transposase and CRISPR-Cas integrase

91 n-stomatal limitation), whereas the observed differences between water conditions were mainly due to

92 Differences between wild Norway rats and their laborator

93 We identified significant clinical differences but also identified important similarities b

94 labeling approach to track SGNs and found no differences compared with controls.

95 Since potential strain differences could exist in A1 organization between strai

96 ironmental characteristics and physiological differences could play an important role governing their

97 also investigated, with no between-treatment differences detected.

98 group vs. the control group did not show any difference (DR: 0.03(-0.15,0.14)mg/dL vs. control: 0.09(

99 Besides other baseline and clinical differences, EE more frequently affects prosthetic valve

100 of charge as the surface showed little or no difference, except that the signal inverted.

101 Basic pathogenic differences exist in the two forms of diabetes mellitus;

102 ibute to understanding why scope of practice differences exist.

103 Mean differences favored the MN assay for A/H1N1 and B strain

104 Key differences from applications in crystallography are tha

105 Raw data and differences from baseline were analysed in the two group

106 ce, so that we can separate more superficial differences from those that may be deep and enduring.

107 survival analyses also found no significant difference in 28-day survival for cases treated with IVF

108 There was no difference in adverse events between randomised groups.

109 ll dropout and reduced proliferation with no difference in apoptotic cell death between control and D

110 Considering lack of difference in BTMs between PIM/PIMP and cluster of PIM w

111 c changes such that there was no significant difference in comparison with controls.

112 e Ca(2+) current exhibits a day versus night difference in current magnitude, providing insight into

113 Once adjusting for clustering and age, the difference in decline between the 2 treatment arms was n

114 hospitals and matched control hospitals and difference in differences models to compare the 2 groups

115 However, the true magnitude of difference in HIV-related mortality between men and wome

116 c PGAs did not show a clinically significant difference in IOP-lowering effect or tolerability.

117 uence on the LST changes, but it had obvious difference in latitude.

118 Primary endpoint was the difference in maximum walking distance at long-term foll

119 n 6.3 for TURP and 6.4 for ThuVARP; adjusted difference in means 0.28, -0.92 to 1.49).

120 decreased the number of parasites detected (difference in number compared to non-WASH arms, -0.07 [9

121 with GFR <30, MAR was not associated with a difference in outcomes.

122 ed SSTI in Personalized Approach households; difference in proportions -1.1% (95% CI -6.7%, 4.5%).

123 Between-group difference in psychological domain score was 5.6 points

124 dmission, and intubation, but no significant difference in quality of life.

125 There was no statistically significant difference in readmission rates.

126 The least-squares mean difference in scores between the 15-mg/d vericiguat and

127 This difference in structural behavior follows directly from

128 ned as the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in success rates (ceftobiprole minus vancomyc

129 dherent populations (95%, P = .174), with no difference in SVR between those who did and did not miss

130 , and most comparative studies showed little difference in the average measures for all the biometric

131 The difference in the dentate nucleus-pons signal intensity

132 image fusion needs to take into account the difference in the dimension of the spectral information

133 DH1B*1: OR, 0.96; P = .048) (P < .01 for the difference in the effect of moderate alcohol consumption

134 s d = 0.8-0.9), but there was no significant difference in the hippocampus.

135 There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of kidney failure (31.7% wit

136 A difference in the predicted probability of achieving app

137 SHV-positive children; however, there was no difference in the presence of neutralizing antibodies.

138 ind a statistically and clinically important difference in the primary outcome.

139 o-treat analysis, there was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants with mRS 0-

140 No significant difference in the risk of cardiovascular death was obser

141 e tracked participants' beliefs and found no difference in the speed prior, but there was heightened

142 k on the topic has focused on a proposed sex difference in the type of jealousy (sexual or emotional)

143 No sex difference in time to task failure was observed in eithe

144 The variations may be due to differences in abundance, recent exposure, or space weat

145 There are clinically relevant sex differences in acute and chronic pain mechanisms, but we

146 Differences in ADC, kurtosis-derived ADC (D(app)), and a

147 echanics may better resolve disease-specific differences in adipose tissue fibrosis compared with his

148 ally controlled meta-analysis, we quantified differences in adjustments of acoustic signals to anthro

149 refrontal and hippocampal afferents but some differences in afferent connectivity with other brain re

150 than (Hs)CRM1 toward PKI-NES and significant differences in affinities toward potential CRM1 inhibito

151 We show that differences in allele frequencies and linkage disequilib

152 Our work demonstrates that individual differences in behaviour explain important differences i

153 There were significant differences in body size, blood pressure, and baseline p

154 There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating s

155 Identifying both the commonalities and differences in brain structures among psychiatric disord

156 We assessed differences in carbon stability and tree survival across

157 Thus, after adjustment for differences in CD4 counts and age, hrHPV prevalences wer

158 Differences in cell-signaling pathways in the uterine ti

159 Between-group differences in change from baseline for all other scales

160 However, population-specific differences in codon usage biases remain largely unexplo

161 ed to determine whether there are phenotypic differences in cognition and behaviour between patients

162 tamen is significantly related to individual differences in cognitive ability, such that greater cogn

163 Differences in collection methods and puffing regimes li

164 Significant differences in CTRP1 levels were discovered between the

165 Additionally, exposed fish exhibited differences in DNA methylation in selected genes, across

166 ed to different temperatures have measurable differences in DNA, RNA and protein composition that all

167 ded information seeking relate to individual differences in dogmatism, a phenomenon linked to entrenc

168 tumoral molecular and genomic variation, and differences in environmental milieu of the colon which v

169 Numerous studies highlighted differences in exosomal contents between EVs of healthy

170 ponents of animals life that may include sex differences in exposure to predators, immune capacity an

171 Subpopulations did not show differences in expression of proteins involved in the fo

172 siological mechanisms that contribute to sex differences in fat storage.

173 We did not find significant differences in fecal microbiota composition among patien

174 Here we report differences in genetic architecture between depression d

175 The differences in genetic associations with prevalent and i

176 nd between populations largely manifested as differences in genome-wide recombination rate rather tha

177 While we found no evidence of global differences in GI between domestic and wild canids, cert

178 Group differences in global efficiency and functional connecti

179 We observe significant differences in gut microbiome composition across populat

180 n domestic and wild canids, certain regional differences in gyrification were observed.

181 ver, there were no statistically significant differences in handgrip strength, delirium rate, intensi

182 Differences in health care access and exposure risk may

183 th pulseless arrests, although there were no differences in immediate event outcomes or intra-arrest

184 r recent article, Takahashi et al. found sex differences in immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 and the pr

185 with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) and differences in inflammatory responses of patients with u

186 nzees that are consistent with interspecific differences in lactation, diet, and immune function.

187 esidents and to test for post-training group differences in leadership behaviors while controlling fo

188 -12 months post-injury showed no significant differences in lesion size, fibrotic scar, gliosis or ne

189 n lipid groups at M1, M3, and CB, signifying differences in lipid metabolism.

190 r analyses suggest that the magnitude of sex differences in mammalian mortality patterns is likely sh

191 There were no significant differences in measures of mitochondrial respiration bet

192 ian lipids (app. +/- 15% of the Mean), these differences in meibogenesis were deemed to be minimal an

193 We also detect marked differences in miRNA expression between populations, whi

194 rthopedics outcomes did not show significant differences in mortality across teaching and nonteaching

195 of neonatal death and greater absolute rate differences in neonatal mortality in all gestational-age

196 ffects meta regression estimated whether sex differences in not enrolling ("screen out") varied by va

197 by numerous methodological issues, including differences in outcome measures and their definitions, l

198 developmental psychopathology and individual differences in outcome over time.

199 At 10 years, there were no measurable differences in outcomes between patients treated with po

200 There were no differences in outcomes between standard dose of epineph

201 amples, this appeared to be due primarily to differences in patient characteristics (e.g., cavitary d

202 There were no differences in patient demographics, IDH/MGMT mutation s

203 n vitro gastric and intestinal digestion for differences in peptide profiles and peptide bioactivitie

204 The McNemar test was used to compare differences in performance between Lung-RADS and VRC.

205 pulation and production environment based on differences in physicochemical grain properties.

206 collective blame and moderated by individual differences in preference for consistency.

207 Differences in progression-free (PFS) and overall surviv

208 -templated metallic structures is limited by differences in properties, processing conditions, packin

209 Whole genome sequencing revealed differences in putative virulence genes encoding aggrega

210 There were significant differences in Raman features corresponding to the phosp

211 Using HPV-EM, we demonstrated HPV genotypic differences in recurrence and patient outcomes in cervic

212 lts support growing evidence that individual differences in responses to drug and nondrug reward are

213 Differences in risk factors among patient groups adjuste

214 Differences in signal intensity ratios did not correlate

215 presumed to be small but possibly important differences in size, lattice distortions, and defects, w

216 ichness and diversity, likely in response to differences in soil properties.

217 We report differences in spectral features, unit-local field poten

218 We investigated sex differences in subcutaneous adipose tissue transcription

219 ynamics, primarily attributable to intrinsic differences in surface reactivity of different Au sites

220 l differences in behaviour explain important differences in survival but not in the direction predict

221 mong whites across racial and ethnic groups, differences in survival were markedly attenuated and haz

222 Here we integrate species differences in susceptibility with multiple in-depth str

223 ignatures in the lymph nodes associated with differences in T cell populations.

224 Overall, we find that sex-specific differences in T(reg) cells from VAT are determined by t

225 agenomic analysis did not reveal significant differences in taxonomic or functional pathway alpha-div

226 recent reports have pointed out spectacular differences in terms of interaction patterns and inhibit

227 Further, we find individual differences in the change of TIB devoted to sleep such t

228 hysically in human observers, whose measured differences in the diameters of each entoptic phenomenon

229 also revealed previously unknown functional differences in the GTPase and stalk domains.

230 t in arrestin-3 that likely accounts for the differences in the IP(6) effect.

231 There were significant differences in the jugular venous bulb oxygen tension-br

232 To identify differences in the natural history of IM after e-HRT exp

233 ese findings unveil functional analogies and differences in the organizing principles of visuo-social

234 torically vulnerable populations, with stark differences in the proportion of minority individuals di

235 We detected significant differences in the protein decoration of sEVs between he

236 esses and cognitive ability track individual differences in the refinement of borders between brain s

237 mple of a gAP in humans linked to individual differences in the response to stress.

238 ate, moisture and plants; we investigate how differences in the soil microbiome due to antecedent soi

239 that PPR65 cannot bind modified bases due to differences in the structure of the active site compared

240 main, we found that ULK1 and ULK2 have major differences in their autophagy-related interactors and t

241 iple crb genes have been identified, but the differences in their expression patterns and functions a

242 In addition, we described the differences in their synaptic influence.

243 Further, sex differences in these comorbidities are substantial.

244 spectrometric analysis revealed significant differences in these profiles.

245 ant of a GO/NOGO task that reveals important differences in these two types of stimuli.

246 ted on protein interaction networks with the differences in transcript levels between control and dis

247 A new study reveals how differences in tubulin populations between two related X

248 the latter results in small, yet, noticeable differences in VNC attenuation.

249 While sex differences in vulnerability have been identified with a

250 osate-based herbicides can cause significant differences in wheat protein chemistry and shikimic acid

251 Differences in white matter development between individu

252 idies (>400% FPL) using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach.

253 We used DVS sales data and difference-in-differences regression to evaluate how WIC

254 Our analysis indicates that this difference likely results from distinct biological and d

255 were identical between the methods (absolute difference <10(-7)).

256 This suggests that sex-specific chromatin differences may contribute to sex-specific ageing in fli

257 Biological sex differences may manifest themselves in susceptibility to

258 and in mice, suggesting that the structural differences may play important roles in disease.

259 matched control hospitals and difference in differences models to compare the 2 groups.

260 oup and increased by 2.31% in the SMT group (difference of means, -7.13 [95% CI, -14.59 to 0.34]; P=0

261 as observed between the absolute interocular difference of SE and superior and total mRNFL symmetry v

262 h breast appearance were high with either no difference or better outcome in the 40-Gy cohort compare

263 n individuals not reporting trauma exposure, difference p = 2.3 x 10(-4)).

264 rgets transcriptome-wide, but methodological differences present challenges to large-scale analysis a

265 This difference raises concerns about most past studies of ap

266 bleeding compared with triple therapy (risk difference [RD], -0.013 [95% CI, -0.025 to -0.002]).

267 We used DVS sales data and difference-in-differences regression to evaluate how WIC authorization

268 urobiological substrates of ELA-attributable differences remain unknown due to a paucity of translati

269 ontrol (k = 46; n = 3,389; standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] -

270 stress assays resolved per-colony (genotype) differences that may have been masked by acclimation eff

271 c resonance-derived structures revealed some differences that might explain the gain of potency at al

272 The identification of methylation differences that predate islet autoimmunity and clinical

273 cal adhesion assembly as well as contractile differences that resulted from differential expression o

274 Whether ancestry drives molecular differences that underlie disparities in cancer incidenc

275 We mapped this trait difference to a single genomic region and, using third g

276 el including a non-linear mapping from value-differences to trial-wise drift rates.

277 At 28 days, no difference was found between groups (laser, 97%; bevaciz

278 nic limb-threatening ischemia, the mortality difference was not significant; paclitaxel (12.8%) versu

279 The difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.183)

280 The difference was not statistically significant.

281 No significant difference was observed in the 3-year incidence of late

282 D(apexpost) and D(apexant)-D(apexpost) difference were higher in the early and mild KC groups c

283 ment group, but no statistically significant differences were detected.

284 No differences were found between the two study groups rega

285 No significant between-group differences were found for any of the prespecified secon

286 Sex differences were noted in control mice, in which female

287 No group differences were observed for different measures of gene

288 Minor to no differences were observed for levels of anti-MeV and ant

289 a small effect on recovery, but significant differences were observed for phlorizin and a quercetin

290 unity were minor and transient, and very few differences were observed in mice exposed to rmTBI compa

291 No significant differences were seen between the other symptomatic grou

292 Although differences were undetectable in gross Se and Te ore lev

293 del, called Bayesian Inference of Regulatory Differences, which integrates prior information and expl

294 ing could produce inter- or intra-researcher differences whose magnitude has not been previously quan

295 ne electrodes displayed only a small kinetic difference with respect to SLG, suggesting that photothe

296 ssed using a stratified Mantel-Haenszel risk difference, with non-inferiority declared if the lower b

297 ht cases were discordant due to probe design differences, with focal abnormalities detectable using o

298 HRs and PAFs showed more similarities than differences, with physical inactivity (PAF 16.5% ELSA; 1

299 Similarly, there was no significant difference within different types of glaucoma, including

300 , and are also sensitive to sub-phonetic VOT differences within a population's preferred category.