ライフサイエンスコーパス: negative group

1 vidence of endoleak or aneurysm enlargement (negative group).

2 ats (14 eyes) were kept in room air (control negative group).

3 with no family history of alcoholism (family-negative group).

4 the test-positive group, 1,636 into the test-negative group.

5 x was reduced by 30% at 2 weeks in the HER-2-negative group.

6 as stronger in the apolipoprotein E epsilon4-negative group.

7 (iii) two nitrogen groups combined with one negative group.

8 BCL2 compared with zero of 50 in the DHITsig-negative group.

9 rt designs vs 5 (33%) studies without a test-negative group.

10 er in the PET-positive group than in the PET-negative group.

11 positive group than in the anti-CCP antibody-negative group.

12 P/LP group corrected for cost changes in the negative group.

13 positive group than in the TheraP cePSMA PET-negative group.

14 positive group than in the anti-CCP antibody-negative group.

15 per 100 person-years (0.0-0.5) in the RISK11-negative group.

16 e lowest (P=0.04) compared with the genotype-negative group.

17 ing from bone cancer pain and animals in the negative group.

18 oup, compared with the Pittsburgh compound B negative group.

19 documentation of 34 events in the early PET-negative group.

20 ts but more by ROR in the HER2-negative/node-negative group.

21 e group (P = 0.010) than in the autoantibody negative group.

22 teristics between the HLA DR15-positive and -negative groups.

23 tive tumors in both the ALK-positive and ALK-negative groups.

24 ft survival between the DSA-positive and DSA-negative groups.

25 10.6 g/dL in both marrow-positive and marrow-negative groups.

26 ot differ between marrow-positive and marrow-negative groups.

27 e in survival between Jo-1 positive and Jo-1 negative groups.

28 ent nitrogen groups as well as two different negative groups.

29 (OS) were compared between FH-positive and -negative groups.

30 ic differences between HCV RNA-positive and -negative groups.

31 different in the FXM-positive versus the FXM-negative groups.

32 lic events between the antibody-positive and-negative groups.

33 e donors (P = 0.01) but not by PBMC from DTH-negative groups.

34 omized women into screen-positive and screen-negative groups.

35 ence were similar between QFT-G positive and negative groups.

36 ional data from the amyloid PET positive and negative groups.

37 ccording to PCR results into HD, TP, and PCR-negative groups.

38 variables (75)SeHCAT-positive and (75)SeHCAT-negative groups.

39 e clinical features of the PCR-positive and -negative groups.

40 y different between EBV DNAemia positive and negative groups.

41 f patients in the >/= 10% ER-positive and ER-negative groups.

42 ifference between the HER2-positive and HER2-negative groups.

43 te difference between antibody-positive and -negative groups.

44 tinct groups, triple-negative and non-triple-negative groups.

45 lacebo group and compare them with an "Abeta-negative" group.

46 nd AB) and Rhesus factor (Rh-positive and Rh-negative) groups.

47 but reduced in the malaria positive and EVD negative group (0.37, 0.20-1.23, p=0.0010).

48 l [CI], 0.96 to 0.97; odds ratio in the SIRS-negative group, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94 to 0.98; P=0.12 for b

49 ter (CL<200 ms) induced in 203 patients (EPS negative, group 1), monomorphic VT induced in 87 patient

50 Cardiac events in the three groups included: negative group, 1 non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI);

51 monale (HTLV-1-positive group, 10/52; HTLV-1-negative group, 1/37; P = .023) was more frequent among

52 Total mortality was lower in the TWA-negative group (10% vs. 18% at 2 years; p = 0.04).

53 egative/PCR-positive (21 mug/ml) and the GDH-negative groups (13 mug/ml).

54 16.9 months; P = .89) when compared with the negative group (16.2 months).

55 %, group 1), and the remaining patients were negative (group 2).

56 The HIV-negative, group 2 children had a mean radioaerosol clear

57 Conversely, in the ABCA4-negative group, 22 of 26 eyes (13 of 15 patients) had qA

58 hereas no benefit of ACT was seen in the MRD-negative group (24-month DFS: 72.3% versus 62.2%, adjust

59 roup (67%), and granulocyte-negative /T-cell-negative group (25%).

60 between the EXT1/EXT2-positive and EXT1/EXT2-negative groups (25.0% versus 32.3%; P=0.32).

61 y was similar in the HIV-positive versus HIV-negative groups (26.7% vs. 32.1%; P = .16), but in those

62 lity was similar in the HIV-positive vs. HIV-negative groups (26.7% vs. 32.1%; p=0.16), but in those

63 e TERT-positive group compared with the TERT-negative group (3-year estimates, 21.4% +/- 9.5% v 63.7%

64 e TERT-positive group compared with the TERT-negative group (3-year estimates, 33.3% +/- 13.6% v 72.0

65 e TERT-positive group compared with the TERT-negative group (3-year estimates, 42.9% +/- 12.2% v 70.0

66 significantly higher than that of the fusion-negative group (35% +/- 8% vs 13% +/- 3%, P = .008) and

67 atients (82%) than in the bacterial antibody-negative group (38%).

68 ed 90% CI 24-47), and 21 of 54 in the IGF-1R-negative group (39%, one-sided 95% CI lower bound 28%; t

69 Among studies with test-negative groups, 4 (44%) used prospective cohort designs

70 For the HR-negative group, 5-year OS rates were 83.9% v 67.4% (P =

71 tly lower for LOH-positive compared with LOH-negative groups (74% vs 87%, HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.25-3.83

72 epinephrine infusion was -23 ms in the gene-negative group, 78 ms in LQT1, -4 ms in LQT2, and -58 ms

73 positive group (57.5%) compared with the TRI-negative group (87.3%; P=0.002).

74 diagnosed by electron microscopy (EM) and a negative group A rotavirus enzyme-linked immunosorbent a

75 Significantly more patients in C1q negative group achieved complete or partial remission du

76 it of ACT was evaluated in MRD-positive and -negative groups after adjusting for age, gender, number,

77 Among the immunostain negative group, all had hemizygous PTEN deletion but no

78 wing HIV-1 RNA in seminal fluid from the MGS-negative group also had concomitant HIV-1 RNA detection

79 ed on how they described their experience; a negative group, an ambivalent group and a positive group

80 2.85 months), 54 (9.31%) patients in the C1q negative group and 23 (15.86%) patients in C1q positive

81 he 5-yr mark, survival is 100% in the GIV-fl-negative group and 62 +/- 9% (mean+/-SE; P=6x10(-5)) in

82 the M. fortuitum third biovariant D-sorbitol-negative group and porcine strains of M. porcinum and co

83 ified melanoma cells into MiTF-positive and -negative groups and explored the function of MiTF in reg

84 0%, resulting in <1% false negatives in the "negative" group and a sensitivity of 82%.

85 up) and 3 of 3 who were FUT3 null (the Lewis-negative group); and in 25 of 28 Lewis-positive secretor

86 was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.51) in the hrHPV-negative group, and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.75) in the h

87 and 96.1% (95% CI, 95.9%-96.3%) for the node-negative group, and the between-group difference in expe

88 and 98.8% (95% CI, 98.6%-99.0%) for the node-negative group, and the between-group mean OS time diffe

89 ey are (i) three nitrogen groups, (ii) three negative groups, and (iii) two nitrogen groups combined

90 tment groups and in the Apo E2-positive and -negative groups, and for a previously reported time-to-t

91 methods in the amyloid-positive and amyloid-negative groups as well as participants with different c

92 e (P<0.025), 23% of the focal, and 7% of the negative group at between one month and 15 years posttra

93 L between the genotype-positive and genotype-negative groups at baseline.

94 if the T1 screen had not been done in the T0 negative group, at most, an additional 28 participants i

95 entiate between positive group behaviour and negative group behaviour in the partisan context.

96 constructions reduced the average CLs of the negative group by 12 points.

97 rkers were compared between Mp-positive and -negative groups by Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher exact t

98 rkers were compared between Mp-positive and -negative groups by Mann-Whitney U test or Fisher's exact

99 s), the median OS is not reached in the NOPE-negative group (calculated mean OS 117.1 months) (P = 0.

100 observed in angiogram positive and angiogram negative groups compared to controls in a dominant analy

101 y higher in angiogram positive and angiogram negative groups compared to the control group (51.2 vs.

102 the RISK11-positive group than in the RISK11-negative group (cumulative incidence ratio 16.0 [95% CI

103 ted) from disease-negative (D-, or microbial-negative) groups: D+ and D- data distributions overlappe

104 The negative group described both past and present relations

105 ch of the antibiotic, placebo, and H. pylori-negative groups during the 12-month study period.

106 LTP1, LTP3, GAS, and NEGATIVE groups exhibited less than 5% of basal layer po

107 Whereas the negative group exhibits shifts to higher frequencies for

108 The median survival of PET-positive and -negative groups from the date of the scan was 20 and 30.

109 ts] to 18.3% [2037 of 11,119], P<0.001; SIRS-negative group: from 27.7% [100 of 361] to 9.3% [122 of

110 positive group; P = .599), the persistently negative group had a higher rate of microbiological clea

111 mong patients with adenocarcinoma, the ALDH1-negative group had shorter survival compared with the AL

112 The HIV-positive and HIV-negative groups had comparable median age (21 years) and

113 Both HGV-positive and -negative groups had similar survival, recurrence rates,

114 continuum, dichotomization into positive and negative groups has advantages for diagnosis, clinical m

115 continuum, dichotomization into positive and negative groups has advantages for diagnosis, clinical m

116 r in the chronic HB group compared to the HB-negative group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.20-2.

117 and in 125 (19.8%) patients in the genotype-negative group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.51; 95% confidence

118 Among the GCA-negative group, herpes zoster antigen was not detected i

119 In the MRD-negative group, however, none of the clinicopathological

120 ge 6 into Alternaria-positive and Alternaria-negative groups identifies subphenotypes that are furthe

121 or PFS between the HLA DR15-positive versus-negative groups in any disease or donor relation subgrou

122 aracteristics between the PD-positive and PD-negative groups in both cohorts, were used in multilogis

123 e theory's view on the possible reduction of negative group interactions.

124 The saliva from the Aa-negative group killed Aa by two logs (P <0.05).

125 similar in the DSA-SPA-positive and DSA-SPA-negative groups (log-rank test=0.63, P=0.428).

126 for both lymph node-positive and lymph node-negative groups may improve without any increase in over

127 urvival of 68% (50-81), whereas in the T790M-negative group, median progression-free survival was 10.

128 We conclude that inaccurate and negative group meta-perceptions are exhibited in myriad

129 As compared to the COVID-19-negative group (n = 3,374), COVID-19 patients (n = 1,161

130 s (15 antipsychotic-naive), a psychosis risk-negative group (n = 38), and 49 healthy control subjects

131 t survival (p < 0.001) compared with the PCR-negative group (n = 57, 25% graft loss at 8.7 years) and

132 S+] group; n = 6) or not (lipopolysaccharide-negative group; n = 6).

133 birth compared with 52.2% of infants in the negative group (odds ratio [OR], 3.86; 95% confidence in

134 the cross-reactive antibody, compared with a negative group of 43 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, fin

135 is found largely within the clinical triple-negative group of breast cancer patients.

136 ve group of strains than for the ESBL screen-negative group of strains.

137 f the M. fortuitum third biovariant sorbitol-negative group, of which 48 (70%) had the same PCR restr

138 the COVID-19-positive group vs the COVID-19-negative group only for social participation (beta = 3.3

139 nfluenza but not compared with the influenza-negative group (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, .82-1.28 and OR, 1.17;

140 7) versus 0.07 (range, -0.21 to 0.18) in the negative group (P < .0001).

141 ediate, and high C-peptide compared with the negative group (P <= 0.0001), whereas glucagon increased

142 positive group compared with 26% in the pAkt-negative group (P = .0076).

143 l versus 14 (39%) of 36 patients in the FISH-negative group (P = .087).

144 mor recurrence compared with 2.9% in the Wnt-negative group (P = 0.02).

145 -positive group and in 46.2% in the genotype-negative group (P = 0.047).

146 ined tumors from the RNA polymerase antibody-negative group (P = 0.048).

147 2, compared with 2.0 +/- 1.8 in the antibody-negative group (P = 0.59).

148 rriers than in the combined at-risk and gene-negative groups (P < 0.05).

149 i-U3 RNP (30%, versus 10% in the anti-U3 RNP-negative group; P < 0.001).

150 ody-positive group vs. 16.6% in the antibody-negative group; P = 0.019).

151 -positive group vs. 13 of 39 in the mutation-negative group; P=.004).

152 -positive group vs. 30 of 42 in the mutation-negative group; P=.014), coloboma of the eye (55 of 62 i

153 -positive group vs. 30 of 43 in the mutation-negative group; P=.022), and facial asymmetry, often cau

154 Within the hormone receptor-negative group, patients whose tumors had ERBB2-low stai

155 to 2 groups: MMRV-positive group versus MMRV-negative group, patients with positive all MMRV serologi

156 Compared with the ROS1-negative group, patients with ROS1 rearrangements were s

157 eptor-positive ERBB2 negative (formerly HER2 negative) group, patients had more refractory disease re

158 The negative group (PCa-) combined 24 biopsy negative (Bx-)

159 Patients in the DSA-SPA-positive and DSA-SPA-negative groups received similar immunosuppression, and

160 Patients in the DSA-SPA-positive and DSA-SPA-negative groups received similar immunosuppression, and

161 e between the genotype-positive and genotype-negative groups regarding age, smoking status, gender, W

162 The amyloid-positive neurodegeneration-negative group remained stable.

163 of 275 participants (53.5%) in the COVID-19-negative group reported persistently poor physical, ment

164 s in both the COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative groups reported persistently poor physical, men

165 was 13.3% and 3.1% in TCFA-positive vs. TCFA-negative groups, respectively (hazard ratio 4.65; 95% co

166 ere 22.3 and 13.3% for the HIV-positive and -negative groups, respectively (relative risk = 1.68, 95%

167 nsitivity in sputum smear-positive and smear-negative groups, respectively.

168 were performed on the node-positive and node-negative groups separately to ascertain the effect of ly

169 At 5 hours, the epsilon4-negative group showed significant improvement in long-te

170 ROS1-positive and -negative groups showed no difference in overall survival

171 However, the event rate in the TWA-negative group suggests that TWA may not be capable of i

172 of ABVD + INRT; in the unfavorable (U) ePET-negative group, the 10-year PFS rates were 91.4% and 86.

173 In the favorable (F) ePET-negative group, the 10-year PFS rates were 98.8% versus

174 For the ALK-negative group, the 5-year FFS was 46% for patients with

175 In the HER2-negative group, the size discrepancy was smaller for hor

176 common in the HER2-positive than in the HER2-negative group; the opposite pattern was seen for PTEN m

177 Comparing the HCV-positive versus HCV-negative groups, there were no significant differences w

178 ss: compared with individuals in the amyloid-negative group, those in the amyloid-positive group were

179 1.69) in the hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative group to 2.09 (1.73-2.53) in the hormone recept

180 of 57 patients) and nine more in the IGF-1R-negative group (total of 63 patients).

181 Within the negative group, uniphasic/unenhanced, biphasic, and comp

182 n HIV-positive persons under HAART to an HIV-negative group using 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis.

183 rtex was used to create tau-positive and tau-negative groups using a threshold of 1.27 standardized u

184 ) were compared between p16-positive and p16-negative groups using Cox proportional hazards models.

185 g viral test-positive groups with viral test-negative groups using proportional hazards models, adjus

186 ich has momentum intervals with positive and negative group velocities.

187 stic wave propagation to allow zero, or even negative, group velocities.

188 nkov radiation is predominantly emitted with negative group velocity and therefore propagates backwar

189 of modulated wave packets propagating with a negative group velocity in a passive artificial ADM in m

190 The edge of the transmission band also shows negative group velocity, albeit with high wave attenuati

191 silk structure generates a unique region of negative group velocity, that together with the global (

192 ear to propagate with a superluminal or even negative group velocity.

193 In this work, we investigate the negative-group-velocity transmission of half-sine wave p

194 ovided to both groups (96.2% in persistently negative group vs 93.4 in positive group; P = .599), the

195 The mean (SD) age of the ERBB2-negative group was 62.1 (13.2) years and 62.5 (13.0) yea

196 The median survival of PET-positive and PET-negative groups was 32.9 and 81.6 mo, respectively (P <

197 P/LP group (p < 0.0001); differences in the negative group were non-significant.

198 false-positive group compared with the true-negative group when mfERG was verified against AVF sugge

199 -2 test-negative control group or a non-test-negative group, which included studies with either no co

200 pared to the age- and sex-matched SARS-CoV-2-negative group, which were not markedly altered by age o

201 -positive group did not differ from the FISH-negative group with respect to age, sex, race, tumor gra

202 use history between the HIV-positive and HIV-negative groups with and without a history of alcohol ab

203 Participants in the negative group, with a decreased differential stroke vol

204 death after transplant compared with the HCV-negative group, with an aRR of 5.5 (95% CI, 1.5-20.0).

205 ost, an additional 28 participants in the T0 negative group would have died from lung cancer (a rise