ライフサイエンスコーパス: significant difference

1 n the placebo group (21.1%) (a statistically significant difference).

2 P < .05 was indicative of a statistically significant difference.

3 Among 23 secondary outcomes, 15 showed no significant difference.

4 specified secondary end points, 34 showed no significant difference.

5 specified secondary end points, 10 showed no significant difference.

6 in ATG and BSX group, respectively, without significant difference.

7 P < .05 represented a significant difference.

8 In contrast, the control group showed no significant differences.

9 al sarcomas, numerous genes of SaC exhibited significant differences.

10 lting in the disappearance and appearance of significant differences.

11 after recall revealed similarities but also significant differences.

12 There were no other statistically significant differences.

13 re 35% lower than our optimal estimate, with significant differences across activity sectors.

14 Significant differences across conditions were found for

15 GR than control foetuses, while there was no significant difference among IUGR groups.

16 CIST5 (P = 0.5), respectively, indicating no significant difference between analyzing the SUL(peak) o

17 No significant difference between antibiotics was demonstra

18 In the 1000cs oil group, there was no significant difference between baseline IOP and any subs

19 There was no statistically significant difference between behavioral interventions

20 ld change range: -0.423 to -0.987), while no significant difference between cancer and stroma tissue

21 There was no significant difference between case and control groups w

22 There was no statistically significant difference between cBL and rBL for any secti

23 h was 7.40 +/- 3.39 mm, with a statistically significant difference between dentate and edentulous qu

24 Anthropometrics identified a significant difference between dominant and non-dominant

25 dary end points, none showed a statistically significant difference between groups, including in-hosp

26 than for CT, but there was no statistically significant difference between HD and non-HD PET in radi

27 reater than of human serum, but there was no significant difference between human and NWM sera.

28 Radiocarbon analysis showed overall no significant difference between intact and burnt PSF with

29 ed using FASTmC method, which did not show a significant difference between M4 and parental lines.

30 MUSE DWI ADC values showed a significant difference between malignant and benign lesi

31 No significant difference between Mirococept at 10 mg and c

32 We identify significant difference between the collar and furcation

33 There was no significant difference between the erythropoietin group

34 No significant difference between the groups was shown in t

35 We found no significant difference between the high-dose IV iron gro

36 ericardial effusion, showed no statistically significant difference between the MDR-TB and XDR-TB gro

37 xty species of donor-derived bacteria showed significant difference between the mice colonized with t

38 pled plasma mass spectrometric method and no significant difference between the results was observed.

39 ange in both groups (p > 0.05) and showed no significant difference between the two groups (p > 0.05)

40 There was a significant difference between the two groups for mean p

41 up (-0.33 [-0.45 to -0.21] p<0.001), with no significant difference between the two groups.

42 ulfilled criteria for biliary colic, with no significant difference between those with and without FD

43 trials than correct trials, but there was no significant difference between win and loss trials.

44 There were no significant differences between any APO(a)-L(Rx) dose an

45 There were no significant differences between arms for any secondary o

46 than in major temperate rivers, with further significant differences between biomes.

47 Histologically, there were no significant differences between control and PHT, at any

48 number of studies not showing statistically significant differences between CP and AgP was always hi

49 .6% for photon-counting detector CT, with no significant differences between CT systems (P = .65).

50 t-perceived esthetic outcomes failed to show significant differences between CTG and GTR at 20 years

51 The statistical analysis showed significant differences between genotypes and pollinatio

52 There were no statistically significant differences between grafts and their control

53 CBCT scan analyses showed no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of reduc

54 Significant differences between individual CAFOs with re

55 hat assessment of joint asymmetry can reveal significant differences between individuals destined for

56 Significant differences between interactions for males a

57 shrinkage analysis showed that there were no significant differences between model parameters for pri

58 multiple b-value diffusion data demonstrates significant differences between PN and normal tissue.

59 There were no significant differences between psychological interventi

60 Spectral components of the EEG revealed no significant differences between successful and unsuccess

61 This study demonstrates significant differences between the area of complete spa

62 Histologically, there were no statistically significant differences between the groups for mean perc

63 ctively, during clamp stage 2; there were no significant differences between the groups.

64 At 6 months, there were no significant differences between the injection (n = 38) a

65 There also were no significant differences between the intervention and con

66 lysis using 95% confidence regions indicates significant differences between the quality of local and

67 There were no significant differences between the strain data obtained

68 No significant differences between these repeated measures

69 No significant differences could be detected comparing diff

70 Significant differences exist between allergen profiles

71 Significant differences exist in the availability of hea

72 A significant difference, favoring test conditions, was ob

73 However, a significant difference favouring MCT was found on the BD

74 Significant differences favouring MCT, also maintained o

75 There was no significant difference for 30-day readmission.

76 There was no significant difference for chest CT efficacy among the 2

77 condary end points, there were statistically significant differences for all 9 CGM metrics, 6 of 7 Hb

78 The control subjects did not show significant differences for either parameter.

79 average FBG >= 6.1 mmol/L vs. low FBG, with significant differences for multiple hourly lags.

80 both 6 and 12 months, however, there were no significant differences for these variables and no signi

81 QRS area also stratified outcomes but had significant differences from QRS PCA groups.

82 s of patients with mild or limited AD lacked significant differences from those of the controls.

83 melatonin and cisplatin did not display any significant differences from those treated with cisplati

84 ght/obese patients (BMI > 25) did not show a significant difference in (p = 0.3) nuclear CTNNB1 stain

85 ollowing propensity score matching, found no significant difference in 1-year overall survival betwee

86 There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the I

87 justed MSPHM survival analyses also found no significant difference in 28-day survival for cases trea

88 rdantly, the meta-analytic results suggest a significant difference in 2D:4D among MtF individuals co

89 majority of proteoforms having statistically significant difference in abundance between genders show

90 overlap of confidence intervals (CIs) and no significant difference in adenoma detection rates by pan

91 At follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the cardiometabolic mar

92 There was no significant difference in apparent midpoint potential of

93 There was no significant difference in average total hospital charges

94 termediate to poor) revealed a statistically significant difference in baseline features of photopsia

95 Among the 71 women and 79 men, there was a significant difference in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyo

96 There was no significant difference in BCRL risk between the ALND+RLN

97 with a higher breast cancer incidence but no significant difference in breast cancer mortality.

98 There was no significant difference in catheterizations or MRI scans.

99 There was no significant difference in clinical severity, hospital le

100 ese energetic changes such that there was no significant difference in comparison with controls.

101 ariate analysis did not show a statistically significant difference in CSF C4 values between groups.

102 nts completing >=1 diet period, there was no significant difference in DAS28-ESR between the interven

103 There was no significant difference in diabetes-free survival rates b

104 PMRT was not associated with a statistically significant difference in disease-free survival (HR: 0.9

105 lysis of all 6 studies denied any clinically significant difference in efficacy, and the 95% confiden

106 In contrast, no significant difference in either PFS or OS was observed

107 Six genes showed a significant difference in expression level between good

108 -years; 95% CI, 7.1 to 9.2; P < .001) but no significant difference in FEV1 decline (-31 vs -33 mL/y;

109 We found no significant difference in graft failure (aHR = 1.27; P =

110 There was no significant difference in hospital mortality.

111 compared to those without, but there was no significant difference in incidence of vascular complica

112 l and generic PGAs did not show a clinically significant difference in IOP-lowering effect or tolerab

113 e clinical condition did not demonstrate any significant difference in LV systolic function compared

114 There was no statistically significant difference in mortality between venovenous v

115 No significant difference in mortality, clinical, and micro

116 as to histologically determine if there is a significant difference in new bone formation, residual g

117 36+ in the study population was 47%, with no significant difference in obese and non-obese subgroups

118 A nominally significant difference in OS in favor of patients random

119 There was no significant difference in patients' satisfaction (p = 0.

120 There was a significant difference in post-training leadership behav

121 A statistically significant difference in pregnancy rates for SRI versus

122 There was no significant difference in prevalence between the groups.

123 e hospital admission, and intubation, but no significant difference in quality of life.

124 estly lower symptom burden, but there was no significant difference in quality of life.

125 There was no significant difference in rate of death by suicide betwe

126 There was no statistically significant difference in readmission rates.

127 structure performance show no statistically significant difference in structure type versus performa

128 There was no statistically significant difference in survival on pump support or st

129 obar metastatic patients, again there was no significant difference in terms of the colorectal tumour

130 There was no significant difference in the c-indices of each score ba

131 The significant difference in the contents of theobromine an

132 There was no significant difference in the deep surgical site infecti

133 But there was no significant difference in the expression of IL-17 mRNA b

134 izes (Cohen'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 failur

136 There was no significant difference in the likelihood of emergency de

137 ting microsphere-protein complex, creating a significant difference in the magnetic properties of pol

138 We did not observe a statistically significant difference in the mean daily case growth rat

139 A significant difference in the mean difference was observ

140 There was no statistically significant difference in the primary end point of the n

141 There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical failure b

142 verity or GI-specific anxiety but we found a significant difference in the relationship between measu

143 No significant difference in the risk of cardiovascular dea

144 There was no significant difference in the risks of graft failure (ad

145 There was no statistically significant difference in the total number of adverse ev

146 up analyses for the primary outcome showed a significant difference in the treatment effect (p = 0.01

147 There was no significant difference in their occurrence in both group

148 No significant difference in total OH reactivity was observ

149 tions of this interim analysis, there was no significant difference in treatment time, satisfaction a

150 k patients classified by DGM-CM6 (RI-DR) had significant differences in 10-year distant recurrence-fr

151 secondary outcomes, there were statistically significant differences in 3 of 7 binary HbA1c outcomes,

152 the first time in a UAE population revealed significant differences in a number of metabolites in th

153 d, and 2-aminoheptanoic acid) that displayed significant differences in abundance in patients with ge

154 However, there were no significant differences in ADC values between IUGR subty

155 ng affinity than (Hs)CRM1 toward PKI-NES and significant differences in affinities toward potential C

156 Overall, there were no significant differences in any limb outcome with dapagli

157 mong the 6 secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences in any of the 4 functional outco

158 There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes

159 AF, CFP, and IR, there were no statistically significant differences in baseline area or annual enlar

160 cation was not associated with statistically significant differences in baseline clinical characteris

161 No significant differences in bloodstream infections or lab

162 There were significant differences in body size, blood pressure, an

163 There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the

164 It revealed significant differences in complex and oligomannose type

165 No statistically significant differences in composition were observed bet

166 een the lapse and control groups revealed no significant differences in CST (359.9 +/- 108.3 mum and

167 Significant differences in CTRP1 levels were discovered

168 No significant differences in cytokine production were foun

169 No significant differences in cytotoxicity comparing lidoca

170 independent roles for Tbet were suggested by significant differences in disease between PIV-vaccinate

171 pecific measurements can reveal biologically significant differences in DNA methylation between homol

172 No significant differences in enlargement rate of new atrop

173 Multiple miRNAs showed significant differences in expression in patients compar

174 ometric Morphometric analysis did not reveal significant differences in facial morphology depending o

175 We did not find significant differences in fecal microbiota composition

176 No significant differences in glucose metabolism were obser

177 We observe significant differences in gut microbiome composition ac

178 However, there were no statistically significant differences in handgrip strength, delirium r

179 There were no significant differences in health care use or missed wor

180 This study finds significant differences in how administrative versus reg

181 Within the validation cohort, no significant differences in index biopsy gene expression

182 There were no significant differences in leptin (-0.7 ng/mL; -2.1, 0.8

183 llected at 7-12 months post-injury showed no significant differences in lesion size, fibrotic scar, g

184 A targeted MS approach showed significant differences in lysophosphatidylcholines, pho

185 Statistically significant differences in measurable health outcomes we

186 As reported in prior studies, significant differences in measures between related task

187 There were no significant differences in measures of mitochondrial res

188 main in vivo loading direction; however, no significant differences in mechanical properties were ob

189 Collectively, these data suggest that significant differences in metabolic pathway utilization

190 e experiment, again owing to subtle but very significant differences in methodology.

191 There were no significant differences in microbiome community richness

192 In comparison with each other, there were no significant differences in mortality (HR prasugrel versu

193 ; however, orthopedics outcomes did not show significant differences in mortality across teaching and

194 Consumer study results showed no significant differences in orthonasal perception, yet re

195 There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes.

196 There were no significant differences in overall prevalence or score f

197 laparoscopic, and robotic approaches showed significant differences in overall workload and subscale

198 There were no significant differences in patient characteristics betwe

199 There were no significant differences in peak heart rate response duri

200 The significant differences in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST confirm th

201 There were significant differences in Raman features corresponding

202 Statistical analyses revealed no evidence of significant differences in regional (11)C-PBR28 volumes

203 s for oxaliplatin-DNA damage, we observed no significant differences in repair efficiency that could

204 No statistically significant differences in responders were observed betw

205 No significant differences in response magnitude were ident

206 Interestingly, we observed no significant differences in risk of advanced disease when

207 dred thirty-eight scans were evaluable, with significant differences in success and failure ratings a

208 Metagenomic analysis did not reveal significant differences in taxonomic or functional pathw

209 between meals and snacks does not result in significant differences in terms of FM loss and LBM main

210 Interestingly, no significant differences in terms of soft tissue contour

211 In addition, there were significant differences in the abundance of amplicon seq

212 hearing function, we found that there are no significant differences in the auditory brainstem respon

213 Post hoc analyses revealed significant differences in the Barcelona cohort, with un

214 No significant differences in the components were observed.

215 Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in the concentration of some met

216 We observed significant differences in the distribution of SLA-1 all

217 We also find significant differences in the electronic properties of

218 Significant differences in the facial morphology of the

219 icant differences for these variables and no significant differences in the frequency or severity of

220 There were no significant differences in the incidence of delayed PPB

221 There were significant differences in the jugular venous bulb oxyge

222 Ns can be expanded from 1 h to 1-3 h without significant differences in the number of lesions detecte

223 There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients me

224 Moreover, we observe significant differences in the protein composition of de

225 We detected significant differences in the protein decoration of sEV

226 While no significant differences in the rate of torque developmen

227 pported by nanoindentation experiments, show significant differences in the respective lattice energi

228 nd thermal fluctuation spectroscopy revealed significant differences in the response of the two types

229 ns in a set of plausible candidate genes and significant differences in their allele frequency distri

230 ilar in yeast and human kinetochores despite significant differences in their centromeric organizatio

231 Mass spectrometric analysis revealed significant differences in these profiles.

232 There were no significant differences in time to progression (unadjust

233 anslationally to date but are limited by the significant differences in timing and distribution acros

234 erous morphological axes, corresponding with significant differences in trait distributions among eco

235 g antioxidant power (FRAP) assays, exhibited significant differences in two biological tests when the

236 There were no statistically significant differences in urinary or bowel function and

237 pite the heterogeneity of IBS, patients have significant differences in urine and fecal metabolomes a

238 For the primary outcome, although no significant differences in weight regain were observed a

239 use of glyphosate-based herbicides can cause significant differences in wheat protein chemistry and s

240 A significant difference is that normal cells in a multice

241 This significant difference observed in the size distribution

242 These differences abated over time, with no significant differences observed at 12 months and beyond

243 2)Ca values of Paranthropus boisei including significant differences observed with delta(44/42)Ca val

244 PS-OCT imaging enables the visualization of significant differences of the corneal epithelium and th

245 The type of bait showed no significant difference on the effectiveness to attractin

246 However, there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000012) in the mean coeffi

247 No statistically significant difference (p = 0.332) was found between the

248 , and both platforms showed no statistically significant difference (p-value > 0.05).

249 Significant differences (p < 0.0001) were observed betwe

250 ight and 4.33 (SD, 0.92) on the left with no significant differences (p = 0.236 and p = 0.404, respec

251 There was no statistically significant difference regarding initial demographic cri

252 There were no significant differences regarding the TGR5 receptor expr

253 = 5.1%-38.5%, P = 0.007) for ZM96.C, with no significant differences seen at the peak timepoints.

254 n and intron data offers strong evidence for significant differences that distinguish the profiles of

255 f and E- or E+ accessions showed a number of significant differences that were substantially more num

256 No statistically significant difference was demonstrated between the plac

257 No significant difference was found between CT and MRI in A

258 At a patient level, a significant difference was found between patients with c

259 A significant difference was found between the control eye

260 No significant difference was found between the Tecnis and

261 A significant difference was found in EVs size obtained fr

262 No significant difference was found in neurocognitive score

263 The primary outcome was that no significant difference was found in the number of patien

264 an in static reconstructions (P < 0.001); no significant difference was found when comparing BG and D

265 No significant difference was found when comparing nondiabe

266 Conversely, no significant difference was observed in males.

267 No significant difference was observed in the 3-year incide

268 acorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation, no significant difference was seen in the rate of overall a

269 those of 10mg maintenance dose cases, but no significant difference was shown in the change from base

270 -way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant difference were applied for comparison betwe

271 Significant differences were detected in the carotid art

272 of the treatment group, but no statistically significant differences were detected.

273 However, no significant differences were found between the alternati

274 ed significantly between PS and SPECT/CT, no significant differences were found between the predicted

275 No significant differences were found between the scores ob

276 No significant differences were found for NFS and Fib-4.

277 Furthermore, significant differences were found for the sleep/fatigue

278 No significant differences were found in the concentration

279 No statistically significant differences were found in the mechanical pro

280 Although overall significant differences were not observed between interv

281 No clinically significant differences were observed among the cohorts,

282 Significant differences were observed between clinical o

283 Statistically significant differences were observed between groups of

284 No significant differences were observed between treatment

285 ebo at week 24 (-68.8% vs -52.1%, P = .016); significant differences were observed by week 8 (P <= .0

286 perature had a small effect on recovery, but significant differences were observed for phlorizin and

287 etection performance for human observers, no significant differences were observed for the 3 dosing l

288 No significant differences were observed in MIC distributio

289 No significant differences were observed in the components

290 No significant differences were observed in the number of A

291 No significant differences were observed in the rate of pat

292 However, no significant differences were observed in UDVA, UIVA, and

293 ile for the total of C(13) norisoprenoids no significant differences were observed.

294 A few significant differences were recorded between E- and E+a

295 No significant differences were reported in the other PROs

296 No significant differences were seen between the other symp

297 Biologically significant differences were usually tissue specific but

298 0.61-0.89]; p=0.0019), with no statistically significant difference with the risk reduction in patien

299 The pairwise comparisons showed significant differences with respect to chest tightness

300 Similarly, there was no significant difference within different types of glaucom