ライフサイエンスコーパス: versus

1 t in those with T2D (15.8% versus 5.7% obese versus 0% normal weight).

2 ALT) level of 26% in those with score 5 or 6 versus 0.

3 evels remained higher in the LPV/r arm: 0.45 versus 0.13 ng/mL (P = .002).

4 wer in [0.423 (standard deviation, SD 0.023) versus 0.446 (SD 0.016), P = 0.002] while mean average w

5 imon qualitative P(interaction)<0.0001; 1.9% versus 0.6% for all-cause mortality, P(interaction)=0.02

6 d incidence of recurrent stroke or TIA: 2.32 versus 0.75 events per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio [

7 onths, median PFS was longer with continuous versus 1-year fixed-duration treatment (PFS population:

8 ared with the year before implantation (0.54 versus 1.25 events/patient-years, hazard ratio 0.43 [95%

9 r adaptation, with higher LV/RV (1.41+/-0.16 versus 1.36+/-0.15, P<0.0001) and lower RV inflow/outflo

10 both subgroups derived similar benefit (2.3% versus 1.4% for the primary efficacy end point at 3 year

11 l-cause mortality, P(interaction)=0.02; 2.7% versus 1.7% for major vascular events, P(interaction)<0.

12 .1% versus 2.1%; P = 0.023) and CD4 TN (4.4% versus 1.9%; P = 0.018) among those with SLD.

13 ns phase separate, we compared (13)CO-detect versus (1)H(alpha)-detect experiments, showing that sign

14 , +0.3 letters (95% CI, -1.5 to 2.0 letters) versus +1.0 letters (95% CI, -0.7 to 2.8 letters; P = 0.

15 r example, 30% (8-47%) lower hazard when 20% versus 10% of a fixed 15 kJ kg(-1) d(-1) PAEE volume was

16 re (10% versus 19%), atrial fibrillation (6% versus 10%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (

17 CHD rates in women versus men were 6.3 versus 10.7 among those without CHD (HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0

18 Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, 11 [6-19] versus 11 [6-18]; absolute standardized difference, 11.2

19 verall survival (OS; 95% CI -1 to 31, 92-120 versus 113-129 months, chi2 p = 0.036).

20 At 96 months median follow-up, 94% versus 12% remained MRD free.

21 on of reduced ejection fraction after MI (7% versus 12%), previous heart failure (10% versus 19%), at

22 in the durvalumab monotherapy group (n=209) versus 12.1 months (10.4-15.0) in the chemotherapy group

23 ondary composite end point occurred in 16.6% versus 12.1% (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.57-0.83]; P=0.00008).

24 or reoperation was 23.3% after McKeown TMIE versus 12.4% after Ivor Lewis TMIE (P = 0.003).

25 hs (95% CI 12.5-17.7) in the veliparib group versus 12.6 months (10.6-14.4) in the control group (haz

26 received IL2RA (1-y crude incidence = 11.6% versus 12.6%; aOR = 0.680.820.99).

27 mg/g), higher systolic blood pressure (>=140 versus 120 to <130 mmHg), diabetes (versus no diabetes),

28 rse events occurring among 6 patients [12%]) versus 14 patients (30%) in the placebo group (with 6 in

29 mL/kg/min; P<0.001) and heart rate (122+/-20 versus 155+/-14 bpm; P<0.001) were lower in patients wit

30 .016) and emergency department services (13% versus 17%, P=0.034).

31 metabolite concentration (ng/mL; 62.3+/-82.6 versus 17.1+/-43.5; P=0.016).

32 CR rate was 8% in the Kono group versus 18% in the Conventional group after 12 months (P

33 ccurred in 24.7% of placebo-treated patients versus 18.2% of icosapent ethyl-treated patients (hazard

34 nger cold ischemic time (CIT) (median 21.0 h versus 18.6 h, P < 0.001).

35 etween 2002 and 2011 was 17.6% (15.4%-19.8%) versus 18.9% (15.4%-22.3%) (P = 0.54) and between 2012 a

36 (7% versus 12%), previous heart failure (10% versus 19%), atrial fibrillation (6% versus 10%), and ch

37 with reported difficult bag-mask ventilation versus 19.8% in patients without perceived difficult bag

38 n HS versus NC sera in Allo-CFC-1 (10 +/- 3% versus 2 +/- 1%, P = 0.001), Allo-CFC-2 (20 +/- 10% vers

39 utilization of inpatient rehabilitation (7% versus 2%, P<0.001), but lower utilization of home healt

40 er for both inconclusive tests (stress: 3.7% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 1.81, P=0.034; CTA: 5.0% vers

41 5; P=0.044) and positive tests (stress: 8.3% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 3.50; CTA: 9.2% versus 2.2%,

42 encies of conventional dendritic cells (3.1% versus 2.1%; P = 0.023) and CD4 TN (4.4% versus 1.9%; P

43 2.0%, hazard ratio, 1.81, P=0.034; CTA: 5.0% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 1.85; P=0.044) and positive t

44 % versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 3.50; CTA: 9.2% versus 2.2%, hazard ratio, 3.66; P<0.001).

45 so lower following sensor implantation (1.67 versus 2.28 events/patient-years, hazard ratio 0.73 [95%

46 urate (respective mean absolute errors: 3.11 versus 2.35 DOTs), resulting in 31-33% more hospitals mo

47 ; P<0.001) and catheterization (stress: 5.5% versus 2.4%, OR, 2.36; CTA: 23.4% versus 4.1%, OR, 6.49;

48 Peak Vo(2) (13.1+/-3.4 versus 22.7+/-4.0 mL/kg/min; P<0.001) and heart rate (12

49 (P < 0.05) in test sites (BoP at 17.8% test versus 23.1% control).

50 d between 2012 and 2017, 17.2% (14.7%-19.7%) versus 23.2% (19.8%-26.6%) (P = 0.005).

51 4, 83%) or NASH (n = 185, 17%), with 52 (6%) versus 27 (15%) experiencing outcome events during follo

52 Specialist palliative care (37% versus 27%, p = 0.002) and AD inclusion in hospital file

53 ates of hospitalization for infection (29.6% versus 29.3%, respectively) also did not differ.

54 % versus 32.1%, P=0.009) and had WLST (32.8% versus 29.8%, P=0.03).

55 002) and AD inclusion in hospital files (10% versus 3%, p < 0.001) were more likely in the interventi

56 Length of stay (6.5 versus 3.2 days, P < 0.01), readmission rate (29.1% vs 3

57 the placebo group (+5% +/- 12% in FMT group versus -3% +/- 32% in placebo group, mean difference 9%,

58 istance traveled (90 versus 80.1 versus 60.5 versus 30, P < 0.001).

59 nal group after 12 months (P = 0.2), and 18% versus 30.2% after 24 months (P = 0.04, OR 3.47).

60 ver RSV A (all ON1 genotype) globally (69.0% versus 31.0%) and in all countries except South Africa.

61 FFR-guided PCI versus the CABG group (44.5% versus 31.9%; hazard ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.15-2.22]; P=

62 artile range]: $25 924 [$22 280-$32 556] EVR versus $31 442 [$24 669-$40 419] open; P<0.001), driven

63 oportion of women received DNR orders (35.7% versus 32.1%, P=0.009) and had WLST (32.8% versus 29.8%,

64 uptake (change in calcium score, 97 [39-166] versus 35 [7-93] AU; P<0.0001).

65 lower Kidney Donor Profile Index (median 30% versus 35%, P < 0.001) but longer cold ischemic time (CI

66 rate of in-hospital complications (6.6% EVR versus 38.0% open; P<0.001).

67 2 +/- 1%, P = 0.001), Allo-CFC-2 (20 +/- 10% versus 4 +/- 2%, P = 0.01) and 7AAD+ FB cell% (11 +/- 3%

68 2%, P = 0.01) and 7AAD+ FB cell% (11 +/- 3% versus 4 +/- 2%, P = 0.02) in ADCC.

69 ress: 5.5% versus 2.4%, OR, 2.36; CTA: 23.4% versus 4.1%, OR, 6.49; P<0.001), and composite outcomes

70 antly lower trough levels of everolimus (3.5 versus 4.5 ug/L, P<0.001) and cyclosporin A (47.4 versus

71 sons ages 35 to 39 years (for females, 19.8% versus 4.7% [odds ratio {OR} = 5.05; 95% confidence inte

72 27 Gy group, and 21 in the 26 Gy group); HRs versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions were 0.86 (95% CI 0.51 to 1

73 ll diseases (for example, 690 loci for LT-FH versus 423 for GWAS); relative improvements were similar

74 zations were associated with older age (>=65 versus 45 to 64 years), more proteinuria (>=150 to <500

75 oportion of values falling within 10% (50.7% versus 45.3%; P = 0.009) and 30% of iGFR (94.5% versus 8

76 oup in event rates for all infections (46.5% versus 45.5%, respectively, which represented incidences

77 e frequently and earlier than women (45+/-14 versus 49+/-16 years, respectively; P=0.04).

78 metry, were highest in those with T2D (15.8% versus 5.7% obese versus 0% normal weight).

79 rom 66% to 95.6% for office-based procedures versus 50% to 97.7% for facility-based procedures.

80 leared significantly slower than HPV-18 (32% versus 54% by 24 months).

81 6%-22.0%, P = 0.039), and ZM96.C V1V2, 21.0% versus 6.5% (difference = 14.5%, 95% CI = 4.1%-24.9%, P

82 and median distance traveled (90 versus 80.1 versus 60.5 versus 30, P < 0.001).

83 r survival for ER and esophagectomy were 53% versus 61% (P = 0.3), respectively.

84 s 4.5 ug/L, P<0.001) and cyclosporin A (47.4 versus 64.1 ug/L, P<0.001).

85 79%), or 10 years following transplant (61% versus 66%, P = 0.32).

86 tively, which represented incidences of 63.3 versus 69.4 per 100 patient years, respectively); rates

87 nd chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4% versus 7%) in patients undergoing metabolic surgery.

88 S) (95% confidence interval [CI] 5-29, 49-69 versus 70-82 months, chi2 p = 0.001) and 15 fewer months

89 was higher (749 x 10-6 mm2/s (SD 32 x 10-6) versus 720 x 10-6 mm2/s (SD 21 x 10-6), P = 0.004].

90 ), but lower utilization of home health (66% versus 73%, P=0.016) and emergency department services (

91 nt evaluation and management payments ($1405 versus $752, P<0.001) and higher utilization of inpatien

92 ompared with those without antibodies (93.4% versus 78.7%, p < 0.001), whereas taste loss was equally

93 tient survival at 1 (94% versus 91%), 5 (83% versus 79%), or 10 years following transplant (61% versu

94 ronic GVHD following EBV reactivation (62.5% versus 8%; P = 0.01).

95 d system compared with the 3-lead system (0% versus 8%; P=0.03).

96 rsus 8.5%, odds ratio [OR], 1.91; CTA: 36.5% versus 8.4%, OR, 5.95; P<0.001) and catheterization (str

97 to a second noninvasive test (stress: 14.6% versus 8.5%, odds ratio [OR], 1.91; CTA: 36.5% versus 8.

98 ez Roux SES and median distance traveled (90 versus 80.1 versus 60.5 versus 30, P < 0.001).

99 -emergent hypocalcaemia occurred in 152 (7%) versus 82 (4%).

100 , and 38%, respectively, for (123)I-MIBG WBS versus 83%, 75% and 54%, respectively, for (18)F-DOPA PE

101 lar between Sapien 3 and Evolut R/PRO (85.6% versus 87.2%; P=0.68).

102 reas taste loss was equally prevalent (90.2% versus 89.0%, p = 0.738).

103 sus 45.3%; P = 0.009) and 30% of iGFR (94.5% versus 89.3%; P < 0.001).

104 erval {CI} = 3.01 to 8.46]; for males, 16.5% versus 9.4% [OR = 1.91; 95% CI = 1.20 to 3.02]).

105 IgG bAb response rates to 1086.C V1V2, 21.0% versus 9.7% (difference = 11.3%, 95% CI = 0.6%-22.0%, P

106 no difference in patient survival at 1 (94% versus 91%), 5 (83% versus 79%), or 10 years following t

107 patients with HFpEF versus controls: 90+/-13 versus 93+/-10 bpm; P=0.49).

108 ared to whole-chromosome aneuploidies (70.8% versus 97.18%, respectively).

109 HD (HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.54) and 84.5 versus 99.3 among those with MI (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.85

110 mpare the effects of 16 weeks of ID exercise versus a HB exercise program for HD patients.

111 ]) or at home (odds ratio, 1.55 [1.53-1.56]) versus a medical facility was higher for whites versus b

112 r kappa value of 0.471 (95% CI, 0.330-0.606) versus a range of 0.105 to 0.180 and higher accuracy of

113 gher accuracy of 0.844 (95% CI, 0.798-0.886) versus a range of 0.717 to 0.814.

114 iamperes per square centimetre (at 1.5 volts versus a reversible hydrogen electrode) and a cathodic-s

115 daptation (i.e., a symbiont community shift) versus acclimation (i.e., physiological changes at the m

116 links with other mediators, its prosurvival versus activation/differentiation functions, and when it

117 unique microbiome differences after chronic versus acute viral infections and identify CD8 T cell re

118 % CI, 0.96-1.10], all P > 0.05), bevacizumab versus aflibercept (HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.68-1.33], HR, 0.

119 otics for those patients who truly need them versus allowing clinicians some time for rapid investiga

120 isk following prescription of clarithromycin versus amoxicillin and in particular, the association wi

121 plex shows a temperature dependence on (*)OH versus ArS(*) transfer, whereas the oxygen-ligated compl

122 e usage of substrates for production of heat versus ATP.

123 The absolute error in counts (manual versus automated method) was calculated and error types

124 s destructive peripheral polysynovitis in RA versus axial and peripheral osteoproliferative inflammat

125 ite choice effects arise (e.g., highlighting versus balancing).

126 ts enrolled in the DIVA (Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Angiopl

127 Judging from the presence of fine versus beaded terminals, the vast majority of these neur

128 ally occluded similar (for example, elephant versus bear) or dissimilar (for example, elephant versus

129 ly higher among patients receiving delamanid versus bedaquiline (36% vs 10%, respectively; P < .01).

130 To investigate whether a straight versus bent disulfide bond-containing CDRH3 is specific

131 sus a medical facility was higher for whites versus blacks.

132 scientific commentary refers to 'Brain-first versus body-first Parkinson's disease: a multi-modal ima

133 iors', thus altering the balance of top-down versus bottom-up information passing.

134 uted tomography scan) were randomized to PFC versus bridged repair.

135 s bear) or dissimilar (for example, elephant versus broccoli) images.

136 compared early and long-term outcomes of PCI versus CABG in patients with diabetes.

137 at week 24 (n = 501) and rivastigmine patch versus capsule at week 76 (n = 546).

138 The need for an ester versus carboxylic acid-functionalized coupling partner i

139 Non-inferiority of DTG + FTC versus cART for viral suppression was assessed using a s

140 e particular contributions of sensory-driven versus choice-correlated activity in the low-dimensional

141 general population was similar using genetic versus clinical diagnoses.

142 discovery rate, on average, for Open Access versus closed access journals (p = 0.320, 95% CI - 0.015

143 forms: grandiose versus vulnerable, agentic versus communal, admirative versus rivalrous, collective

144 signed patients to neoadjuvant or concurrent versus concurrent or adjuvant short-term ADT.

145 ey were cared for using standard precautions versus contact precautions in a multivariable, discrete

146 r MUC5AC protein was lower in all ATD groups versus control eyes, and correlated only with GC area.

147 ry capillary wedge pressure: LVH, 13.4+/-2.7 versus control, 11.7+/-1.7 mm Hg, P<0.0001).

148 HS-cardiomyopathy gene associations in cases versus controls, rare variant burden testing of 56 genes

149 ring cortical thickness in patients with CBS versus controls.

150 handgrip between groups (patients with HFpEF versus controls: 90+/-13 versus 93+/-10 bpm; P=0.49).

151 s of comprehensive disease-modifying therapy versus conventional therapy on the primary endpoint of c

152 hese predictors may help inform early stroke versus d-sICH prevention strategies.

153 The VERDICT (Very Early Versus Deferred Invasive Evaluation Using Computerized T

154 ound when comparing nondiabetic participants versus diabetic participants without retinopathy.

155 n discrimination relied on efficient opening versus diffusion.

156 prognoses, and improved performance outcomes versus DM.

157 tion, CIN was more prevalent in domestic cat versus domestic dog (51%, n = 32 of 62 cats; 15%, 11 of

158 Whether using a low fixed ESA dose versus dosing based on a hemoglobin-based, titration-dos

159 s between patients treated with polymer-free versus durable polymer DES.

160 eakness (lower MRC score) in thumb abductors versus elbow extensors, for hand extensors versus hand f

161 rs versus hand flexors and for elbow flexors versus elbow extensors.

162 ts with subclinical hypo- or hyperthyroidism versus euthyroidism, adjusting for depressive symptoms a

163 eceptor expression and influence the feeding-versus-exploration decision.

164 sterone-dependent lower excitability in male versus female vHPC-NAc neurons and corresponding testost

165 evaluated the efficacy and safety of VT-1161 versus fluconazole in subjects with moderate-to-severe a

166 (5%) of 2241 patients treated with denosumab versus four (<1%) of 2218 patients treated with placebo;

167 C6, and C10 domains (18 of 22, 82%, P<0.001 versus Genome Aggregation Database common variants) and

168 inetics during regeneration, showing a gated versus graded response, respectively.

169 es (versus no diabetes), and lower eGFR (<60 versus >=60 ml/min/1.73m2).

170 s versus elbow extensors, for hand extensors versus hand flexors and for elbow flexors versus elbow e

171 replicative or palmitate-induced senescence versus healthy aortic VSMCs.

172 and median laser pulsations delivered (low=0 versus high grade=5852, P<0.001) were significantly high

173 Median extraction time (low=0 versus high grade=97 seconds, P<0.001) and median laser

174 ican women who were HIV-uninfected (n = 314) versus HIV-infected (n = 42).

175 Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains an important cause of

176 crobiome-dependent metabolite, worsens graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

177 -resistant or steroid-refractory acute graft-versus-host disease (SR-aGVHD) poses one of the most vex

178 tients were alive, without evidence of graft-versus-host disease, with major infection at 1 year in o

179 tially expressed in AD and psoriasis lesions versus in controls, respectively (fold change >= 2; fals

180 Rats pressed more on the active versus inactive lever, and pairing CS presentation with

181 nal, admirative versus rivalrous, collective versus individual.

182 uring the relative strength of intraspecific versus interspecific competition in dominance hierarchie

183 more likely to have extramural (NIH K-award) versus intramural (KL2) or other career development awar

184 erent modes of action (i.e. CdCl(2) toxicity versus ion pump inhibition by ouabain), a significant ad

185 ith dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (IPTp-DP) versus IPTp-SP to prevent clinical malaria infection (an

186 ial IL-6-related inflammatory programs in WT versus IRF3-KO mice.

187 differentially modulates HCN channels in CA1 versus L5 PFC dendrites.

188 as individuals' trade-off current investment versus lifetime fitness.

189 's correlation coefficients for ligand-bound versus ligand-free structure performance show no statist

190 To study the effects of regional versus local anesthesia on longer-term AVF patency, we p

191 and differentiation, as well as in systemic versus localized signaling.

192 hreshold for classifying subjects into high- versus low-exacerbation groups and then used statistical

193 ratios for CRC incidence after high-quality versus low-quality colonoscopy were 0.55 (CI, 0.35 to 0.

194 ts occurred more frequently in high-severity versus low-severity cases (0.98 vs 0.40 events/case, P <

195 85 with the highest quartile [>=235.9 RU/ml] versus lowest quartile [<95.3 RU/ml]; HR, 1.26; 95% CI,

196 For example, participants in the highest versus lowest steps quartile lost 2.9% (95%CI, 1.8-4.1)

197 ly a quarter of mothers of children with ASD versus <1% in mothers of typically developing children.

198 o 64 years), more proteinuria (>=150 to <500 versus <150 mg/g), higher systolic blood pressure (>=140

199 atistically significantly different in LV-HF versus LV-Control.

200 5 selenoproteins decreased and one increased versus male islets.

201 Nilotinib 150 mg versus matching placebo was taken orally once daily for

202 garding the comparative effectiveness of N95 versus medical masks and could be misinterpreted.

203 CHD rates in women versus men were 6.3 versus 10.7 among those without CHD

204 tefosine combined with topical GM-CSF (M+GM) versus miltefosine and placebo (M+P) versus standard Sb

205 in different modes in the presence of Mg(2+) versus Mn(2+) ions.

206 nds show normal (10-fold higher) molar CO(2) versus N(2) uptake at 298 K, except the 19-fold CO(2) up

207 And what about those of K-Ras4B versus N-Ras?

208 + NK cell% were significantly elevated in HS versus NC sera in Allo-CFC-1 (10 +/- 3% versus 2 +/- 1%,

209 n category, or simply distinguishes positive versus negative valence in observed facial emotions.

210 ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% CI 1.01-1.89, p = 0.04) versus neonates of insulin-treated mothers.

211 Similarly, rate ratios for the Hispanic versus NHW population were 7.0 (95% CI 5.8, 8.7; p < 0.0

212 nly the L-type Ca(2+) current exhibits a day versus night difference in current magnitude, providing

213 ing, which cycles in anti-phase between day- versus night-biting mosquitoes.

214 e (>=140 versus 120 to <130 mmHg), diabetes (versus no diabetes), and lower eGFR (<60 versus >=60 ml/

215 on of HNO from complex 1 with the pendant SH versus NO from 2 with the pendant SMe is achieved by the

216 omized clinical trial of text messaging (TM) versus no text messaging (No-TM) at 40 sites in the Unit

217 The basis of diurnal versus nocturnal behaviors is driven by molecular clock

218 s scores and categorical outcome (responders versus non-responders) using measurements on the Alda sc

219 t to non-surgical periodontal therapy (test) versus non-surgical therapy alone (control) was evaluate

220 ns after vaccination with an AS03-adjuvanted versus nonadjuvanted H5N1 avian influenza virus inactiva

221 tudies, fat fraction was greater for chylous versus nonchylous fluids (mean, 6.2% +/- 4.3 vs 0.6% +/-

222 ence was not significant; paclitaxel (12.8%) versus nonpaclitaxel devices (15.5%; adjusted HR=0.85 [9

223 6% greater in the lungs of cigarette smokers versus nonsmokers.Conclusions: The precise locations occ

224 stitution rates comparable across structural versus nonstructural genes.

225 axena also show decreased survival of C9-BAC versus NT mice and neuropathological and behavioral defi

226 ensitivity, collimator penetration, hardware versus object scatter, spectral crosstalk, spatial resol

227 Normal versus pathological aggregation may be distinguished by

228 es were higher in PD-L1-positive (8/28; 29%) versus PD-L1-negative (0/12; 0%) patients.

229 lly significant difference in structure type versus performance for most methods.

230 fferentially impact kinetic or thermodynamic versus physicochemical C protection mechanisms, challeng

231 mized 100 healthy adults to receive morphine versus placebo after two nights of undisturbed sleep (US

232 se 4 inhibitor, and narrowband-ultraviolet B versus placebo and narrowband-ultraviolet B in patients

233 zed controlled trials comparing rivastigmine versus placebo at week 24 (n = 501) and rivastigmine pat

234 compared efficacy and safety of atezolizumab versus placebo combined with nab-paclitaxel followed by

235 ly for 26 weeks followed by nilotinib 300 mg versus placebo for another 26 weeks.

236 complications in the pimodivir group (7.9%) versus placebo group (15.6%).

237 plus trametinib reduced the risk of relapse versus placebo in patients with resected, BRAF(V600)-mut

238 of 126 [15-30]), with percentage differences versus placebo of 37% (95% CI 26-48) for the every 4 wee

239 ared the effects of administering omalizumab versus placebo to asthmatics in a randomized, double-bli

240 h significant interaction (P <= 0.05) to ICS versus placebo treatments.

241 survival benefit from targeted therapy (HR [versus placebo] 0.49, 95% CI 0.35-0.68, p<0.0001).

242 ronounced benefit with targeted therapy (HR [versus placebo] 0.75, 95% CI 0.44-1.26, p=0.27), especia

243 inal center (GC) B cells into memory B cells versus plasma cells is a major quest of adaptive immunit

244 sessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison in patient

245 plays a critical role in lung cancer control versus progression and metastasis.

246 ompares the effect of acute (perfusion only) versus prolonged (2 weeks pre-treatment plus perfusion)

247 d lifestyle factors, a ceramide score (RR Q4 versus Q1 = 2.40; 95% CI: 1.24, 4.65; P-trend = 0.003) a

248 saturated sphingoid-fatty acid pairs (RR Q4 versus Q1 = 3.15; 95% CI: 1.75, 5.67; P-trend <0.001) bo

249 auma exposure (r(g) = 0.24, p = 1.8 x 10(-7) versus r(g) = -0.05, p = 0.39 in individuals not reporti

250 ificantly different between patients with R0 versus R1 margins but wider resection margins do not con

251 ect of treatment initiation with bevacizumab versus ranibizumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.96 [95% confide

252 I, 0.93-1.10], all P > 0.05), or aflibercept versus ranibizumab (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.62-1.35], HR, 1.

253 that can favour migration: moving to escape versus recover from infection.

254 groups and was similar for heavily disturbed versus relatively natural sites.

255 f 8.87 mA cm(-2) at low potential of -0.65 V versus RHE.

256 nerable, agentic versus communal, admirative versus rivalrous, collective versus individual.

257 st, at 4- and 2-fold, respectively, in RV-HF versus RV-Control.

258 isease, choice of postprostatectomy adjuvant versus salvage radiotherapy, and to address emerging que

259 used to model hypothetical scenarios of TAVR versus SAVR durability in which TAVR failure times were

260 e initial treatment decision concerning TAVR versus SAVR in older low-risk patients on the basis of c

261 th nonischemic HF were randomized to routine versus selective CMR.

262 ylogenize draws similar conclusions from 16S versus shotgun sequencing and reveals both known and can

263 ely 40% of proteins were altered in ruptured versus stable areas of human carotid plaques, including

264 Similarly, linker chemistry (cleavable versus stable) altered activity, but not accumulation.

265 (M+GM) versus miltefosine and placebo (M+P) versus standard Sb v in the treatment of 133 patients wi

266 tance of balanced vaccine-induced activating versus suppressive immune responses in affording protect

267 rination were differentially enriched in DCB versus TCE enrichment cultures, indicating that they may

268 ts resulted in irreproducible entropy change versus temperature diagrams, which was attributed to the

269 ficantly decreased, in human first trimester versus term decidual cells.

270 comparison of the area under the curve (AUC) versus that from other combined MRI predictors of PAS (e

271 ular events was higher in the FFR-guided PCI versus the CABG group (44.5% versus 31.9%; hazard ratio,

272 outgroup competitors in the Bonobo condition versus the Chimpanzee condition, suggesting a significan

273 frequency (TOF) up to 12500 h(-1) at -0.95 V versus the reversible hydrogen electrode (RHE), with a F

274 affected by the type of anion or by solution versus the surface chemistry.

275 t active (SA; 19:5 L:D) photoperiod exposure versus their wildtype (WT) littermates.

276 s and specifically for standalone procedures versus those combined with other ophthalmic surgeries.

277 tween positive predictive values of chest CT versus those of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain r

278 was lower in patients with PAD only (33.9%) versus those with cerebrovascular disease only (43.0%) o

279 symptom severity scores throughout recovery versus those without, after adjusting for age and sex.

280 in 20% vs. 6% (p=0.06) of patients with SRI versus those without, respectively.

281 that distinguish grasses that are sensitive versus tolerant to extreme drying are largely unknown.

282 sms of PR and the role of polymyxin exposure versus transmission in PR emergence.

283 trial of prolonged exposure therapy (n = 36) versus treatment waiting list (n = 30).

284 l anticoagulant [DOAC] plus P2Y12 inhibitor) versus triple therapy (vitamin K antagonist plus aspirin

285 furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulm

286 ter estimates of the abundance of productive versus unproductive isoforms.

287 l) of LTs paid by Medicaid among restrictive versus unrestrictive states between 2002 and 2011 was 17

288 (Downstream Versus Upstream Strategy for the Administration of P2Y(1

289 Readmission for ICU survivor care versus usual care: at 30 days (10.4% vs 26.3%; stabilize

290 evaluated power of Alive and Ventilator Free versus ventilator-free days score under various circumst

291 nt fragmentation pathways enabled by allylic versus vinylic carbons.

292 ric, comprising several key forms: grandiose versus vulnerable, agentic versus communal, admirative v

293 overall memory capacity rather than what is versus what isn't remembered, leaving open questions abo

294 was 3-fold higher among black men and women versus white men and women.

295 elines addressing the use of targeted panels versus whole-exome sequencing (WES).

296 test the protective efficacy of BCG-disA-OE versus wild-type BCG and measured lung weights, patholog

297 ments were compared for sepsis patients with versus without acute respiratory distress syndrome and i

298 appeared numerically larger in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus, both subgroups derived

299 cantly between crop-reporting districts with versus without prevalent rotation-resistant rootworm pop

300 ient-centered estimates of outcome risk with versus without the intervention, taking into account all