ライフサイエンスコーパス: between patients

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します

1 horizontal transmission of resistant strains between patients.

2 ancer, but their efficacy is highly variable between patients.

3 to the variability of response to CNS drugs between patients.

4 SPVL varies over several orders of magnitude between patients.

5 ross subtypes, leading to variable responses between patients.

6 sub-clonal enrichment in tumours within and between patients.

7 is considerable variability in its severity between patients.

8 effective tool for determining transmission between patients.

9 e plasma levels of peptide YY did not differ between patients (6.4 [0-18.1] pg/mL) and controls (4.8

10 ich hyperlactatemia was related to mortality between patients admitted following elective and emergen

11 e discordance in the perception of hirsutism between patients and clinicians; patients view their hir

12 in mean normalized total hippocampal volume between patients and comparison subjects, but there were

13 l statistics compared white matter structure between patients and control subjects and tested associa

14 MR imaging features were compared between patients and control subjects by using the Wilco

15 studies comparing fractional anisotropy (FA) between patients and control subjects.

16 ume fraction was statistically not different between patients and controls (P=0.057).

17 after adjusting for variables that differed between patients and controls (smoking habits, diabetes

18 Longitudinal models compared FACT-Cog scores between patients and controls at the three assessments a

19 -667C > T were both significantly different between patients and controls even using the resampling

20 APOE haplotypes did not significantly differ between patients and controls or among patients with dif

21 el parameters provided better discrimination between patients and controls than raw behavioural measu

22 g and risk-time adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) between patients and controls were calculated.

23 s of alpha and beta diversity were compared, between patients and controls, and between specimens col

24 has been limited by performance differences between patients and controls, and by uncertainty over t

25 viability, N-acetylaspartate, did not differ between patients and controls.

26 cellular phenotypes significantly different between patients and controls.

27 the fovea (qAF8) were measured and compared between patients and controls.

28 mmalinolenic acid) levels were not different between patients and controls.

29 L patients; and beta-diversity distinguished between patients and CTRLs but not NAFL and NASH.

30 No significant differences were observed between patients and healthy volunteers in microglial ac

31 ransplantation (allo-HCT) is highly variable between patients and may take several months to even yea

32 Only 2/839 TCRB clonotypes were shared between patients and none associated with a specific HLA

33 that insufficient information was exchanged between patients and nurses due to: lost opportunities f

34 To date information exchange between patients and nurses has not been explored in war

35 may even strengthen the therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists.

36 e of discrepancy in adverse effect-reporting between patients and physicians.

37 s, a topic that is rarely, if ever, broached between patients and providers, or even considered in ac

38 a diagnosis of multiple myeloma (MM) varies between patients and some of these differences may be a

39 arch seeking to enable collaborative working between patients and staff should enhance the impact of

40 ervations included 91 recorded conversations between patients and surgeons and 61 patient interviews

41 MEASURMENTS AND MAIN There was no agreement between patients and surrogates for all premorbid walkin

42 erence in the ADC value of the thyroid gland between patients and the control group (P=0.001).

43 Depressive symptoms were interdependent between patients and their caregivers, and one's own min

44 patients and caregivers, and interdependent between patients and their caregivers.

45 nces in set-point viral load (SPVL) observed between patients and their distribution, as well as the

46 posed, their effects on PSH are inconsistent between patients and their influence on outcome is unkno

47 notypic and genotypic differences that exist between patients and their tumours.

48 nse to chemotherapy and biological therapies between patients and zPDX.

49 t of microglial activation appears to differ between patients, and could explain the overlap in trans

50 Mortality rates were similar between patients assigned endotype A and those assigned

51 Median overall survival did not differ between patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan monot

52 re used to assess differences in KCCQ scores between patients assigned to telemonitoring and usual ca

53 Outcomes were compared between patients assigned to the following groups based

54 Levels of IL-6 help distinguish between patients at low and high risk for complications

55 howed a statistically significant difference between patients at very high risk and those at high ris

56 e factors contribute to asthma heterogeneity between patients but also in the same patient at differe

57 The viral mutation rates were variable between patients but did not differ between various immu

58 o adjust for potential confounding variables between patients cared for in freestanding or nonfreesta

59 we identify a genotype-phenotype correlation between patients carrying loss-of-function mutations in

60 tween ICUs, between types of clinicians, and between patients' clinical status and mood.

61 thy donors, and broader heterogeneity exists between patients, compared with healthy individuals.

62 rvival (PFS) (Kaplan-Meier P value = 0.0166) between patients designated as chemorefractory or chemos

63 There is often a mismatch between patients' desire to be informed about errors and

64 Clinical outcomes were compared between patients displaying greater than (n=152; improvi

65 ization of life support and end-of-life care between patients dying in the medical ICU with cancer co

66 ut differed markedly from published sets and between patients, emphasizing the need for patient-speci

67 protein and reduces IFN-lambda4 activity, or between patients encoding functionally defective IFN-lam

68 lly reasonable range but varied considerably between patients, especially tumor perfusion (meningioma

69 ageal expansion-response was highly variable between patients, even for similar radiation doses.

70 prognostic factors are unequally distributed between patients exposed or not exposed to an interventi

71 isk of in-hospital death also did not differ between patients exposed to blood stored 8-35 days and p

72 hazards models were used to compare survival between patients followed in the CCFR (n = 5941) and tho

73 Prognosis may vary substantially between patients for reasons that are poorly understood.

74 ession symptoms did not differ significantly between patients given CBT and those given short-term ps

75 There were minor clinical differences between patients harboring specific mutations but not wh

76 We compared 30-day POM between patients having received intrathoracic (vs cervi

77 re was no significant difference in survival between patients in Group I and II (P = 0.849), whereas

78 fference was found in the ratio of Treg/Th17 between patients in MMD and atherothrombotic stroke grou

79 The similarities in outcomes between patients in MRD-positive morphologic remission a

80 The variability between patients in rate of decline was lower in plasma

81 Change in 6MWD did not differ significantly between patients in the ataluren group and those in the

82 verall survival did not differ significantly between patients in the atezolizumab group and those in

83 of treatment sessions differed significantly between patients in the brief psychosocial intervention

84 here was no difference in delirium incidence between patients in the combined ketamine groups and the

85 The rate of adverse events was similar between patients in the deutetrabenazine 36 mg/day group

86 to assess for differences in ocular features between patients in XP subgroups with impaired transcrip

87 identified no healthcare associated contact between patients, indicating cryptic community transmiss

88 on matched coronary segments and contrasted between patients induced with ATG and those who were not

89 r, the survival after recurrence was similar between patients initially treated with SR or RFA (P = 0

90 tion nor time to target trough concentration between patients later experiencing BPAR or not.

91 t approach by comparing oncological outcomes between patients managed by watch and wait who achieved

92 ay mortality was not significantly different between patients managed with versus without extracorpor

93 e, extended hospital stay, and close contact between patients may serve as amplification platforms, f

94 Between patients, median tumor SUVmax varied up to 8-fol

95 atification showed a significant association between patients of group A, severe alteration, and the

96 However, mid-term survival was similar between patients on ECMO alone and those not on support

97 , we also compared fecal metabolite profiles between patients on hemodialysis and household contacts

98 ant expectations about prognosis were common between patients' physicians and surrogate decision make

99 ar whether the clinical presentation differs between patients positive for PLA2R1-Ab or THSD7A-Ab.

100 Differences in retention between patients presenting with CD4 counts just above v

101 The risk of 3-month mortality was similar between patients randomised to intensive BP-lowering tre

102 ective: To compare patient-reported outcomes between patients randomized to receive 1 of 2 graft type

103 corticoid doses revealed a clear distinction between patients receiving </=5 mg (n = 64) and >5 mg (n

104 remission rates did not differ significantly between patients receiving adjunctive antidepressants an

105 , and hospital characteristics were compared between patients receiving and not receiving palliative

106 We compared 30 day all-cause mortality between patients receiving appropriate (including an act

107 he difference in 30-day cumulative mortality between patients receiving blood stored for 30 to 42 day

108 s and clinical characteristics were compared between patients receiving early or delayed therapy, def

109 Safety was generally similar between patients receiving immediate treatment and those

110 26.36; P=0.02), but the rate did not differ between patients receiving immunosuppressive combination

111 e analysis was performed to compare outcomes between patients receiving LMWH and UH.

112 compared the diagnostic performance of cFFR between patients receiving low or iso-osmolality contras

113 hing was applied to create comparable groups between patients receiving MIG or OG, using year of surg

114 documented and did not differ significantly between patients receiving PaCE and those receiving CE.

115 There was no association between patients' self-management ability and HRQoL at b

116 -filter method that examines the association between patients' survival time after diagnosis with one

117 rs +/- standard deviation) was not different between patients taking only insulin (12.6+/-11.2 letter

118 ated as a means of normalizing drug response between patients to develop broadly applicable adherence

119 atic differences in baseline characteristics between patients treated and those not treated with a VC

120 spital outcomes and health care resource use between patients treated by very low-volume surgeons and

121 ompare the prevalence of clonal haemopoiesis between patients treated for cancer who later developed

122 difference occurred in events and mortality between patients treated medically or by intervention, b

123 pare the functional independence at 3 months between patients treated under the drip-and-ship paradig

124 e compared differences in these two outcomes between patients treated with aflibercept as compared to

125 in the onset of new allergen sensitizations between patients treated with AIT and pharmacotherapy.

126 and stent underexpansion without differences between patients treated with early- and new-generation

127 difference in overall survival was observed between patients treated with or without HCT (P = .671).

128 No difference in survival was observed between patients treated with or without HCT across all

129 , this study compared the oncologic outcomes between patients treated with RC or TMT by using a prope

130 This association did not differ between patients treated within 6 hours (OR = 6.4, 95% C

131 ference in mean CFT at baseline was observed between patients under systemic treatment and untreated

132 next-stage palliative or reparative surgery between patients undergoing a modified Blalock-Taussig s

133 compared characteristics and temporal trends between patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery, u

134 compared characteristics and temporal trends between patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery, u

135 Preoperative BSCVA did not differ between patients undergoing DSAEK (0.35 logarithm of the

136 ss-validation to prevent information leaking between patients used for training and validating the mo

137 Furthermore, no epidemiologic link between patients was identified.

138 tic variation in the HIV-1 genome within and between patients, which will be crucial for therapeutic

139 o achieve comparable posttransplant survival between patients who achieve successful tumor down-stagi

140 heart failure hospitalization, were compared between patients who adhered to serial evaluation guidan

141 the apparent lack of difference in outcomes between patients who are treated vs monitored (for the m

142 c stroke events did not differ significantly between patients who did (174 of 13505 [1.3%]) and did n

143 VT did not differ between patients who did and did not develop ARDS (p=0.4

144 in several demographic and clinical factors between patients who did and did not file for bankruptcy

145 domain scores during the 12 months after AMI between patients who did and did not participate in CR.

146 mpared using multivariable linear regression between patients who did and patients who did not have b

147 The model discriminated well between patients who died or survived within 60 days.

148 Conclusion Efficacy outcomes seemed similar between patients who discontinued nivolumab plus ipilimu

149 ms of discrimination (ability to distinguish between patients who have had an event from those who ha

150 enous thromboembolism after these procedures between patients who received anticoagulant therapy and

151 o adjust for potential confounding variables between patients who received at least 24 hours of inhal

152 sion, 90-day mortality, and overall survival between patients who received complete (45.0-50.4 Gy) an

153 , and the difference in primary nonadherence between patients who received electronic prescriptions a

154 vascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who re

155 conducted a retrospective case-control study between patients who received intravitreal injections of

156 Purpose To compare overall survival between patients who received neoadjuvant therapy (NAT)

157 found no significant differences in MI risk between patients who started PPIs vs H2RAs for the first

158 emergent dialysis, and short-term mortality between patients who underwent intravenous administratio

159 survival after retransplantation was similar between patients who underwent isolated allograft entere

160 g the root causes of the difference in costs between patients who underwent laparoscopic and open col

161 demonstrate a difference in patient survival between patients who underwent LAT versus SLK.

162 up, we did not find a significant difference between patients who underwent stenting and those who un

163 Rates of complications between patients who underwent total PPVs and partial PP

164 of postoperative complications were compared between patients who underwent total PPVs with shaving o

165 ifference found in botulinum toxin treatment between patients who used alleviating maneuvers and thos

166 nificant difference in overall survival (OS) between patients who were categorized as positive in com

167 We noted no difference in survival between patients who were in the HLAi group compared wit

168 e characterized by adequately discriminating between patients who will have an event and those who wi

169 pes (presence or absence of an aura) differs between patients whose IS was due to CEAD (CEAD IS) and

170 cular function, and aortic stenosis severity between patients with (n = 202) and patients without (n

171 re was statistically significantly different between patients with a diagnosis of dementia (median, 1

172 sought to compare rates of clinical failure between patients with a history of BL allergy who receiv

173 The gs-MELD score also discriminated between patients with a poor survival at 180 days (34% s

174 d analyzed the clinicopathologic differences between patients with acute and chronic thyroid eye dise

175 The diagnostic accuracy to discriminate between patients with acute myocarditis and healthy cont

176 compared mortality and readmission outcomes between patients with ADHF achieving a specific predisch

177 compared mortality and readmission outcomes between patients with ADHF achieving a specific predisch

178 Median cTn on presentation did not differ between patients with AIS or NSTE-ACS (95 versus 94 ng/L

179 ble biomarker that exhibits less variability between patients with ALS over time and is predictive fo

180 erlap in translocator protein binding values between patients with Alzheimer's disease and amyloidosi

181 ant differences in omega-6 PUFA serum levels between patients with AMD, DR, RVO and controls (p > 0.8

182 One-year mortality was compared between patients with AMI having: (1) no depression (PHQ

183 iobank samples showed significant reductions between patients with AMN (0.89 units/mg protein) and pa

184 nd resistive index (RI) values were compared between patients with and patients without appendicitis

185 patients with mTBI and control subjects and between patients with and those without PTM.

186 Results were similar between patients with and those without spondylolisthesi

187 and there were no differences in cTnT levels between patients with and without (n=90) abnormalities o

188 for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with and without a history of AF.

189 ignificant differences in diastolic measures between patients with and without a shunt and minimal di

190 e methods were then used to compare the risk between patients with and without amantadine treatment.

191 red demographic and clinical characteristics between patients with and without carcinoid syndrome usi

192 and without a shunt and minimal differences between patients with and without congenital heart disea

193 and adverse events were studied and compared between patients with and without DM.

194 One-year outcomes were compared between patients with and without early recovery.

195 We compared coronary event rates between patients with and without FH after ACS.

196 ccurrences of newly diagnosed cryptococcosis between patients with and without fluconazole for primar

197 ion (visits, hospitalizations) were compared between patients with and without IBD, and between IBD p

198 o significant difference in 6-month survival between patients with and without intracranial hemorrhag

199 icant differences in assessed outcomes noted between patients with and without LVNC irrespective of t

200 1-year arrhythmia-free survival was similar between patients with and without OSA (83.7% and 81.4%,

201 ms' and 'anaphylaxis' differed significantly between patients with and without osteoporosis, urticari

202 Five cardiovascular outcomes compared between patients with and without PEX included blood glu

203 We compared survival between patients with and without RVAD using Kaplan-Meie

204 analysis, we also compared TSPO availability between patients with and without suicidal thoughts.

205 of treatment, without significant difference between patients with and without SVR.

206 y matter volume and activation abnormalities between patients with ASD (structural MRI: 911; fMRI: 18

207 Prior violence-related arrest did not differ between patients with assault-related firearm injuries (

208 2, and G3 grade tumors (P < 0.0001) and also between patients with bone metastasis versus patients wi

209 k factor in PTC and call for differentiation between patients with BRAF V600E and wild-type BRAF when

210 Conclusion Qualitative CT features differed between patients with BRCA-mutant HGSOC and patients wit

211 Many cohort studies have described the link between patients with breast cancer and those with long-

212 hy in discrete neural networks that differed between patients with bvFTD and semantic dementia but in

213 Global amyloid-PET ratio between patients with CAA and controls was above 1, with

214 obal amyloid-PET uptake ratio did not differ between patients with CAA versus patients with deep intr

215 cept study to compare the prevalence of CHIP between patients with cancer who later developed therapy

216 ared age-stratified prevalence of each virus between patients with CAP and controls and used multivar

217 servational study comparing 14-day mortality between patients with carbapenemase-producing (CP)-CRE c

218 e also considered GMV and NAA/Cr differences between patients with CFS and 26 sex-, age-, and educati

219 tates and to compare hospital length of stay between patients with choledocholithiasis treated with e

220 The prevalence of CRC was similar between patients with confirmed serrated polyposis and m

221 colonic transit (P < .05), and discriminated between patients with constipation and controls with 94%

222 We compared mortality rates between patients with Cushing's disease and the general

223 r between isotropic and anisotropic palsy or between patients with cyclotropia of less than 7 degrees

224 ference was found in the type of reoperation between patients with DCIS and those with IBC.

225 istribution of lithium exposure was compared between patients with dementia and controls.

226 ughter during seminaturalistic conversations between patients with dementia and familial caregivers.

227 ebellar structures, and the high homogeneity between patients with dementia with Lewy bodies and Park

228 endon retraction, MTSWV varies significantly between patients with different degrees of retraction (P

229 easures are valid, reliable and discriminate between patients with different disease characteristics,

230 (MALT-IPI) also significantly discriminated between patients with different progression-free, overal

231 The mean CACS was compared between patients with different severities of coronary a

232 ongitudinal cognitive function were compared between patients with distinct SNAP (Abeta- and neurodeg

233 We highlight marked clinical overlaps between patients with either LGI1 or CASPR2 antibodies t

234 discovery set revealed the strongest changes between patients with either systemic inflammation or se

235 nd whether or not clinical findings differed between patients with ERM and CPR-type diplopia vs patie

236 onia and retinal misregistration are similar between patients with ERM associated with CPR-type diplo

237 sed to determine any demographic differences between patients with false-negative MP MR imaging findi

238 tion of duodenum (D2) and duodenal bulb (D1) between patients with FD and healthy controls (all P > 0

239 odenal degranulated eosinophil and mast cell between patients with FD and healthy subjects.

240 s at 4 weeks or posttreatment did not differ between patients with FEP and healthy control subjects.

241 uity in access to liver transplantation (LT) between patients with fulminant liver failure and those

242 gnificant differences in survival were shown between patients with G1, G2, and G3 grade tumors (P < 0

243 compare corneal hysteresis (CH) measurements between patients with glaucoma, ocular hypertension (OHT

244 Our aim was to compare outcomes between patients with HCC who underwent SLK and those wh

245 There were no significant differences between patients with IBD in remission vs controls (P =

246 in fecal microbiota abundance or composition between patients with IBS vs healthy patients.

247 t is important for physicians to distinguish between patients with Ig-unmutated CLL, where typically

248 fication accurately represents a distinction between patients with inflammatory and those with non-in

249 events over a median follow-up of 976.5 days between patients with LAE (left atrial diameter > 45 mm;

250 r depression was not significantly different between patients with limited vs extensive psoriasis (OR

251 management at 6-month intervals was similar between patients with low and normal distal flow.

252 tration of EVs in bile samples discriminates between patients with malignant vs nonmalignant CBD sten

253 total brain FA histograms and were compared between patients with mTBI and control subjects and betw

254 SE provided better discrimination between patients with mTBI and control subjects than mea

255 ; P = .01), as well as better discrimination between patients with mTBI with PTM and those without PT

256 Phenotypic differences between patients with mutations in these 2 genes have be

257 We did not find any difference between patients with NOAC-ICH versus VKA-ICH in all-cau

258 rsonality (Type D personality) were compared between patients with NOCAD and an age- and sex-matched

259 tus, psychological distress, and personality between patients with NOCAD and the general population,

260 the risk of developing ocular complications between patients with noninfectious intermediate uveitis

261 There was no association between patients with nonresponding tumors to induction

262 e is no difference in OPP and OAF parameters between patients with NTG and non-glaucoma controls, sug

263 ssure (OPP) and ophthalmic artery flow (OAF) between patients with NTG and those without glaucoma.

264 Adjusted MR ratios (MRRs) between patients with or without cirrhosis and their com

265 and hepatocyte growth factor differentiated between patients with or without neurological complicati

266 cant difference in progression-free survival between patients with or without predicted NK alloreacti

267 Difference in OCT characteristics of ONHD between patients with or without VF defects.

268 There was no difference in any interval between patients with pancreatic cancer and those with n

269 ion of bile EVs that could best discriminate between patients with pancreatic cancer from controls.

270 Quantitative parameters were compared between patients with pCR and those with non-pCR and bet

271 al of the PIT 360 degrees for distinguishing between patients with PD and healthy controls.

272 er markers that can be used to differentiate between patients with PD and MCI and patients with PD wi

273 verall survival did not differ significantly between patients with PDACs with dMMR or MSI vs without

274 IgE and IgG4 antibody binding to CM epitopes between patients with persistent CM allergy (CMA) and th

275 dverse outcomes, and mortality were compared between patients with polyneuropathy receiving long-term

276 gnificant demographic or clinical difference between patients with positive and negative DIF results.

277 ly, there was a significant difference in OS between patients with positive and negative Hopkins scor

278 No apparent association was recorded between patients with positive anti-AMG 334 antibodies a

279 (NCB) and high-risk plaque (HRP) prevalence between patients with psoriasis (n=105), patients with h

280 30 degrees C, allowing reliable distinction between patients with rapidly progressing or slowly prog

281 3 were found to be differentially regulated between patients with SAR and control subjects, with inv

282 nd differentially methylated in brain tissue between patients with schizophrenia and controls.

283 was no difference in wound complication rate between patients with SDD and those discharged 1 or 2 da

284 in the prevalence of carotid paragangliomas between patients with SDHB and SDHD mutations (7/11 [63.

285 of 1,693 genes were differentially expressed between patients with severe asthma and participants wit

286 d increase in the all-cause mortality hazard between patients with severe mental illness compared wit

287 The signature was able to discriminate between patients with severe symptoms, patients with mil

288 eline characteristics were generally similar between patients with stable renal function (n=9292) and

289 decompensation did not differ significantly between patients with stage 2 disease with or without an

290 The results were consistent between patients with STEMI and those with NSTEMI and ac

291 ce of and risk factors for depression differ between patients with stroke and a reference population

292 d DAO activities, and to compare the results between patients with suspected histamine intolerance, f

293 Group comparisons were made between patients with systemic lupus erythematosus with/

294 differences in these responses were observed between patients with T2D and control subjects.

295 patients with pCR and those with non-pCR and between patients with triple-negative breast cancer and

296 ith history of PPI intake (n = 184, p: 0.498 between patients without and with PPI intake).

297 atistically significant difference was found between patients without any breast lesions and patients

298 There was no difference in ECV between patients without iron overload and control subje

299 rdiac death and nonsudden death and compared between patients younger and older than this age cutoff

300 No significant differences were observed between patients younger than 80 years and those 80 year

WebLSDに未収録の専門用語（用法）は "新規対訳" から投稿できます。