ライフサイエンスコーパス: comparator

1 rvention) versus conventional walking shoes (comparator).

2 acebo (P<0.001 for each secukinumab dose vs. comparators).

3 acebo (P<0.001 for each secukinumab dose vs. comparators).

4 ge of cancerous cell lines, using L-ZOL as a comparator.

5 ed Smart GBS assay as a molecular diagnostic comparator.

6 comparator and bepridil, a torsadogenic MICE comparator.

7 es, using the APOEepsilon3/epsilon3 group as comparator.

8 pulation represents an unscreened, high-risk comparator.

9 ficient sample size, and current standard as comparator.

10 h the majority showing dominance against the comparator.

11 strating greater than 40% improvement vs the comparator.

12 eporting greater than 40% improvement vs the comparator.

13 reatment control group or treatment-as-usual comparator.

14 onsistent with this region acting as a value comparator.

15 signed to the pixantrone group and 70 to the comparator.

16 er acetate, was also included as a reference comparator.

17 rug was statistically inferior to the active comparator.

18 cted at the population level relative to the comparator.

19 ser bias, beta-blocker was used as an active comparator.

20 procedure, and ensuring the efficacy of the comparator.

21 al/ethnic disparities, using California as a comparator.

22 standard of care (SOC; biannual CD4) was the comparator.

23 ) symptoms and 204 typically developing (TD) comparators.

24 kely to occur with albiglutide than with all comparators.

25 disease (ADPKD) served as "external" non-GN comparators.

26 h data on 3282 procedure-matched, uninfected comparators.

27 35 patients who had appendicectomy with 5870 comparators.

28 remarkably similar to that of their cis-4'' comparators.

29 ight-chain (AL) amyloidosis acted as disease comparators.

30 ation of methods and definitions, and common comparators.

31 ubstantially more expensive than their trial comparators.

32 fore-and after-methodology without effective comparators.

33 DOPA PET/CT and CT/MRI served as the imaging comparators.

34 ion carriers compared with 4 of 1152 healthy comparators (0.3%).

35 0.73% to -0.58%]; mean difference vs. active comparators, -0.06% [CI, -0.18% to 0.05%]).

36 (1) reactive vaccination campaign (baseline comparator); (2) preventive vaccination campaign; (3) ro

37 cancer (27.8+/-0.7%; P<0.01) or cancer-free comparators (26.9+/-0.2%; P<0.0001).

38 lbiglutide (4870 person-years) and 2583 took comparators (5213 person-years).

39 cantly different between albiglutide and all comparators (58 events vs 58 events; hazard ratio [HR] 1

40 3.2%]), and used either an active or placebo comparator (87.1% [95% CI, 83.9%-90.2%]).

41 receipt of anthracycline chemotherapy versus comparators (965+/-3 ms; P<0.0001 for both).

42 tested for susceptibility to ceftaroline and comparator agents by reference minimum inhibitory concen

43 Levofloxacin and linezolid were tested as comparator agents for MIC and DD methods, respectively.

44 regarding cardiovascular outcomes versus the comparator agents in patients with or at risk for CAD.

45 Ceftaroline and various comparator agents were tested by reference Clinical and

46 and objectively measured weights; and had a comparator, an intention-to-treat analysis, and attritio

47 t compared MBSR with usual care or an active comparator and assessed pain intensity or pain-related d

48 table AF, verapamil, a non-torsadogenic MICE comparator and bepridil, a torsadogenic MICE comparator.

49 e (risk ratio 0.68 [0.52-0.88]; p = .003) as comparator and in studies performed in cardiac surgery (

50 level of the whole genome, using the Genome Comparator and Neighbor-net algorithms.

51 evidence because of the lack of an unexposed comparator and the complex homeostasis in nutrition are

52 were pooled to perform a comparison with all comparators and among themselves in both traditional fre

53 y of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) scores as comparators and to identify levels that might be valuabl

54 4 received ridaforolimus and 66 received the comparator), and median age was 66 years.

55 ychotic medication with placebo or an active comparator, and enrolling patients 18 years of age or ol

56 ; and design features, including enrollment, comparator, and longest duration of primary effectivenes

57 edge gaps for each population, intervention, comparator, and outcome question.

58 cal questions in a Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes format.

59 ng design features: randomization, blinding, comparator, and trial end point.

60 or cow's milk intervention with or without a comparator; and resolution of the hen's egg or cow's mil

61 ess the in vitro activity of ceftaroline and comparator antibacterial agents against invasive respira

62 onsive to widely registered standard-of-care comparator antibiotics.

63 -e4, and -e6 mice) and used a comprehensive comparator approach to determine whether different Bdnf

64 more studies with larger samples and active comparators are needed, these findings suggest that anxi

65 Data from the comparator arms of four phase 3 clinical trials in first

66 TDF/3TC/EFV was equivalent to its comparator arms.

67 NVP was either equivalent or inferior to its comparator arms.

68 ty test on paired data, with a best valuable comparator as a reference.

69 cles were excluded if they did not provide a comparator as key question 1 was designed as a problem,

70 The GP5+/6+-PCR EIA (EIA) was used as a comparator assay and showed sensitivities of 94.1% and 9

71 consistent with estimates calculated for the comparator assays (all P values were >0.1).

72 cobas 4800 performance was equivalent to the comparator assays (all P values, >0.05), and the fully a

73 Comparator assays included BD ProbeTec Chlamydia trachom

74 ata per panel member for CAP/CTM CMV test vs comparator assays was .17 vs 1.5 at 2.18 log(10) copies/

75 differences between the CAP/CTM CMV test and comparator assays were observed.

76 in the same bleed or earlier, compared with comparator assays, in a set of sequential samples from a

77 ay demonstrated greater sensitivity than the comparator assays.

78 QD)) or 4 mg twice daily (BID) or the active comparator atomoxetine (40 mg BID) vs placebo for 28 day

79 ssociation between higher SMD, waiting list (comparator) (beta = -0.33 [95% CI, -0.55 to -0.11]; P =

80 compared with usual care, placebo, or active comparators, but also with a 19% higher risk of any adve

81 We then demonstrate that comparators can be predictably composed together to buil

82 racrine factor production and, among various comparator cell types/subpopulations, provided the great

83 line evaluations, end points, study designs, comparators, clinically meaningful magnitude of effect,

84 ppendicectomy cohort and 2319 (39.5%) in the comparator cohort during a mean follow-up of 12.4 (stand

85 The ADHD comparator cohort included 360,362 children with 477,050

86 er 1, 2014, through December 31, 2015, and a comparator cohort of 25 patients with biopsy-proven ATTR

87 We also identified a non-JIA comparator cohort of children diagnosed as having attent

88 The rates in the ADHD comparator cohort were standardized to the age, sex, and

89 eive A&F: (i) with or without a health board comparator comprising the addition of a line to the grap

90 The study lacked an active-comparator control group and included relatively few gen

91 nd part 2, an open-label, randomised, active-comparator controlled study, in which participants were

92 blind, double-dummy, 3-arm, parallel, active-comparator controlled study.

93 For this randomised, comparator-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (1:1)

94 from phase 2 or 3 randomized and placebo or comparator-controlled trials (integrated parent trials)

95 uble-masked, multicenter, randomized, active comparator-controlled, clinical trial at multiple locati

96 In this randomised, parallel-group, comparator-controlled, single-blind phase 3 trial, we as

97 n Mexico and its 32 states, along with eight comparator countries in the Americas.

98 arkedly decreased, ranking Mexico well above comparator countries.

99 llel group, double-blind, vehicle and active comparator design and included 38 patients with chronic

100 n of studies to those using a neutral insole comparator did not show a significant or clinically impo

101 es, and for different haloperidol equivalent comparator doses.

102 nvestigators had to register their choice of comparator drug before randomly assigning a patient.

103 he number of spores following treatment with comparator drugs increased to the same level as the no-d

104 patients (305 exposed to lithium and 815 to comparator drugs) qualified for inclusion, providing 13

105 incidence) exposure to lithium or any of the comparator drugs, at least two eGFR values available in

106 h previous exposure to lithium or one of the comparator drugs, those with a previous diagnosis of sch

107 inhibitor therapy compared to treatment with comparator drugs.

108 ompared gatifloxacin with 1 of the following comparator drugs: cefixime, chloramphenicol, ofloxacin,

109 is consistent with these neurons serving as comparators during learning, perhaps as part of an odor

110 9 to 1.26) with peginesatide relative to the comparator ESA in the four pooled studies (2591 patients

111 y of peginesatide was similar to that of the comparator ESA in the pooled cohort.

112 zard ratio with peginesatide relative to the comparator ESA of more than 1.3.

113 nts associated with NOACs in comparison with comparators, expressed as odds ratios.

114 on study design, populations, interventions,comparators, financial models, implementation methods,ou

115 The comparator first simultaneously applies the two sets of

116 ncreas first and 19 who were assigned to the comparator first.

117 antly improved OS relative to the respective comparators (FOLFIRI and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab); in c

118 cist-led chronic disease management versus a comparator for community-dwelling adults in the United S

119 dentify brain regions that serve as a choice comparator for effort-reward trade-offs.

120 l differences between species and provides a comparator for rates of lineage splitting and morphologi

121 e parasite clearance, which is the reference comparator for the molecular marker 'Kelch 13' and in vi

122 to demonstrate an efficient Hamming distance comparator for two strings of analog states represented

123 The only comparator for which meta-analysis was performed was cry

124 337 DTaP-IPV-Hib vaccinees versus historical comparators for any outcome, including medically attende

125 We present a framework for building comparator gene circuits to digitize analogue inputs bas

126 assigned to albiglutide, placebo, or active comparators (glimepiride, insulin glargine, insulin lisp

127 did not differ significantly to that in the comparator group (0.4 mL/min/1.73 m(2) [SE 0.2].

128 did not differ significantly to that in the comparator group (0.9 mL/min/1.73 m(2) [SE 0.15]).

129 plan-Meier], respectively) compared with the comparator group (52.3% radiation retinopathy and 57.8%

130 group and 6.7 kg (CI, 5.4 to 8.0 kg) in the comparator group (mean difference, -1.1 kg [CI, -2.9 to

131 with four patients (5.7% [1.6-14.0]) in the comparator group (p = 0.021).

132 se-specific mortality than the institutional comparator group (P = 0.038).

133 was 76% in the HRS and 55% in the concurrent comparator group (p = 0.047).

134 ity rate was 7.7% in the HRS and 8.3% in the comparator group (p = NS).

135 omes, but small numbers and the absence of a comparator group limited widespread applicability of the

136 This did not occur in a comparator group of 10 patients treated with conventiona

137 A comparator group of patients screened concurrently but n

138 The deaths of a comparator group of people without intellectual disabili

139 th intellectual disabilities compared with a comparator group of people without intellectual disabili

140 a with MDS features compared with a combined comparator group of supportive care, low-dose cytarabine

141 Further studies should include a non-CRT comparator group to confirm these findings.

142 r group vs endoresection group) and P = .06 (comparator group vs endodrainage-vitrectomy group).

143 The log-rank test showed P = .014 (comparator group vs endoresection group) and P = .06 (co

144 cal mortality rate in the HRS and concurrent comparator group was 18.2% and 17.4%, respectively, and

145 iatric clinics and schools in Bucharest as a comparator group who had never been placed in an institu

146 d (277 to placebo and 554-555 to each active comparator group), 4118 of whom were included in the pri

147 patients vs 13 [19.4%] of 67 patients in the comparator group), leucopenia (16 [23.5%] vs five [7.5%]

148 same period (retrospectively assigned to the comparator group).

149 k 2 in the telaprevir group vs week 4 in the comparator group, and 94% vs 53% had undetectable viral

150 ty in viral suppression relative to the oral comparator group.

151 s including co-trimoxazole prophylaxis and a comparator group.

152 y of, or ineligible for, telaprevir were the comparator group.

153 of men achieved SVR12 vs 63% (30/48) in the comparator group.

154 n increase of 20% (IQR, -186% to 75%) in the comparator group.

155 y-negative individuals (n = 171) served as a comparator group.

156 in the endodrainage group, and 93.5% in the comparator group.

157 of topical azoles were used as an additional comparator group.

158 ents per 1000 patient-years) than in the all-comparators group (16 [0.6%] of 2583 patients; 3.4 event

159 ly between inhaled insulin groups and active comparator groups (no numerical estimate).

160 tions compared with contemporaneous surgical comparator groups (patients undergoing elective gastroin

161 significant differences between polypill and comparator groups have been reported.

162 es of cancer growth and regression using the comparator groups of eight randomised clinical trials th

163 Reduced kidney transplantation rates among comparator groups were driven more so by lower rates of

164 tients, respectively, in the three docetaxel comparator groups).

165 9, and 41 patients in the three mitoxantrone comparator groups).

166 Considering external comparator groups, and comparing with IgAN, autosomal do

167 als) compared with those allocated to active comparator groups, as was the decrease in forced expirat

168 ssion (IS) treatment, unlike the rest of the comparator groups.

169 potential confounding factors and absence of comparator groups.

170 t rates were similar in the intervention and comparator groups.

171 y because the use of serum creatinine as the comparator has several limitations and restricts the ful

172 9 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 2.3 months) for the comparator (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.90; P

173 All-cause mortality was similar as in comparators (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% confidence int

174 Cancer mortality was higher than in comparators (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.51-2.56; P < 0.001), pa

175 o in 45 studies (n = 11 232) and with active comparators in 13 studies (n = 5175).

176 The molecule outperformed most important comparators in selected tests, indicating its potential

177 The analysis relative to an antibiotic comparator included 17 deaths from cardiovascular causes

178 Comparators included intensive lifestyle intervention (I

179 Comparators included routine care, headphones with no mu

180 bipolar affective disorder and 1152 healthy comparator individuals.

181 ions in the context of bisphosphonate active comparator initiation and discontinuation trials, while

182 euptake inhibitors previously or during ICU; comparator intervention; and outcomes, and also assessed

183 Comparator interventions included placebo, artemether-lu

184 chnical factors, patient characteristics, or comparator interventions on estimates.

185 e or E coli and ten susceptible same-species comparator isolates and pertinent patient and hospital i

186 ctor T cell responses by 41-56%, whereas the comparator iTreg reduced these responses by 72-86%.

187 attributed to one of six GN subtypes or two comparator kidney diseases.

188 Studies with an efficacious comparator, longer follow-up and genotype-adjustment can

189 animals treated with standard antibiotics or comparator mAbs.

190 Compared with an active comparator, MBSR was not associated with significant dif

191 o complex foods and beverages, was used as a comparator measure of antioxidant capacity.

192 nnaire, and Utrecht Coping List were used as comparator measures in testing the construct validity of

193 e able to identify the neural signature of a comparator mechanism.

194 e remission, PFS and overall survival vs the comparator; median PFS was not reached in the subgroup o

195 rmance of these molecular techniques against comparator methods (bacterial culture, ELISA, and PCR) u

196 Comparator methods had limited sensitivity compared with

197 MIC values determined by the comparator methods tended to be higher than those for th

198 Positive samples by comparator methods usually had higher molecular quantiti

199 Active comparators (mild topical corticosteroids for pimecrolim

200 In scenarios with alternate comparator modalities, FHNHD remained dominant compared

201 A parametric comparator model specified that the observed EFS rate sh

202 Interestingly, a comparator N-terminal Abeta antibody 3D6, which binds bo

203 10 for 1990 and 2010 for the UK and 18 other comparator nations (the original 15 members of the Europ

204 ficantly reduced the risk of ICH against all comparators (odds ratio = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65).

205 of an outcome, population, intervention, or comparator of interest or if they were written in a lang

206 by comparing the HPV result with a combined comparator of Sanger sequencing and the Qiagen digene HC

207 Clinical trials showed noninferiority to comparators of both agents when used in the treatment of

208 umerous nematodes, ranging from evolutionary comparators of C. elegans to parasitic species that thre

209 ty-eight percent (ridaforolimus) versus 71% (comparator) of patients discontinued treatment as a resu

210 or the lack of the population, intervention, comparator, or outcome(s) of interest.

211 ubcutaneous placebo, or an open-label active comparator--oral alendronate (70 mg weekly) or subcutane

212 ectively developed Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions and quality of evidence st

213 assigned selected Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions or quality of evidence sta

214 A total of 34 Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome questions, five quality of evidence

215 ed by defining the population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, timing and setting of interest.

216 vs 19.18 [SD, 5.63] to 12.81 [SD, 6.88] for comparator [P < .001]).

217 Comparator participants were randomly assigned to 1 diet

218 Of 102 comparator participants, 53 (52%) were randomly assigned

219 pancreas period (0.52 [SD 0.83]) than in the comparator period (0.05 [0.17]; difference 0.47, 95% CI

220 ncreas period versus 9.0 mmol/L (1.6) in the comparator period (difference 1.1 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.7-1.6

221 nic pancreas period versus 1.9% (1.7) in the comparator period (difference 1.3%, 95% CI 0.8-1.8; p<0.

222 erformed from 2006 through 2013 to provide a comparator period that preceded statewide appropriatenes

223 ) along with 7 additional placebo and active-comparator phase 3 trials of duloxetine (n = 2515).

224 ed, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active-comparator, phase 1, dose-escalation study at one centre

225 Approximately half of all studies used no comparator (pivotal: 13/30 [43.3%]; completed postmarket

226 ibodies ("male plasma") than those receiving comparator plasma ("control plasma").

227 containing relatively more male plasma than comparator plasma).

228 inding activity were similar to those of the comparator plasma-derived (pd) VWF-pdFVIII.

229 out longer-term analyses with an appropriate comparator population.

230 Framingham AF risk algorithm was used as the comparator prediction model.

231 dy design features (randomization, blinding, comparator, primary end point).

232 0 x 10(5) TCID50 per 1.0 mL]), or the active comparator-Priorix.

233 illion), NS-colo (1.22 million), or low-risk comparator procedures (joint injection, aspiration, lith

234 ry events were no higher than after low-risk comparator procedures.

235 the quad pill is equivalent to that of other comparator regimens with low rates of discontinuation.

236 rate of dentists who received a health board comparator relative to those who did not (-4.3%; 95% CI

237 eived DTaP-IPV-Hib vaccine versus historical comparators (relative risk = 1.83, 95% confidence interv

238 ear, design, intervention type, system used, comparator, sample sizes, and effect on outcomes.

239 A comparator scenario also was simulated where CIT remaine

240 ; 95% CI, 0.72-0.81; P < .001) compared with comparator states (aRR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.94; P < .00

241 cember 31, 2012, in New York and a series of comparator states (Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Jers

242 f in-hospital mortality between New York and comparator states after 2010 were also similar (adjusted

243 37; P < .001) compared with a 9% increase in comparator states during the same period (aRR, 1.09; 95%

244 icy change in New York in 2006 compared with comparator states that did not enact such a change.

245 PCI remained lower in New York compared with comparator states throughout the study period.

246 003 to December 2013 in New York and several comparator states.

247 eeding simultaneously observed trends in the comparator states.

248 confidence interval, 0.84-0.92; P<0.001 for comparator states; interaction P=0.103).

249 ls, clade B isolates were more virulent than comparator strains, including the highly virulent refere

250 Medication treatment in comparator studies was associated with significantly mor

251 ive aggressive behavior and in nonaggressive comparator subjects.

252 tries and matched 1:10 to general population comparator subjects.

253 al registers and up to 10 matched population comparator subjects.

254 Comparator surgical patients included 5556 patients unde

255 pulations after implementation compared with comparator surgical populations, including those for amb

256 ly tested by a clinically validated standard comparator test (SCT), the GP5+/6+ enzyme immunoassay (E

257 The comparator tests were visual acuity, clinical evaluation

258 This is the first demonstration of a neural comparator that is differentially engaged depending on t

259 tudies, we recorded the intervention and its comparator, the setting, the sample size, whether enroll

260 by issues surrounding study design, choosing comparator therapies, participant and outcome selection,

261 lvic surgeries (36 gallbladder): among 2,762 comparators there were 134 abdominal or pelvic surgeries

262 hly pathogenic, and UUKV will now serve as a comparator to aid in the understanding of the molecular

263 UUKV could now serve as a useful comparator to understand the molecular basis for the dif

264 Subjects were crossed over to the comparator treatment for 4 weeks before the third labora

265 ed, double-blind, placebo-controlled, active-comparator trial, we compared guselkumab (CNTO 1959), an

266 ere were 13 placebo-controlled and 10 active comparator trials (2 also included placebo).

267 , placebo-controlled, parallel-group, active-comparator trials at 233 sites in 14 countries.

268 -controlled and 80 two- or multiarmed active-comparator trials including 246,955 individuals.

269 Among the 10 active comparator trials, flunarizine was more effective than p

270 ins using both placebo-controlled and active-comparator trials.

271 Comparators typically reflected the current standard.

272 resistance data, in the absence of regional comparators, US and Canadian indices were aggregated and

273 s of matched recipients without such cancer (comparators) using Cox regression.

274 We administered RTS,S/AS01 or a comparator vaccine to 6537 infants who were 6 to 12 week

275 from 57 clinical malaria cases (32 RTS,S/25 comparator vaccinees) and 152 controls without malaria (

276 d 152 controls without malaria (106 RTS,S/46 comparator vaccinees) were analyzed.

277 ut liver disease who initiated duloxetine to comparators (venlafaxine or selective serotonin reuptake

278 e (ARDS) were limited by the use of outdated comparator ventilation strategies and small sample sizes

279 RCT) received a single dose of Typbar-TCV or comparator "Vi polysaccharide" (Typbar), and 327 healthy

280 a greater change would be observed in active comparator vs placebo-controlled trials, and that more p

281 ctive response rate for ridaforolimus versus comparator was 0% versus 4% (P = .925), and stable disea

282 PFS rate for ridaforolimus versus comparator was 48% versus 18% at 16 weeks and 38% versus

283 The comparator was no screening or surveillance.

284 The usual care comparator was often poorly defined.

285 e, diet, and at least 1 other component; the comparator was standard care.

286 d of the 98.34% CI of the difference between comparators was larger than -13.0%.

287 ogestin or investigator choice chemotherapy (comparator) was undertaken in women with metastatic or r

288 Using normal colonic crypt epithelium as a comparator, we identify enhancers with recurrently gaine

289 s compared separately with placebo or active comparators, we noted no significant differences.

290 Primary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative

291 Patients and comparators were followed for 166 920 and 686 461 patien

292 dividuals with cirrhosis and 951 age-matched comparators were identified.

293 ISC-IV scores between trial participants and comparators who had never been placed in an institution,

294 2011, and April 11, 2014, and 49 children as comparators who had never been placed in an institution.

295 ngs were similar in analyses with concurrent comparators who received other DTaP-containing vaccines

296 The comparator with a small footprint can directly process a

297 With the use of a comparator with incident CAD alone (n=154 183), we asses

298 erved with EES was consistent across all DES comparators with no interactions apparent during any tim

299 as 33% with ridaforolimus versus 6% with the comparator, with common (> 10%) grade 3 toxicities being

300 Using siblings as comparators yielded no statistically significant risk di