ライフサイエンスコーパス: compared to control

1 the anterior left ventricular epicardium of DBH-Sap hearts compared to control.

2 rized TF genes increased total glucan hydrolysis on average compared to control.

3 analysis of urine and plasma confirmed no toxicity of LNCs compared to control.

4 in further enhancement in uptake, which was 2 fold greater compared to control.

5 that DiNP exposure significantly decreased estradiol levels compared to control.

6 re significantly increased histological damage in the colon compared to control.

7 biomethane potential (~ 2.86 x 10(4) m(3) ha(-1) year(-1)) compared to control.

8 as significantly reduced in IUGR skeletal muscle sarcolemma compared to control.

9 ncreased apoptotic factors (Aifm1 and Bcl2l10) in the colon compared to control.

10 ups resulted in significant changes in GI and BOP at Day 42 compared to control and un-flossed control (P<0.05).

11 aming gel significantly reduced the PI in Group 1 at Day 42 compared to control and un-flossed control (P=0.02; P=0.007,

12 al response was higher in male Abcb1(-/-) mice after gavage compared to control animals (+115%; p < 0.05), but was unchan

13 ITF.OE cells grew faster in vitro and as xenografted tumors compared to control cells.

14 Furthermore, compared to control children, those with PME were characteriz

15 Compared to control conjunctiva, GC number and area were sign

16 with the most specific connectivity to migraine coordinates compared to control coordinates (voxel-wise probability of >=

17 When compared to control, Cripps Pink fruit fumigated with BC and

18 ant, diverse, and compositionally different bee communities compared to control edges.

19 .0001) and higher FDD (P = .0002; P = .0076, respectively) compared to control eyes.

20 model, we show that females preferred GBH-contaminated food compared to control food.

21 d by CAGE exhibited significantly different biodistribution compared to control formulations.

22 175 +/- 640), and photobiomodulation (69 +/- 54) treatments compared to control group (7321 +/- 4099).

23 r, KHN was significantly reduced in EDTA and GA groups when compared to control group (p<0.001).

24 Mindfulness groups showed reduced depression compared to control groups (g=.14, 95%CI[.01-.28], p<.042).

25 hat more equally, and perceive their groups more positively compared to control groups with a robot that either makes neu

26 Analysis of tryptophan-deficient states as compared to control in both germ-free or E. coli gut microbio

27 illation show sixfold lower levels of myocardial calcitonin compared to control individuals with normal heart rhythm, wit

28 and found that ACE2 was highly expressed in these patients compared to control individuals.

29 Compared to control/low treatments, during high noise playbac

30 played similar bladder pressure and urine secretion ability compared to control mice especially at 6 months posttransplan

31 Compared to control mice, circadian clock disruption signific

32 s better recovery of cardiac contractile function after AMI compared to control mice.

33 abnormalities (i.e. sinus pause and sinus arrhythmias) when compared to control mice.

34 twork, but only demonstrated a slightly reduced brittleness compared to control networks.

35 and between changes in contextual stimuli in an open arena compared to control neurons.

36 imary outcomes, there was no effect of any UBL intervention compared to control on women's past-year experience of physic

37 and TNF-alpha levels were significantly reduced in Group 2 compared to control (P(IL-6) =0.01, P(TNF-alpha) =0.02).

38 umber of times, dream frequency was reduced in the patients compared to control participants, and the few dreams they rep

39 When compared to control periods, we found no evidence that colony

40 lly CA12g05030, which was 700-fold more expressed at 96 HPI compared to control plants.

41 rmfree Hydra polyps are significantly more sensitive to ALP compared to control polyps.

42 muscle numbers of alpha SMA and pERK immunopositive cells, compared to control rats.

43 ivo, CO(2) -RWE induced stronger allergic lung inflammation compared to control-RWE, as indicated by lung inflammatory ce

44 aptoglobin-related protein as a possible marker of IPF when compared to control samples (Area under the curve 0.851, ROC-

45 d and protein oxidative stabilities and proteolysis pattern compared to control straight-dry-ageing.

46 y to the mitochondria were diminished in patients with COPD compared to control subjects.

47 was significantly increased in each of these disease groups compared to control tissues.

48 prior and 90 days following outbreak on inpatient units was compared to control units not in outbreak over the same perio

49 smaller and did not uptake detectable amounts of (18)F-FDG, compared to control (untreated).

50 At Snook, higher yield 31.6% and 35.6% compared to control were observed in AgNP-treated Riverside a