ライフサイエンスコーパス: control group

1 -up in the intervention group and one in the control group).

2 ths) and 66 patients with no history of HSK (control group).

3 8 had diarrhea in the absence of norovirus (control group).

4 izing chromatogram peaks were also analyzed (control group).

5 five in the intervention group; seven in the control group).

6 oup) or hypothermia treatment alone (n = 55; control group).

7 urvivors) or within a comparable time frame (control group).

8 thers (experimental group) or on themselves (control group).

9 ive rabbit VX2 tibial tumors were untreated (control group).

10 featuring negative Acanthamoeba PCR results (control group).

11 in the intervention group and 13 247 in the control group).

12 months, in accordance with current practice (control group).

13 usly over 30 min on 1 day, followed by ASCT (control group).

14 c service announcements about health issues (control group).

15 ger in the PLCO control group than the ERSPC control group.

16 to carry out a surgical CT with a legitimate control group.

17 e standard arterial PF technique served as a control group.

18 phy (CSA group), and 25 patients served as a control group.

19 in the intervention group, compared with the control group.

20 pplement (18 mg/d) group, or 3) a nonplacebo control group.

21 ) in the sunitinib group and 37 (50%) in the control group.

22 etaxel cycles (median, 6) vs 8 cycles in the control group.

23 were lower in the gastric bypass than in the control group.

24 gnificantly greater in PRF compared with the control group.

25 ive patients, they have the same risk as the control group.

26 uced P300 amplitude to target onset than the Control group.

27 roup of children who stutter compared to the control group.

28 rupted made biased choices more often than a control group.

29 prevalence was higher in the OSA group than control group.

30 in the coadministration group and 415 in the control group.

31 to 71% (95% CI [60%, 82%]) of infants in the control group.

32 ed increased relative to baseline and to the control group.

33 ns of heavy metals, compared to those in the control group.

34 group, low dose group, captopril group, and control group.

35 aw stimulation, found to be innocuous in the control group.

36 compromised patients without IPA served as a control group.

37 sychosomatic clinic, and 50.5% belonged to a control group.

38 ts in the study group and 85 patients in the control group.

39 rupted made biased choices more often than a control group.

40 was detected in the MDD as compared with the control group.

41 h NAION at the chronic stage and eyes in the control group.

42 Rock Pinot Noir, 13.5% alcohol) group, and a control group.

43 OLE) trials that included a standard-of-care control group.

44 blast number by threefold, compared with the control group.

45 ere reported by two (1%) participants in the control group.

46 CI 1.02-1.16, p=0.014) than children in the control group.

47 0.0001) in the intervention group versus the control group.

48 the depressed suicide group, but not in the control group.

49 d 17 lipids, respectively, compared with the control group.

50 s in the memory task were as accurate as the control group.

51 group versus 24% (25 of 103 patients) in the control group.

52 the tele-education system compared with the control group.

53 Five mice were in the noninduced control group.

54 D: -0.27; 95% CI: -0.52, -0.03) than did the control group.

55 ess (EST2 = .59; P = .002) compared with the control group.

56 for either dopamine receptor subtype in the control group.

57 heating of tissue, as well as a sham-treated control group.

58 on that required antibiotic therapy than the control group.

59 91% to 99% that costs were lower than in the control group.

60 oup, and 7965 women and 5180 children in the control group.

61 -therapy (T2) and at equivalent times by the control group.

62 found in the vaccine group compared with the control group.

63 novel phonological sequences relative to the control group.

64 ts; 937 were in the ICD group and 937 in the control group.

65 group and 10.8% (95% CI, 3.5 to 23.0) in the control group.

66 , and 39 non-IBS subjects were included as a control group.

67 Outcomes did not differ among test and control groups.

68 rkers were all up-regulated versus isotropic control groups.

69 tory distress syndrome patients than in both control groups.

70 (DCT) and was compared between the study and control groups.

71 cted poor survival in study group as well as control groups.

72 in the open group compared with the placebo-controlled group.

73 significantly between the optic neuritis and control groups [+0.059 percentage units/mm (pu/mm) versu

74 as met in 24 (77%) of 31 participants in the control group, 13 (35%) of 37 participants in the Vi-TT

75 .2] years) randomized to the intervention or control group, 13 of 168 controls (7.7%) and 25 of 168 i

76 e ABL phenotype was calculated relative to a control group (143 mice maintained on standard chow diet

77 observed in group 2 (3.3%, P<0.001) and the control group (2.6%, P<0.001).

78 group (52 [91%] of 57 patients) than in the control group (24 [65%] of 37 patients; difference 26.4%

79 ts was similar in the intervention group and control group (27 [17%] of 155 vs 30 [18%] of 165, aOR 0

80 ficantly higher in T1DM patients than in the control group (3.38+/-0.66 vs. 1.32+/-0.35; p<0.001).

81 lower in the intervention group than in the control group (31 [33%] of 94 participants vs 42 [49%] o

82 participants completed challenge (31 in the control group, 35 in the Vi-PS group, and 37 in the Vi-T

83 re enrolled and randomly assigned; 34 to the control group, 37 to the Vi-PS group, and 41 to the Vi-T

84 The case group had more males than the control group (38 [51.4%] vs 272 [36.8%]).

85 aled normal inflammatory patterns similar to control groups 48 hour after the last challenge.

86 ence in mean change in CAL (P <0.001) in the control group (5.42 +/- 1.99) and the test group (5.99 +

87 greater improvements in blood pressure than control groups: -6.4 mm Hg (95% CI, -8.6 to -4.2; 6 stud

88 ced in the treatment group compared with the control group [8.3% vs 32.0%, P = 0.043 (1-sided), P = 0

89 d primary health-care clinic-based HIV care (control group), according to national guidelines for 18

90 y higher proportion of patients in the tight control group achieved the primary endpoint at week 48 (

91 7.6) in the GES group and 22.9 (6.9) in the control group (adjusted difference -4.2 points, 95% CI -

92 3.3) in the GES group and 50.8 (25.3) in the control group (adjusted difference 6.3 points, 1.8 to 10

93 p, and decreased by 2.9 points (15.5) in the control group (adjusted difference 6.4 points, 95% CI 2.

94 in the xenon group and 1.56 +/- 1.38 in the control group (adjusted mean difference -0.66; 95% confi

95 to 12 mo in the intervention group than the control group (adjusted mean difference 0.31; 95% CI 0.0

96 ible participants, five (4.5%) of 110 in the control group and 10 (3.4%) of 297 in the trastuzumab gr

97 105 (86%) of 122 patients in the tight control group and 100 (82%) of 122 patients in the clini

98 2-15.3]), of whom 684 were randomized to the control group and 685 to the intervention group.

99 misphere association of motor ability in the control group and an atypical rightward shift in the ASD

100 0.0001) in the intervention group versus the control group and colorectal cancer mortality was reduce

101 Recurrences occurred once in the control group and did not occur in the intervention grou

102 n (TPJ) in the experimental more than in the control group and differentially modulate the connectivi

103 se events occurred in 22% of patients in the control group and none of the patients in the alcohol-fr

104 andomisation was done in batches so that the control group and participants not yet randomised were u

105 ll was 1.06 +/- 0.81 and 1.0 +/- 0.97 in the control group and test group, respectively.

106 The next 57 patients (group B) served as a control group and underwent ablation using a conventiona

107 rticosteroid group, and in 2 patients in the control group and were completely resolved after switch.

108 n have been performed without no-weight loss control groups and in individuals with obesity-related m

109 dy group vs four [1%] of 378 patients in the control group) and grade 3-4 adverse events (52 [7%] pat

110 followed by intramyocardial PBS injections (control group), and LAD ligation followed by NP12 admini

111 in the total group, 45.8 [12.9] years in the control group, and 47.9 [13.3] years in the informed con

112 ed in stroke patients relative to non-stroke control groups, and negatively associated with post-stro

113 alence of PAD in COPD compared with distinct control groups; and (2) study the association between PA

114 d IFA-MNP (P = 0.002) groups than in the IFA-Control group at 24 mo.

115 observed in the test group compared with the control group at 3 and 6 months.

116 9.3 units [CI, 5.9 to 12.7 units]) than the control group at 3 months, and improvements were sustain

117 ent in clinical parameters compared with the control group at 6, 9, and 12 months.

118 lower in the intervention group than in the control group at follow-up.

119 cantly longer in the study group than in the control group (both were 28 months vs 10 months, respect

120 hat regulated a large number of mRNAs in the control group but not in the exposed groups, suggesting

121 ern of attentional bias toward threat in the Control group but not in the stress group.

122 a robust induction of depressed mood in the control group, but no effect in the supplement group [43

123 roup (IG) and standard monitoring program or control group (CG).

124 The control group comprised 73 dacryocystorhinostomies in 63

125 The other control group comprised the entire renal transplanted po

126 e directives on day 1 of ICU admission and a control group comprising patients with no limitations of

127 The main limitations were the absence of a control group continuing antiepileptic drug treatment an

128 udged to be related to treatment (two in the control group [coronary artery disease and multiorgan fa

129 ] in the cetuximab group vs 158 [25%] in the control group), decreased leucocyte count (103 [16%] vs

130 he closed-loop group and 38.1% (16.7) in the control group (difference 21.8% [95% CI 10.4-33.1]; p=0.

131 ent group and 32 (26%) patients in the tight control group discontinued the study, mostly because of

132 owing 6.5 times higher concentration than in control group dosed with the same amount of free Lf.

133 The control group drank equal volumes of water and avoided d

134 tracer uptake in participants compared with controls (group effect, F = 8.0; P = .006).

135 mposite score (a secondary outcome) than the control group, especially in children with a higher FMI.

136 ing sclerostomy (5/29, 17.2%) as compared to control group eyes (12/31, 38.7%), though differences we

137 Compared with the control group, FMD did not change in the weight-loss gro

138 masked sad faces in the experimental versus control group following rtfMRI-nf.

139 significant improvements in the training vs. control group for each of the test subscores.

140 d no difference between the intervention and control group for FMI.

141 al supply direct cost increased 7.42% in the control group, from $712 (IQR, $202-$1602) (16441 cases)

142 infants in the nusinersen group than in the control group had a motor-milestone response (21 of 51 i

143 infants in the nusinersen group than in the control group had a motor-milestone response (37 of 73 i

144 group and 251 of 509 patients (49.3%) in the control group had died (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI,

145 group and 195 (9.4%) of 2071 children in the control group had received a diagnosis of RW from a medi

146 cetuximab group and 31 (5%) patients in the control group had severe adverse events.

147 More patients in the control group had shock at enrollment (14 vs 3 patients)

148 The r-AKI and control groups had similar prepregnancy serum creatinine

149 fMRI-nf group, compared with only two in the control group, had a >50% decrease in MADRS score.

150 s higher in the nusinersen group than in the control group (hazard ratio for death or the use of perm

151 s higher in the nusinersen group than in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.37; P=0.004), a

152 ups compared with the motor neuropathies and control groups (hazard ratio [HR], 2.45; 95% CI, 1.66-3.

153 A healthy control group (HC, n = 168) was composed according to ag

154 ly longer in the cetuximab group than in the control group (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.86; p=0.0071), alt

155 nts matched for cardiovascular risk factors (control group I), and 119 consecutive LT recipients with

156 e LT recipients without any CV risk factors (control group II).

157 was lower in the amblyopic group than in the control group in both 3 x 3-mm and 6 x 6-mm scans.

158 quality of life than an age- and sex-matched control group in the domains of self-care, usual care, a

159 Our findings are limited by the absence of a control group in the study.

160 differences between the treatment groups and control group in the trends of MELD change over time (p=

161 reased VCAM-1 expression with respect to the control group in various tissues, including the aorta, a

162 The use of a placebo and of double-blind control groups in surgery CTs would improves the quality

163 t difference was found between the study and control groups in terms of hypertension, diabetes mellit

164 ss disorder, anxiety, or depression than did control groups in two studies.

165 y allocated to the intervention group or the control group (in a 1:1 ratio in Rong county and in a 5:

166 o receive sodium thiosulfate or observation (control group) in addition to their planned cisplatin-co

167 ) at 1 year (difference 12%), whereas in the control group it increased from 64% (703 of 1092 patient

168 SPINK1 gene mutation was found, while in the control group it was found in 3 patients (0.7%), (p > 0.

169 and long-term studies, the use of suboptimum control groups, loss to follow-up, and difficulties in r

170 ng to recruit adults with disabilities and a control group matched for age, sex, and residential loca

171 bserved for FMI between the intervention and control group (mean +/- SD: -0.23 +/- 0.56 compared with

172 group compared with 31.7 (27.1) days in the control group (mean difference, 17.9; 95% CI, 3.71-32.01

173 ordering volume between the intervention and control groups (mean 77.7 +/- 89.3 vs. 85.4 +/- 111.4; p

174 At 12 weeks, compared with the control group, mean fatigue score was 19.1 (SD 7.6) in t

175 in the 35 mg/kg rifampicin group than in the control group (median 48 days vs 62 days, adjusted hazar

176 Relative to the vehicle control group, mice receiving corticosterone had a signi

177 , and 24 (n = 3379) mo.Compared with the IFA-Control group, motor development scores were higher in t

178 hadone maintenance treatment (n = 23) with a control group (n = 24) in a memory and a visual perceptu

179 n the treatment group or HTK solution in the control group (n = 4/group).

180 These animals were compared to a control group (n = 5) and a model of lung injury induced

181 in Togo assigned microenterprise owners to a control group (n = 500), a leading business training pro

182 p (n = 13) and 11.3 (2.2) mmHg in the larger control group (n = 51) (P = 0.24).

183 ved one to 37 doses of gadoxetic acid) and a control group (n = 52; subjects had never received injec

184 function; (2) an age- and sex- matched hyper-control group (n = 6, 83% male, age 46 +/- 14 years), no

185 (n = 146) in the denosumab group than in the control group (n = 99).

186 omly assigned to the active group (n=153) or control group (n=158).

187 rs to the intervention group (n=2636) or the control group (n=1748); 4383 participants comprised the

188 oup (n=60, 76 teachers and 6383 children) or control group (n=60, 67 teachers and 4430 children).

189 roup, n = 28), or to clinical training only (control group, n = 26).The primary outcome was patient-r

190 s and Sedation scale (OAAS) was less than 4 (Control group, n = 59).

191 and received FCM (n=86) or standard of care (control group, n=86).

192 I and II GRs were previously treated by CTG (control group; n = 20) or CTG + LLLT (test group; n = 20

193 signment 2:1 to CGM (n = 105) or usual care (control group; n = 53).

194 pirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (control group; n=1576).

195 s of surgical realism: (1) SimMan (Laerdal) (control group, no surgical anatomy); (2) "synthetic anat

196 atients after acute anaphylaxis with several control groups (nonallergic, history of allergen-trigger

197 o caries active compared to 213 (39%) in the control group (odds ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval

198 d the posterior cingulate cortex than in the control group (odds ratio=0.54, 95% CI=0.38, 0.77).

199 A control group of 229 mother-infant dyads did not receive

200 of 30 eyes from 30 patients with NAION and a control group of 31 eyes from 31 age and gender-matched

201 A control group of 50 eyes from 50 healthy subjects was in

202 oup with changes in prescribing by a matched control group of similar physicians not subject to a det

203 and cytopathology (PALGA) and matched with a control group of women without CIN3.

204 groups (16 in the autism group and 15 in the control group) of Chinese children's Mismatch Responses

205 In addition, oleic acid contents of control group oils vary between 65.98% (Sogancioglu) and

206 Control-group oncologists (n = 12) and patients (n = 86)

207 This was not observed with the control group or with (18)F-FDG PET/CT imaging.

208 me since transplantation) to receive 1 dose (control group) or 2 doses (booster group) of the influen

209 Comparing with control group, orthokeratology group had a significantly

210 deaths in the cetuximab group and 593 in the control group, overall survival did not differ between t

211 zumab died compared with 1298 (12.1%) in the control group (P < .001).

212 the ASV group versus 35.1/h to 19.0/h in the control group (p < 0.0001).

213 ower in CRVO and BRVO groups compared to the control group (p < 0.001).

214 mean PD reduction of 3.37 +/- 1.62 mm in the control group (P <0.001) and 4.13 +/- 1.59 mm in the tes

215 een in the probiotic group compared with the control group (P <0.001): lower PI and GI, less BOP, les

216 5% in the asymmetrical group vs 2.45% in the control group (P = .006).

217 mpared with 62 of 896 patients (6.9%) in the control group (P = .01) and 78 of 896 patients (8.7%) in

218 .3% (95% CI, 31.9%-80.6%) of patients in the control group (P = .02).

219 patients (8.7%) in the ophthalmology clinic control group (P = .06).

220 compared with 70 mL (IQR, 33-145 mL) in the control group (P = .19), the absolute difference 20 mL (

221 % higher for the intervention group than the control group (P = 0.008).This mHealth obesity preventio

222 in the treatment group versus 1 (1%) in the control group (p = 0.01).

223 REseal group and 1 day (range: 0-3 d) in the control group (P = 0.8357).

224 ased more in all exercise groups than in the control group (P<0.001 for between-group comparisons).

225 the (177)Lu-Dotatate group versus 3% in the control group (P<0.001).

226 s 10.4% in group 2 (P<0.001) and 8.6% in the control group (P<0.001).

227 atients (12.6%, 10.1-15.1) in the concurrent control group (p=0.040).

228 DHA group and in 49.7% of the infants in the control group (P=0.06).

229 reatment group versus 0.5+/-5.0 mm Hg in the control group (P=0.14).

230 e of screening between the active choice and control groups (P = .88).

231 not differ significantly between the ASV and control groups (p = 0.92 Wilcoxon).

232 (7.8% in the FOREseal group vs 11.3% in the control group, P = 0.264) and the average duration of ch

233 (6% in the thrombectomy group and 3% in the control group, P=0.50), nor did 90-day mortality (19% an

234 atohepatitis group vs 0.014 +/- 0.008 in the control group; P < .001).

235 scores on patients' confidence compared with control group participants (P = 0.01).

236 nces were found between B2A-CIC-negative and control group patients.

237 general Kaiser Permanente Hawaii population control group, patients who had thyroid disease had a 1.

238 re positive only for IgA aB2GP1 (n=240); and control group, patients who were negative for IgA aB2GP1

239 nal group received the same treatment as the control group plus 7.5 mg/kg intravenous bevacizumab on

240 group and 19 managers (733 employees) in the control group provided data for the primary analysis.

241 program during 6 sessions (1/month) and the control group received measurements (questionnaires, uri

242 The control group received standard care.

243 The control group received usual primary care (n=361).

244 n 6-mo-old rural Malawians compared with the control group receiving a corn-soy blend.A prospective,

245 ded to challenge a superior's decision, or a control group receiving general crisis management instru

246 were allocated to either standard treatment (control group receiving IVF consisting of 1mg of recombi

247 and in 13 of the 716 patients (1.8%) in the control group (relative risk, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.7; a

248 p and in 3 of the 720 patients (0.4%) in the control group (relative risk, 1.6; 95% confidence interv

249 roup and 0.5% and 0.4%, respectively, in the control group (repeated-measures model P < .001).

250 patients in the booster AIT group as in the control group reported having a better state of health t

251 % (95% CI, 4.1-32.9) in the intervention and control group, respectively (P = 0.005).

252 ) sustained recovery in the intervention and control groups, respectively.

253 bserved in the antiadhesin bIgG and positive control groups, respectively.

254 AP group, and 24 (7%) of 359 patients in the control group (RR 0.40, 0.19-0.82; p=0.01).

255 in the intervention group versus 0.7% in the control group (RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, P = 0.231).

256 group and 495/1,952 (25.4%) children in the control group (RR = 0.90 [95% confidence intervals 0.80-

257 r the bivalirudin group vs 48 [4.3%] for the control group; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.63-1.39; P = .74) or

258 r the bivalirudin group vs 11 [1.0%] for the control group; RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.64-3.01; P = .40).

259 We found that the control group showed negative radiological performance w

260 zed as either PRF (test group) or OFD alone (control group) sites.

261 ervention groups but were longer in the PLCO control group than the ERSPC control group.

262 GI bleed compared with a matched historical control group that did not receive octreotide (24% versu

263 Compared with the control group, the anorexia nervosa group exhibited grea

264 n the same dynamic network as in the healthy control group, the medial prefrontal cortex had a "hyper

265 In the control group, the most frequently reported grade 3 or w

266 same analysis was repeated in the dry eye or control groups, the ratio was significantly higher after

267 and 6.9 mm Hg (95% CI, 5.9-7.8 mm Hg) in the control group; the difference in the reduction was 5.4 m

268 ference (+0.15 z score compared with the IFA-Control group); these outcomes did not differ between th

269 ation and psychotic symptoms relative to the control groups (those with mood fluctuations but no psyc

270 ge, there are no studies with an appropriate control group to evaluate how such patients would do wit

271 For the control group, traditional intraoperative measurements w

272 In contrast, the isotropic control groups underwent endochondral ossification.

273 scored as the changes were much smaller in a control group using a key press to generate the sounds i

274 Donor blood transfusion rate was 3.5% in the control group versus 2.5% in the intervention group (adj

275 rse events occurred in 6% of patients in the control group vs none of the patients in the alcohol-fre

276 A control group was established using the SGC-7901/vector

277 When the control group was extended to patients infected by other

278 The control group was obtained from the Collaborative Transp

279 The control group was treated with MI and given oral hygiene

280 fferences in local relapse compared with the control group were -0.73% (-0.99 to 0.22) for the reduce

281 , and the corresponding rates in the healthy control group were 1.26%, 10.13%, 39.24%, and 49.37% (al

282 The mean OPA in the study group and the control group were 2.01 +/- 0.69 mmHg and 1.97 +/- 0.68

283 and 42 (67%) of 63 managers allocated to the control group were entered in the deferred training grou

284 patient characteristics between the MSSP and control group were generally small after geographic adju

285 In bivariate analysis, patients in the control group were more likely to require additional sur

286 Two control groups were chosen at a 4:1 ratio for comparison

287 RANKL activities in SR900 and control groups were close to each other (P >0.05).

288 d persistent scar tissue for 10 weeks, while control groups were healed after 4 weeks.

289 six in the gemcitabine group and five in the control group) were ineligible because of pre-existing m

290 thiosulfate group vs 145 [65%] of 223 in the control group), whereas the most common non-haematologic

291 targets than the neutral-cued targets in the Control group, which suggests a rapid, adaptive response

292 itations of this study include the lack of a control group, which was not included due to ethical con

293 pared with 6 of 47 patients (12.8%) from the control group with a rate ratio of 6.6 (95% confidence i

294 ghly prevalent in the noro compared with the control group with an odds ratio of 75.0 (95% confidence

295 ved two exposure groups (high and low) and a control group, with a 6 day aqueous exposure, followed b

296 the amblyopia group and 60.1% (3.3%) in the control group, with a difference of 5.7% (95% CI, 3.4%-8

297 te group as compared with no patients in the control group, with no evidence of renal toxic effects d

298 Comparisons were made between screening and control groups, with primary analyses by intention to tr

299 For the control group without templates, the largest RMSDs were

300 2005 to December 2012) were compared with 2 control groups without prior angiogram, 72 LT recipients