ライフサイエンスコーパス: discrepancy

1 for major discrepancies and p=0.21 for minor discrepancies).

2 netic resonance (CMR) and document causes of discrepancy.

3 understand the reasons behind this apparent discrepancy.

4 ic explanation that reconciles this apparent discrepancy.

5 ntly we have a limited understanding of this discrepancy.

6 s required for minimization of the emissions discrepancy.

7 ator at room temperature and found a similar discrepancy.

8 assays, while the TP.PA assay displayed some discrepancies.

9 greements and committee review for remaining discrepancies.

10 .0001) for shifts with versus those without discrepancies.

11 ndently classified all outcomes and resolved discrepancies.

12 associated with increased major interpretive discrepancies.

13 iple sites (12) on PET-CT accounted for most discrepancies.

14 identify the most likely sources of earlier discrepancies.

15 is, and examine factors associated with such discrepancies.

16 and a discussion of possible reasons for the discrepancies.

17 time they were made, primarily explain such discrepancies.

18 ive result, with a third test to resolve any discrepancies.

19 urrent study was designed to reconcile these discrepancies.

20 eoretical models and prevents attacks due to discrepancies.

21 efinitions could be important sources of the discrepancies.

22 7.60 +/- 60.24; volume for shifts with major discrepancies, 118.96 +/- 66.89; P < .001).

23 echanism that (1) explains the cause of this discrepancy, (2) helps to develop a remedy to eliminate

24 To address this discrepancy, a dynamic computational model of the cell w

25 herence ranking as independent predictors of discrepancy (adjusted OR 11.0 (95 % CI 1.8-67.4), 20.7 (

26 Despite a trend for more discrepancies after more consecutive days worked, the di

27 erval, -6.9, 7.8) with equal distribution of discrepancy along the full range of LVWT.

28 been elucidated due to the data scarcity and discrepancies among experimental observations.

29 udy was to assess the magnitude and types of discrepancies among patient-reported and medical record-

30 bservable and highlighting the potential for discrepancies among standardized drought indices in a no

31 A categorical score discrepancy among centers occurred for 21 isolates (14.0

32 This relationship highlights the discrepancy among literature-reported rate constants and

33 Discrepancy analysis using results for retested samples

34 Additional discrepancy analysis was performed by using the Xpert C.

35 od agar as the "gold standard" and following discrepancy analysis were as follows: sensitivity, 82% a

36 Five genotype-phenotype discrepancies and eight controls were then re-tested wit

37 ns in rich media, contextualize intra-screen discrepancies and evaluate virulence-linked gene distrib

38 ot significantly different (p=0.65 for major discrepancies and p=0.21 for minor discrepancies).

39 r-model of model error to quantify a model's discrepancy and apply it to two models of complex biolog

40 We explored the etiology of this discrepancy and determined that IL-1R1(-/-) mice contain

41 We account for the discrepancy and extend our understanding of the auto-inh

42 conditions were consistent with less than 8% discrepancy and they were about 91-98% of the Soxhlet ex

43 To resolve this discrepancy and to characterize the ligand-binding path

44 ical that incorporates recent work, resolves discrepancies, and highlights key questions for future e

45 Concordance, major discrepancies, and minor discrepancies were calculated a

46 TIM in normal and malignant cells, we expose discrepancies, and we reflect on the potential of Orai-S

47 Biomass MW discrepancies are accentuated in microbial community sim

48 Some discrepancies are caused by differences in expert assess

49 We show that these discrepancies are due to the inaccuracy of the DFT + U s

50 The discrepancies are large: from 5 to 10 log units.

51 Possible reasons for this discrepancy are evaluated and discussed.

52 rfaces and light-permeable materials and why discrepancies arise between the perception and physics o

53 of partial denitrifiers in soil and whether discrepancies arise between the presence of known N-oxid

54 We hypothesize that these discrepancies arise for metabolites far from the lower l

55 The discrepancy arises due to morphological irregularities i

56 th a significant difference in the number of discrepancies as a function of study volume (volume for

57 This discrepancy begs the question of how AAV2 and HSV-1 can

58 ed monolayer loadings, which largely explain discrepancies between BET areas and NASAs.

59 ts, and possible mechanisms that may explain discrepancies between bioavailability and bioefficacy.

60 INTRODUCTION: Discrepancies between diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) fin

61 Discrepancies between DTI findings and clinical measures

62 responses along the Bragg curve and resolve discrepancies between experimental data and current RBE

63 Furthermore, discrepancies between GEM predictions and the in vivo da

64 patterned by the notches can account for the discrepancies between growth dynamics in the notch-drive

65 globally high correspondence and some local discrepancies between influenza genetic and antigenic ev

66 able selenium supplements were evaluated and discrepancies between labeled ingredients and detected s

67 following six mechanisms potentially causing discrepancies between leaf and ecosystem-level estimates

68 Discrepancies between manual grades and ARIAS results we

69 tained on a bistable system and to interpret discrepancies between measurements on different types of

70 Discrepancies between medicines consumed by patients and

71 This together with some taxonomical discrepancies between methodologies suggest that the PGM

72 s to particle deposition may help to explain discrepancies between model-based expectations and exper

73 The discrepancies between models highlight the importance fo

74 Discrepancies between NHS and WHI could largely be attri

75 Our process resolved 72% of nearly 300 discrepancies between pairs of laboratories to within a

76 and other-generated movements by monitoring discrepancies between planned and performed actions.

77 ABABR activation of mTORC1 helps resolve key discrepancies between rapid-acting antidepressants and l

78 Discrepancies between reviewers were resolved through di

79 We sought to describe and analyze discrepancies between sexes in the outcomes of patients

80 -based n-i-p planar solar cells show minimal discrepancies between stabilized efficiency (19.0%) and

81 The results resolve long-standing discrepancies between structural and functional data.

82 ority by an iterative option of MAFFT showed discrepancies between the aligner-specific score and the

83 In general, there were marked discrepancies between the four long-term LAI products.

84 Discrepancies between the gamma-probe and SPECT/CT may b

85 While EEG analysis exhibited significant discrepancies between the groups, none of the cognitive

86 under basic forms of active quality control, discrepancies between the outputs of the model and exper

87 ggested that social prediction errors-coding discrepancies between the predicted and actual outcome o

88 cal modulations was previously proposed, but discrepancies between the solid state conformations and

89 We identified several discrepancies between the two sources of self-reported e

90 iew summarizes evidence, research needs, and discrepancies between top-down and bottom-up approaches

91 Importantly, this discrepancy between a strong intracellular and a mild su

92 in addition to reward prediction error (the discrepancy between actual and predicted values).

93 The apparent discrepancy between catalyst speciation and product dist

94 Thus, the apparent discrepancy between development of structure and functio

95 lity of disorder in the SAM and a systematic discrepancy between different estimates of the thickness

96 n, is not sufficient to explain the observed discrepancy between EC50 and Kd These results indicate t

97 The most common discrepancy between experimental and clinical observatio

98 We report that there was a discrepancy between FGFR1 amplification level and FGFR1

99 The phenomenon of a discrepancy between glycated hemoglobin levels and other

100 Fundamentally, there is a discrepancy between iceberg power-law size-frequency dis

101 The discrepancy between inhibitor titer and bleeding phenoty

102 We propose a novel explanation for the discrepancy between isotope ratios of the soil water pro

103 ed from the expected value of unity, causing discrepancy between k3 maps and total (18)F-FMISO uptake

104 use) takes place in Fresno's croplands, with discrepancy between local annual surface water yields an

105 n-RAC aerosol emissions, are required if the discrepancy between methods is to be reduced.

106 tchment nitrogen output not only reduced the discrepancy between nitrogen inputs and outputs (9.9 kg

107 and language abilities, including a smaller discrepancy between nonverbal and verbal IQ and a greate

108 pect of complex pore structure of shale, the discrepancy between pore structure results from differen

109 e provide a theoretical explanation for this discrepancy between previous theoretical studies and rec

110 Mismatch occurs when there is a discrepancy between produced gestures and co-occurring s

111 Twenty-seven patients (54.0 %) had >/=1 discrepancy between reported and documented medicines.

112 ical care, at present there is a substantial discrepancy between research knowledge and its clinical

113 Furthermore, the authors describe a discrepancy between scientists' ideals and practices whe

114 in syndromes might help in understanding the discrepancy between signs and symptoms in DED.

115 There is significant discrepancy between sources of patient medication inform

116 To explain the discrepancy between structural data from crystallography

117 Participants defined "capacity strain" as a discrepancy between the availability of ICU beds, provid

118 mon mental health disorders, given the large discrepancy between the demand and supply of healthcare

119 There remains a large discrepancy between the known genetic contributions to c

120 54 products, which likely contributed to the discrepancy between the MS- and RT-qPCR-based results.

121 etwork, trained to minimize the Maximum Mean Discrepancy between the multivariate distributions of tw

122 cell-size distribution, although there is a discrepancy between the observed power-law exponent and

123 There is a discrepancy between the perception of patients and paren

124 es analyzed to date - partially explains the discrepancy between the rather low nucleotide diversity

125 than the physiological optimum and that the discrepancy between the two increases as the ecological

126 dependent on innate growth potential and the discrepancy between the two optima and, therefore, is po

127 The discrepancy between the visual field defect and the opti

128 To address this discrepancy between theory and data, we study a simple,

129 The discrepancy between this pattern and that traditionally

130 have experimentally discovered a substantial discrepancy between Tj values with, and without, PISO (e

131 lant and posttransplant patients despite the discrepancy between virtual and actual crossmatch result

132 Workload may contribute to agreement discrepancies by limiting the physician-patient relation

133 We sought to understand this discrepancy by characterizing the sensitivity of rod pho

134 helps to develop a remedy to eliminate this discrepancy by identifying three transient phases, (3) h

135 In this study, we resolve the discrepancy by measuring the chromophore exchange rate o

136 utational model to investigate this apparent discrepancy by studying the expected population response

137 We explained this discrepancy by the differences in the relative level of

138 innovative aspect of this study explains the discrepancy: by including index attempt deaths-approxima

139 Some of these discrepancies can be explained by the nonselective appli

140 Here we show that this discrepancy can arise naturally because of simple proces

141 This discrepancy can be attributed to the presence of conform

142 This discrepancy can be explained by the evolution of the cry

143 At the community scale, this discrepancy can be measured by comparing the spatial shi

144 We show that this discrepancy can be resolved if the periplasmic volume de

145 ong magnetic field regime, we find a 7-sigma discrepancy compared with the theoretical prediction.

146 Possible explanations for this discrepancy could include influence from confounding fac

147 This discrepancy could result from varying changes in SOC com

148 o-EM) and X-ray crystallography studies, but discrepancies exist concerning the assignment of cement

149 cian behavior and indicates that significant discrepancies exist in how scorecards are perceived by p

150 rived and reanalysis products, although some discrepancies exist in their trends.

151 ies have evaluated this problem and numerous discrepancies exist regarding the primary reasons and ri

152 a careful analysis of past work reveals that discrepancies exist, that different explanations for the

153 A discrepancy exists with regard to the effect of smartpho

154 Moreover, a discrepancy exists with respect to theoretical calculati

155 ty for the main AAGs within the species, and discrepancies for minor compounds.

156 We find similar discrepancies for other choanoflagellate species, highli

157 tations alone, but the implications of these discrepancies for treatment outcome are unknown.

158 A retrospective analysis of all major discrepancies from a 2015 quality assurance database of

159 Controversies from basic science, discrepancies from clinical trials, and divergent result

160 re identified to have intermodal measurement discrepancies >/=10%.

161 odels differed by 5-50%, while 8 models have discrepancies >50%.

162 However, considerable discrepancy has been found between DEGs detected using t

163 This discrepancy has been hypothesized to result from inhibit

164 This discrepancy has fostered two hypotheses: either other as

165 Mechanisms causing this discrepancy have so far remained elusive.

166 Important discrepancies, however, reflect differences in the assum

167 The discrepancy, however, is removed after data reveal that

168 The number of major discrepancies in a single shift ranged from one to four,

169 ed liposarcoma without impacting OS, whereas discrepancies in adjuvant systemic therapies did not imp

170 the discovery of a large number of apparent discrepancies in assembly and annotation of these genome

171 Conclusion: Considerable discrepancies in cardiovascular screening guidelines sti

172 e microenvironments that may help to explain discrepancies in deep-sea biogeochemical budgets.

173 ns in pristine clouds, but they showed large discrepancies in dust-mixed clouds.

174 Although discrepancies in FcepsilonRII-mediated functions are bei

175 Objective: To characterize discrepancies in findings of ROP between digital retinal

176 We attempt to disentangle the discrepancies in how physicists and biologists use the t

177 Reconciling these discrepancies in how we evaluate gene essentiality has a

178 Discrepancies in inclusion and exclusion criteria and VE

179 l multisensory systems are able to cope with discrepancies in information provided by individual sens

180 Discrepancies in interpretation between testing laborato

181 ee-map comparison, we noticed that the major discrepancies in land use changes among the three maps w

182 aled in the acute phase after MI substantial discrepancies in myocardial tissue texture between the 2

183 riability in cell quality is a main cause of discrepancies in preclinical studies.

184 Our findings not only help to bridge the discrepancies in previous studies about synaptic vesicle

185 may result from variations in trial methods, discrepancies in reporting, and an overreliance on surro

186 Age at first trauma could help explain discrepancies in results of past studies of trauma and A

187 ition are disproportionately larger than the discrepancies in the biomass weight estimate.

188 vations, which appear to be mainly caused by discrepancies in the different experimental protocols ap

189 ities in earlier reports, and highlights the discrepancies in the estimation of trap densities from e

190 ed from local interplanetary dust, and large discrepancies in the inferred brightness of the optical

191 ypic analyses of mutant strains that suggest discrepancies in the literature concerning GpsB might ha

192 ts thus give insight to help resolve current discrepancies in the literature regarding pilus stiffnes

193 tudy provides practical confirmation of past discrepancies in the literature regarding the variable e

194 pendent haloperoxidases to account for these discrepancies in the merochlorin and napyradiomycin clas

195 is relatively high; however, there are wide discrepancies in the prevalence and causes of attrition

196 Contextualizing mortality explained discrepancies in the prioritization of death among stake

197 nation for many of the wavelength-dependency discrepancies in the published literature.

198 We identify major discrepancies in the spatial patterns of winter Northern

199 Discrepancies in the spectroscopic data between syntheti

200 e screened for eligibility, and any possible discrepancies in this screening were resolved.

201 Our findings show significant discrepancies in vessel length density in FGR placentas.

202 investigated the role of cortisol in gender discrepancy in a zebrafish model of HCC.

203 lled at each institution on the magnitude of discrepancy in adverse effect-reporting between patients

204 This discrepancy in findings leaves it unclear if episodic me

205 ellite datasets are used to investigate this discrepancy in forest cover change estimates in China be

206 We find that this root-class-specific discrepancy in GSA response to low phosphorus is mirrore

207 ence of social determinants of health to the discrepancy in IQs, which was 13%.

208 sis as a platform to selectivity wherein the discrepancy in oxidation potentials between internal ver

209 The most common area of discrepancy in ROP classification is stage, although int

210 This discrepancy in SOAT inhibition by BeauIII was investigat

211 ive correlation between the magnitude of the discrepancy in the frequency of reporting adverse effect

212 lular pressure dynamics explain the apparent discrepancy in the interpretation of experimental result

213 xpression may be responsible for some of the discrepancy in the level of protection detected for the

214 n the PDLT group because of significant size discrepancy in the main bronchus (P < 0.05).

215 hed clinical data by using the percentage of discrepancy in the mean, time to 90% peak, peak value, a

216 Discrepancy in the supply-demand relationship for critic

217 kidney transplantation is costly, with wide discrepancy in utilization and a limited evidence base,

218 Key discrepancies include the following: leaf-scale data ind

219 Proposed explanations for the discrepancy include ocean-atmosphere coupling that is to

220 have been suggested to explain this apparent discrepancy including inaccurate measurements of intrace

221 ues of deltaDeltam, and the magnitude of the discrepancy increases with R.

222 We show that this discrepancy is due to a voltage-dependent spike-synchron

223 The reason for this discrepancy is not known.

224 uire GLN for survival and the basis for this discrepancy is not well understood.

225 all 30 deidentified transcripts and resolved discrepancies (kappa = 0.85).

226 ent was high along particle track, with some discrepancy manifesting at track-end.

227 These discrepancies may be due to the subtlety of brain altera

228 Such discrepancies may relate to different interpretations of

229 This discrepancy may be attributed to the use of ASL for CBF

230 Here we explain how this discrepancy may be due to englacial solar warming, where

231 This discrepancy may be related to distinctly different cosmo

232 Understanding the reasons for this discrepancy may reveal insights into the complex relatio

233 re, ITC experiments performed to solve these discrepancies now show that the region containing the Co

234 n of variants, a better understanding of why discrepancies occur and how they can be reduced is neede

235 In 31 (15.9%) patients, measurement discrepancy occurred at diagnostic or prognostic cut-off

236 ction of enantiomers with hybrid material, a discrepancy occurs in the Gibbs free energy leading to a

237 honon bands of bonding carbon atoms, and the discrepancies of phonon bands between carbon atoms are r

238 The discrepancy of energy band structure was thought to be t

239 ed MR images in all cases, with a positional discrepancy of less than 2 mm.

240 g region AU content, could fully explain the discrepancy of miR159 silencing efficacy.

241 and the stoichiometry was attributed to the discrepancy of this value to the previous reports.

242 dies of ultra-short DNA sequences revealed a discrepancy of up to six orders of magnitude between exp

243 cture of SmB6, which reconciles many current discrepancies on this compound.

244 Consistent with this observed discrepancy, PF analysis revealed that FED exerted its e

245 ur results provide insight into the observed discrepancies relating to the role of FGF/ERK signalling

246 The reasons for the discrepancy remain unclear.

247 Results A total of 4294 major discrepancies resulted from 2 922 377 examinations (0.15

248 Discrepancy still exists at early time 0-15 ps, likely d

249 This discrepancy suggests that the parameters used for simula

250 This discrepancy suggests that there are events occurring dur

251 luding the Tagus isostatic model, with minor discrepancies that demand further improvement of regiona

252 This study provides explanations for the discrepancies to clarify the relationship between preecl

253 adiologist identifiers were used to link the discrepancies to radiologists' shifts and schedules.

254 Given the relevance of this discrepancy to P450 chemistry, it is important to determ

255 This discrepancy to previous findings illuminated selectivity

256 ransients, which revealed that a significant discrepancy (up to 29% under present conditions) was evi

257 We resolve this discrepancy using a hydrodynamic framework that simultan

258 rprisingly, investigation revealed that this discrepancy was due to loss of HIV DNA from the 8E5 cell

259 sed on mass transfer theory to show that the discrepancy was due to the differences in water flow vel

260 This discrepancy was explained by finding that BCR KO-induced

261 This discrepancy was largely eliminated during the blockade o

262 a uniphasic injection protocol for which the discrepancy was less than 25%.

263 This discrepancy was most prominent within the adaptive CD56(

264 ated with plasma over a 144-h time-course, a discrepancy was observed between the measured released f

265 To clarify these discrepancies, we employed the technology of direct elec

266 To clarify these discrepancies, we obtained serotype 35C and 42 clinical

267 To elucidate this discrepancy, we analyzed a regulatory role of IkappaBzet

268 To clarify this discrepancy, we examined a different aspect of astrocyte

269 To resolve this discrepancy, we explored the role of the distal histidin

270 To address this discrepancy, we expressed the entire ectodomain of mouse

271 In seeking to understand this discrepancy, we find that many of the barcoded genes use

272 RPs in the absence of NO3(-) To explain this discrepancy, we investigated in detail the spatiotempora

273 To explore this discrepancy, we investigated the role of TNF signaling i

274 To address this long-standing discrepancy, we measured hippocampal activity from roden

275 To scrutinize this discrepancy, we propose a lattice-inertia thermal anchor

276 To overcome this discrepancy, we tested toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic model

277 Striving to explain this discrepancy, we uncover a functional mechanism of A-to-I

278 Discrepancies were adjudicated by a reading center super

279 Measurement discrepancies were apparent for all 4 outcomes, with the

280 Concordance, major discrepancies, and minor discrepancies were calculated and analyzed by paired non

281 Discrepancies were identified during a secondary review

282 The most frequent discrepancies were misclassifications in lymphoma subtyp

283 0 for sorption and 1.8 for degradation), but discrepancies were not easy to relate to the characteris

284 The frequency of autopsy and PMCTA discrepancies were not significantly different (p=0.65 f

285 For the light gas oils, discrepancies were noted between SFC results and GC-vacu

286 esults were compared to routine testing, and discrepancies were resolved by additional nucleic acid a

287 Discrepancies were resolved by two researchers.

288 d by at least 2 team members, independently; discrepancies were resolved in a second round, by team d

289 Discrepancies were resolved through consensus.

290 Patients with >/=1 discrepancy were older (p = 0.04) and multivariate analy

291 la: see text], which may lead to significant discrepancies when comparing to experimentally measured

292 For the global network, the time discrepancy (whether the study outcome was measured duri

293 identification and harmonization of variant discrepancies will maximize the clinical use of genetic

294 tests indicate that resolving the remaining discrepancies will require energy function improvements

295 reatment with CCB therapy demonstrated large discrepancies with current international guidelines.

296 ly good agreement, although some significant discrepancies with prior experimental studies were found

297 refore lead to a better understanding of the discrepancies with process-based projections.

298 w agreement with other in-field findings and discrepancies with some lab-based findings, with importa

299 A major discrepancy with the gold standard was noted in 12 (6%)

300 perature as a function of pressure, in large discrepancy with theoretical expectations.