1 bilization of treatment effect, after the maximum treatment
effect was observed.
2 For valproate, no
effect was observed (
17.8% with valproate v 17.2% without val
3 In the case of quercetin, a promoting
effect was observed (+
9.8%) when its concentration increased.
4 ave an increased probability of survival, while an opposite
effect was observed among subjects carrying the T-T-A haploty
5 A weaker
effect was observed among subjects in more remote locations.
6 Importantly, this
effect was observed at an energy level of 50.25 keV, but not
7 This dox
effect was observed at low doses for multiple AR target genes
8 of tumor growth induced by estradiol sulfate, and no toxic
effect was observed by assessing the body and liver weights.
9 The opposing
effect was observed during generation of MSCs from human plur
10 This
effect was observed ex vivo on isolated aortas, but also in v
11 The opposite directional
effect was observed for 14 genes, including IL27, a cytokine
12 A statistically significant pre- versus posttreatment
effect was observed for MCCB speed of processing, verbal lear
13 Significant intervention
effect was observed for one secondary outcome variable: knowl
14 No
effect was observed for participants advantaged by inequality
15 A persistent treatment
effect was observed for PRM-151 in patients who continued tre
16 A significant floor
effect was observed for the De Morton Mobility Index at awake
17 The strongest
effect was observed for the E226Q/E105Q mutant, which almost
18 The opposite
effect was observed for the hippocampus in regards to somatom
19 A high cytopathic
effect was observed for the isolates positive for the two mai
20 In contrast, a dramatically weak resonance
effect was observed for the same mode with the polarization p
21 For colon cancer, no significant
effect was observed;
however, due to low power, no conclusion
22 ficantly inhibited CRC tumor xenografts [p < 0.001], but no
effect was observed in a STAT3(-/-) tumor model.
23 A decreased condition pain modulation
effect was observed in all patient groups compared with contr
24 The maximal
effect was observed in children who received >75% of the curr
25 No such protective
effect was observed in empty MSs and single-drug MSs treated
26 No cytotoxicity
effect was observed in macrophages treated with extracts from
27 presence of frailty reduced the survival rate in women, no
effect was observed in men.
28 No antiarrhythmic
effect was observed in the acute UDCA administration group.
29 An additional attenuation
effect was observed in the cerebellum that is ipsilateral to
30 Furthermore, a significant gender
effect was observed in the thalami, with higher GABA/Water in
31 In secondary analyses no
effect was observed on biomarkers of microbial translocation.
32 No cannabis
effect was observed on cellular HIV RNA transcription.
33 line) were similar to the observations in Min6-K8 cells, no
effect was observed on glucagon secretion in alpha-TC6 cells
34 Although no differential
effect was observed on interviewer-rated PTSD severity, there
35 No
effect was observed on posttransplant mortality or percent of
36 ies of IgG(2) (+) and IgG(4) (+) memory B cells, whereas no
effect was observed on the IgE(+) memory B-cell compartment.
37 No significant treatment
effect was observed on the Scale for Suicide Ideation (least
38 A dose-dependent
effect was observed only for ROS production.
39 The positive post-DAA era
effect was observed only in HCV patients with first graft los
40 genesis does not lead to long-term seizure reduction as the
effect was observed only transiently for 10 d with >4 weeks o
41 r Animal (4.7 +/- 0.9) (P = 0.012), but a significant order
effect was observed (
P = 0.023).
42 PP was applied to the biochar amended soil, a counteracting
effect was observed,
since the N(2)O mitigation induced by DM
43 A similar
effect was observed upon NaCl exposure.
44 genes, even in the absence of symbiosis; while the opposite
effect was observed upon SlDLK2 silencing.
45 Importantly, the same
effect was observed when the distractor preceded the executio
46 A dose-dependent blocking
effect was observed with CP-101,606 (0.5-15 mg/kg) and result
47 ted when using only SFC/HRMS, whereas no significant matrix
effect was observed with the CPCxSFC/HRMS approach.
48 A time-dependent treatment
effect was observed with the experimental strategy being asso
49 However, a dose-response
effect was observed,
with maximal benefit in children attendi
50 This treatment
effect was observed within each individual component of the c