1  were retrospectively identified that could, in retrospect, be identified on the previous CT scans (t

2 eatures of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random s

3 ow-up is often recommended for lesions that, in retrospect, do not fulfill established diagnostic cri

4  Past discoveries usually become aggrandized in retrospect, especially at jubilee celebrations, and t

5                                              In retrospect, failure of anti-CD4 Abs to induce toleran

6                                              In retrospect, however, steady-state mRNA abundance leve

7                                              In retrospect, it is not surprising that the polyhydroxy

8                                              In retrospect, the clinical phenotype in the family is c

9                                              In retrospect, the donor's clinical presentation (which

10  as 2 criteria for operability to determine, in retrospect, the efficacy of preoperative testing in p

11                                              In retrospect, the failure of MMPIs to alter disease pro

12                                              In retrospect, the literature often contains earlier hin

13 racteristics were then used to determine if, in retrospect, the mammographic appearance met previousl

14                                              In retrospect, the three most important building blocks

15 they did not need hospitalization said that, in retrospect, they believed they had needed it.

16                                              In retrospect, this could occur at the level of receptor

17 N-terminal extensions of VP1 and VP2, which, in retrospect, were present in lower-resolution structur

18                                              In retrospect, when the analyses were completed, her UP-

19           This hypothesis was then compared, in retrospect, with a known opinion established followin