ライフサイエンスコーパス: intersubject

1 or approximately 3700 of those, and assessed intersubject (4 donors) as well as intrasubject (3 diffe

2 Intersubject agreement for lipids identified as rhythmic

3 Intersubject analgesia scores correlated to activity wit

4 Intersubject analysis identified a correlate of head mot

5 variability was assessed by using intra- and intersubject analysis of variance and Bland-Altman analy

6 To determine intersubject and intereye variability, 98 eyes of 49 hea

7 We found significant intersubject and interspecies gaze correlations, suggest

8 We tested this approach, examining intersubject and intrasubject variability and the validi

9 To identify sources of error, we compared intersubject and retest variability of brain uptake, art

10 p differences and performed well in terms of intersubject and test-retest variability.

11 Intersubject averaging of structural magnetic resonance

12 n the present study, the authors used linear intersubject averaging of structural MR images to evalua

13 powerful intrasubject design, as well as an intersubject case-case design, to generate a list of dif

14 l metrics; however, DeltaRnet showed a lower intersubject coefficient of variation (64%) than all of

15 The intersubject coefficients of variation after PBMC (43%)

16 When comparing different subjects, a higher intersubject consistency was found for stimulus-evoked a

17 Intersubject correlation (ISC) of neural time courses wa

18 Here, we used an intersubject correlation approach in fMRI to test the hy

19 We analyzed the encoding data for intersubject correlations (ISC) based on subjects' subse

20 multisubject voxelwise similarity measures [intersubject correlations (ISCs)] of functional MRI data

21 We found enhanced intersubject correlations among viewers with high-risk p

22 Whole-brain intersubject correlations between the neural timeseries

23 Intersubject correlations in the pattern of evoked brain

24 metabolite ratios in longitudinal intra- and intersubject cross-sectional studies.

25 ossibility with an analysis of intra- versus intersubject differences in connectivity comparing high-

26 ell-to-cell variability to the prediction of intersubject differences in response to pharmacological

27 Intersubject differences in the facilitation-inhibition

28 In contrast, intersubject differences that emerge within groups are d

29 Large intersubject differences were found in both listener gro

30 e or remove the effects of retinal location, intersubject differences, and abnormally small K1 amplit

31 tortions previously reported reflect genuine intersubject differences.

32 18 seroconverters from Baltimore had a mean intersubject distance of 13.2%.

33 The CH method supports intermodality and intersubject global spatial normalization of tomographic

34 aim is to minimize variability in intra- and intersubject, intra- and interplatform, interexamination

35 f the brain is characterized by considerable intersubject morphological variability.

36 ls also showed strong, significant ROI-based intersubject Pearson correlations with R1,DED/R1,PiB and

37 Intersubject pharmacokinetic variability for zidovudine

38 Instantaneous intersubject phase synchronization (ISPS) was computed t

39 n percentage of histologic fibrosis was 18% (intersubject range, 5%-40%).

40 Intersubject reproducibility was examined by repeated-me

41 All intrasubject and three of six intersubject section prescription variances were signifi

42 ility of imaging orientations for intra- and intersubject series in clinical practice.

43 half and test-retest reliabilities, both the intersubject stability and score agreement were high for

44 The intersubject standard deviation of the thickness measure

45 The moral principle guiding intersubject trade-off decision making observed in our s

46 ion in maximum concentration (Cmax), and the intersubject variabilities (coefficient of variation [CV

47 Large intersubject variabilities in acoustic injury are known

48 (11)C-MePPEP had relatively poor retest and intersubject variabilities, which were likely caused by

49 e samples obtained from healthy individuals (intersubject variabilities: 30-89%; n = 9), which sugges

50 y, V(T) had a good retest variability (14%), intersubject variability (26%), and intraclass correlati

51 mpared with controls, and showed significant intersubject variability (decreases in vermis ranged fro

52 after multiple oral administrations, and the intersubject variability after oral and 2-hour intraveno

53 al biomarkers may help clinicians understand intersubject variability and better predict the success

54 We discovered significant intersubject variability and differences between stool a

55 0.3 to 0.8, showed the best intrasubject and intersubject variability and reliability.

56 The normal intersubject variability and the dynamic ranges of the m

57 n be used as a biomarker, data on intra- and intersubject variability and validity are needed.

58 vity analyses, our results revealed that the intersubject variability at birth features lower variabi

59 nfancy is a period featuring a high level of intersubject variability but the brain basis for such va

60 Differential measures may help to reduce intersubject variability due to unrelated factors.

61 s a unique means to probe the brain basis of intersubject variability during infancy.

62 odology to unravel the ionic determinants of intersubject variability exhibited in experimental recor

63 The intra- and intersubject variability for PET expressed as the coeffi

64 Intersubject variability in behavioral adaptation rate c

65 Psychophysical measures are also affected by intersubject variability in central processing.

66 Intersubject variability in Cmax and AUC(0-t) was small

67 In addition, the intersubject variability in cochlear expression of the a

68 Intersubject variability in connectivity was significant

69 ment resting-state functional MRI to explore intersubject variability in connectivity.

70 tribution, inter-hemispheric asymmetries and intersubject variability in cortical curvature, sulcal d

71 There is considerable intersubject variability in early neurological course af

72 ative messenger RNA analysis revealed marked intersubject variability in expression of OATPs and NTCP

73 A wide intersubject variability in in vitro SN-38 glucuronide f

74 in aged monkeys was characterized by marked intersubject variability in labeling intensity, with dra

75 separate locomotor control networks and that intersubject variability in learning and in the generati

76 ecies should translate into lower intra- and intersubject variability in man.

77 ot mean square error 6.8%), and considerable intersubject variability in parameters of insulin cleara

78 There is large intersubject variability in peak optical density, spatia

79 se equivocal results may be due to the large intersubject variability in response or the nonspecifici

80 and polymorphisms may be key determinants of intersubject variability in response to statin therapy i

81 ed at the individual subject level, but that intersubject variability in the location and size of the

82 , sharply contrasted by a striking degree of intersubject variability in the shape, extent, and relat

83 The temporal and spatial patterns of the intersubject variability of and genetic contributions to

84 temporal developmental patterns of both the intersubject variability of and genetic effects on the b

85 Intersubject variability of brain activation patterns wa

86 ogical proof of principle to investigate the intersubject variability of digit somatotopy across part

87 The intersubject variability of foveal cone density was meas

88 The intersubject variability of individual OS microbiomes wa

89 tudy was to prospectively compare intra- and intersubject variability of manual versus automatic magn

90 re basal plasma insulin profile; and a lower intersubject variability of response than the intermedia

91 were identified, as were differences in the intersubject variability of some metabolite levels.

92 tistical analysis revealed a large degree of intersubject variability of the gastric ecosystem.

93 f convergence stimuli (y = 0.10x + 1.62) and intersubject variability of VFA increased marginally wit

94 Overall, the intersubject variability patterns during infancy show bo

95 Striking intersubject variability reflected at the level of lobes

96 lity of the method appeared acceptable, with intersubject variability the most significant factor aff

97 remains largely consistent, the magnitude of intersubject variability undergoes an interesting U-shap

98 While intersubject variability was high, the external mechanic

99 h improved repeatability (test-retest, 5.4%; intersubject variability, 5.2%).

100 d in terms of bias, test-retest variability, intersubject variability, and effect size.

101 Given its small size and anatomical intersubject variability, functional organization of the

102 he early detection of glaucoma is limited by intersubject variability, ganglion cell losses of 40% to

103 e D2 receptor levels, which show significant intersubject variability, predict reinforcing responses

104 hin this region, which displays considerable intersubject variability, remains unknown.

105 Accounting for intersubject variability, the 55% of asthmatic patients

106 The changes in PaCO2 post-LVRS showed marked intersubject variability.

107 -motor regions, distinct from the pattern of intersubject variability.

108 ate pregnancy, and there can be considerable intersubject variability.

109 ificant but bidirectional relationships with intersubject variability.

110 rability and efficacy several fold, yet with intersubject variability.

111 Both SUVr measures showed high intersubject variability.

112 both human atrial structure, as well as its intersubject variability.

113 nd in situ evolution are likely to introduce intersubject variability.

114 in the retinal microvasculature due to large intersubject variability.

115 nal group data and 0.60 after correction for intersubject variability.

116 r than cone density that have high levels of intersubject variability.

117 in AC activation can thus be ascribed to an intersubject variable (extraversion) when responding to

118 We examined the individual and intersubject variance of betaAR density and lymphocyte s

119 we demonstrate that dissociating intra- and intersubject variation can reveal genetic influence on a

120 of conflict anticipation in association with intersubject variation in impulse control in 114 young a

121 d factors together accounted for only 18% of intersubject variation in pharmacokinetic parameters and

122 pharmacokinetic parameters and 32% to 64% of intersubject variation in PRI, MPA, and PRU.

123 Intersubject variation in the cerebellar distribution vo

124 However, intersubject variation in the defence of arterial oxygen

125 However, there is a wide intersubject variation in the phosphene characteristics.

126 ray (Simoa) assays to measure both intra and intersubject variation of 15 cytokines.

127 SNPs could directly or indirectly influence intersubject variation of FVIII activity.

128 ntributed 2.2%, 3.5%, 4%, and 10.7% to FVIII intersubject variation, respectively.

129 n; in addition, there was fairly significant intersubject variation.

130 d 15 years (P<0.001), but explained <0.5% of intersubject variation.

131 Intersubject variations (n = 15; 2 subjects withdrew) in

132 ir metabolic space; the remaining intra- and intersubject variations appear to be influenced by varia

133 Wide intersubject variations between methods are partly attri

134 average efferent system strength can predict intersubject variations in acoustic injury.

135 Intersubject viral DNA distances increased from 2.3% in