ライフサイエンスコーパス: no difference in

1 No difference in any outcome was observed between vaginal and

2 No difference in associations between medications of interest

3 No differences in cortisol levels were found.

4 No differences in CSF biomarker levels were observed between

5 No differences in OS or second neoplasias were observed in in

6 In a prespecified secondary analysis, no difference in mortality was found (odds ratio, 1.16; 95% C

7 95% CI 1.08-2.29; adjusted rates 10% vs 6%; P = 0.018), and no difference in discharge destination (P = 0.11).

8 conditions revealed 82% similarity in the transcriptome and no differences in the epigenome up to 24 h.

9 e and cell division versus cell elongation is suggested, as no differences in DNA methylation were observed between 24-h

10 The study presented here depicted no differences in disease-free and overall 3-year survival fo

11 A recent Cochrane review found no difference in complications, including urinary tract infec

12 We found no difference in the median randomisation to delivery interva

13 We found no difference in uptake of screening between the active choic

14 is among 223 participants contributing follow-up data found no differences in problem-solving skills across groups.

15 Analysis of F2 offspring found no differences in wheel running or adiposity in male or femal

16 We found no differences in clinical outcomes between MGUS patients and

17 However, we found no differences in phosphorylation or SHP-1 recruitment betwee

18 We found no differences in the mean change at 1 year in the Hypothyroi

19 (a target of MAV-1 in vivo) infected ex vivo with MAV-1 had no difference in activities of secreted MMP2 and MMP9 from mo

20 r numbers of B cells at birth than those who developed LTI; no difference in B cell replication was observed.

21 Overall, no differences in phosphorylated p38 MAPK, ERK1/2, Akt, and p

22 Results No difference in procedure duration was seen overall (P = .06

23 At a median follow-up of 36 months, the study reveals no differences in overall survival and EFS between the contro

24 Multivariable analysis showed no difference in outcomes between FDCM and IDCM but for both

25 nd protein analyses in arhinia probands and controls showed no differences in SMCHD1 mRNA or protein abundance but reveal

26 included 6 trials with a total of 361 participants, showing no difference in effectiveness between fornix-based vs limbal

27 CrI -0.10 to 0.24; moderate certainty evidence), little to no difference in proportion stunted (eight fewer per 1000 chi

28 There was no difference in adverse events.

29 er adjustment for covariates (including surgery), there was no difference in all-cause mortality between Vmax 4 to 4.49 m

30 There was no difference in glucose levels.

31 w-up (HR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.69-0.91]; P=0.001), and there was no difference in in-hospital morbidity.

32 In addition, there was no difference in mean visual outcome of the first versus seco

33 low nasal cannulae were compared with usual care, there was no difference in mortality (high-flow nasal cannulae, 60/1,00

34 However, there was no difference in nonfatal stroke, cardiovascular disease mort

35 There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95

36 ion was more frequent with WBRT than with SRS and there was no difference in overall survival between the treatment group

37 presentations in frontal and parietal cortex, but there was no difference in the decoding accuracy of task-related inform

38 ith BVS was higher between 1 and 2 years, whereas there was no difference in the first year.

39 There was no difference in the primary endpoint of day 1 dyspnea reduct

40 es (257 patients) reported rates of any bleeding; there was no difference in the proportions of patients with major or mi

41 shockable rhythms (from 58.9% to 69.2%; P<0.001), there was no difference in unadjusted rate of successful cardioversion

42 There were no differences in allergic disease between LEAP groups.

43 There were no differences in any specificity measures.

44 There were no differences in Model for End-Stage Liver Disease including

45 ed by development of intestinal inflammation and there were no differences in previously published metabolic markers of I

46 topenia were prolonged in the intensive arm, but there were no differences in serious nonhematological toxicities.

47 There were no differences in the change from baseline in vessel wall tar

48 safety end point at 30 days was 7.4% with both devices with no difference in all-cause mortality (Lotus, 1.9%; ES3, 1.8%;

49 baseline in PTH and decline in FGF23 by study week 4, with no differences in creatinine, phosphate, or TRP.

50 , 90% and 95% of the patients reported symptom relief, with no differences in GERD symptoms or dysphagia.