ライフサイエンスコーパス: significant difference

1 he risk for diabetes without a statistically significant difference.

2 less than 0.05 was considered to indicate a significant difference.

3 compared with -0.1 for the placebo group, a significant difference.

4 at analysis, the median CFT change showed no significant difference.

5 immunodeficiency virus (SIV) isolate showed significant differences.

6 nce with post hoc analysis for statistically significant differences.

7 t and chi(2) analysis were used to determine significant differences.

8 mpared against a commercial sensor giving no significant differences.

9 (standard deviation 10, minimally clinically significant difference 2) derived from these scales was

10 was considered indicative of a statistically significant difference; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) w

11 ants were seen in subgroup analyses, with no significant difference according to the indication for a

12 to each cluster was similar and demonstrated significant differences across clusters for all variable

13 Significant differences also existed for T2* measurement

14 In contrast, AFP showed significant differences among different groups.

15 Histomorphometric analysis revealed no significant differences among groups regarding percentag

16 ) rate was 83% (95% CI, 79% to 87%), with no significant differences among study arms.

17 There were no significant differences among the NAFL, NASH, and obese

18 There were no significant differences among the treatment groups with

19 Significant differences are noted with respect to lactat

20 of the cells, larger and more statistically-significant differences as a function of melanization st

21 Furthermore, no statistically significant differences at the 0.05 significance level w

22 avonoids by HPLC-MS and 4861 genes exhibited significant differences at transcript levels by microarr

23 There was no significant difference between all diets on inflammation

24 -Smirnov comparison indicate that there is a significant difference between all rates determined in t

25 re observed in mixed batch, and there was no significant difference between aluminum and iron electro

26 There was a statistically significant difference between arms 1 and 2 (Student t t

27 PET using BKC showed no significant difference between bioluminescence and enume

28 s in the baseline CC, showed a statistically significant difference between both groups (log rank, p

29 lated negatively with toxicity grade, with a significant difference between grade >/=3 and grade 0 pa

30 mg Ca/d.We failed to detect a statistically significant difference between groups in percentage of b

31 ho received placebo; there was no clinically significant difference between groups in the rates of se

32 However, there was no significant difference between mean early PPG and late P

33 There is no significant difference between MT4 and MSP for detection

34 There was no significant difference between study arms in 52-week mea

35 ncreas, respectively (P = .01), indicating a significant difference between the 4 tumor anatomic loca

36 l analysis of 30 cancer patients, to find no significant difference between the capture efficiency of

37 There was no significant difference between the cohorts in the percen

38 In addition color measurements showed a significant difference between the control dough and the

39 , and the results revealed that there was no significant difference between the data sets obtained fr

40 h for group 1 and 7.09% for group 2, with no significant difference between the groups (P = .09).

41 .9 (3.0) to 3.2 (3.0) in HC (p=0.38), with a significant difference between the groups (p<0.001).

42 There was no significant difference between the levosimendan group an

43 m surface tension of about 28 mN/m without a significant difference between the protonated (nonionic)

44 Analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the SGS group and the GSR

45 the L-type calcium channel Cav1.3, showing a significant difference between the synaptic proteins.

46 r the WTW distance indicated a statistically significant difference between the two devices.

47 There was no significant difference between the two groups in OI at d

48 whereas the duration of vigilance showed no significant difference between the two habitats.

49 <0.0001 for both groups vs placebo), with no significant difference between the two seladelpar groups

50 some waste incinerator fly ashes revealed a significant difference between their EPFR contents.

51 ontrast-enhanced T1-weighted images showed a significant difference between triple-negative breast ca

52 In all but 1 of our comparisons, no significant difference between wildtype and heterozygous

53 However, overall clinical outcome showed no significant difference between women and men after 1 yea

54 BCR/TCR repertoire analysis did not show significant differences between CFS and controls or ADCL

55 tin accessibility in F3 and F4 sperm reveals significant differences between control and TBT groups a

56 There were significant differences between countries in relation to

57 Significant differences between fluorescence lifetimes o

58 thin 8 to 30 days (n = 27176), there were no significant differences between follow-up at 2 months (n

59 r/defibrillator implantation demonstrated no significant differences between groups after adjustment.

60 There were no significant differences between groups in patients' grow

61 There were significant differences between groups in the acute succ

62 ultivariable regression analysis revealed no significant differences between MACH and GBAE implants p

63 s individuals with epsilon3/epsilon4, but no significant differences between men and women with epsil

64 Results There were no significant differences between morning and afternoon sh

65 A paired t test was used to determine significant differences between MR parameters in maligna

66 pectively, increased ICAD prevalence with no significant differences between races.

67 s for extra-virgin olive oil, but there were significant differences between regions and countries fo

68 There were no significant differences between the 2 experimental group

69 safe, but the study was not powered to show significant differences between the 2 methods of revascu

70 In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year rec

71 There were no significant differences between the groups (hazard ratio

72 However, there were no significant differences between the intervention arms in

73 These observations highlight very significant differences between the photocycles of PixD

74 Our results show significant differences between the pressure and density

75 Odor Activity Values were used to establish significant differences between the treatments.

76 We find evidence of significant differences between the two groups in the co

77 There were no significant differences between the two groups in the ra

78 ring the acute phase showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups of animal

79 er a median of 3 years of follow-up, with no significant differences between the two treatment groups

80 s with C25, and 5.3 months with D75, with no significant differences between treatment arms.

81 We did not identify significant differences between use of SGLT2 inhibitors

82 All other chemokines examined did not reveal significant differences (blood CCL5, CCL7, CXCL9, CXCL10

83 ns and demographic characteristics, we found significant differences by SNAP status of purchases of f

84 otobleaching or photoswitching, and observed significant differences compared to the wild-type enzyme

85 Significant differences exist among ICU clinician's perc

86 iple ways to determine whether statistically significant differences existed.

87 Significant differences found between alexithymia levels

88 Significant differences from baseline were realized afte

89 We found no significant difference in 1-year kidney graft survival (

90 There was no significant difference in 3-year renal allograft surviva

91 Although we observed no significant difference in achieved systolic BP, AngII-tr

92 There was no significant difference in acute complications.

93 gh in both treatment groups, and we found no significant difference in adherence to blood-pressure me

94 interest (amygdala and midbrain) revealed a significant difference in amygdala binding between contr

95 s showed temporal stability, as there was no significant difference in beta diversity values between

96 There was no significant difference in body mass index between both t

97 rvention trials did not show a statistically significant difference in change in BMD between exercise

98 Collectively these results indicate a significant difference in chromatin modifications betwee

99 ery and the subsequent 90 days, there was no significant difference in cost from either the payer ($1

100 There was no significant difference in cumulative costs by the type o

101 om linear to toothed-ovate shape, showed the significant difference in cuticle thickness, stomata den

102 There was no significant difference in detection of tumors larger tha

103 No significant difference in fetal risk was observed betwee

104 taPKD1KO mice under a chow diet presented no significant difference in glucose tolerance or insulin s

105 There was no significant difference in GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding

106 There was also no significant difference in histologic findings between th

107 After adjustment, there was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between

108 oth MCI groups (P<0.001), while there was no significant difference in inflammatory markers between d

109 The significant difference in k0 is due to a tunneling effec

110 ll P<0.01), more signs of congestion, but no significant difference in left ventricular ejection frac

111 nterval: 1.30 to 18.26) but no statistically significant difference in major bleeding in apixaban-tre

112 There was a significant difference in mean change in CAL (P <0.001)

113 There was a statistically significant difference in membrane thickness between gro

114 highest quality randomized studies showed no significant difference in mortality (n = 5 studies; odds

115 pared with CABG with a high SYNTAX score, no significant difference in mortality and combined death/s

116 To determine any significant difference in mortality, patient characteris

117 There was no significant difference in mutation load in cancer-associ

118 sone was not associated with a statistically significant difference in neurodevelopment at 2 years of

119 , limited evidence revealed no statistically significant difference in outcomes between early and del

120 3.8 years (range, 0-9.4 years), there was no significant difference in overall mortality or cause of

121 r metastatic colorectal cancer, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the a

122 No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed

123 There was no significant difference in P1NP with either SPI or SP sup

124 No significant difference in postoperative complications [o

125 There was no significant difference in recipient mortality at 30 days

126 ; P = 0.007), respectively, but there was no significant difference in reduction between class 1 and

127 There was a statistically significant difference in residual alveolar bone height

128 There was no significant difference in response rates between cisplat

129 scanning fluorimetry experiments indicated a significant difference in stability of approximately 2-3

130 There was no significant difference in striatal Kicer between the bip

131 interval: 1.07 to 4.46) but no statistically significant difference in stroke (3 NOACs pooled).

132 ein was composed of prolamines that showed a significant difference in surface hydrophobicity dependi

133 There was no significant difference in survival between patients in G

134 There was no significant difference in the 5-year primary composite o

135 stiffness is investigated and statistically significant difference in the cell stiffness is confirme

136 There was no significant difference in the change in the Physical Com

137 an compared with placebo did not result in a significant difference in the composite end point of pro

138 In contrast, there was no significant difference in the DOX concentrations between

139 S patients and demonstrates no statistically significant difference in the efficacy measures between

140 one for the guideline found no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of second-generat

141 ser criteria at a mean of 19.5 weeks with no significant difference in the frequency of IAIs before o

142 There was no significant difference in the incidence of serious adver

143 There was no significant difference in the levels of inhibition of UV

144 No significant difference in the membrane proteins levels P

145 , 2.52; 95% CI, 1.43-4.43; P = .001), but no significant difference in the odds of arterial stiffness

146 The results did not show a significant difference in the oil yield or any modificat

147 The present study found no significant difference in the prevalence of VMA in eyes

148 There was no significant difference in the punctum diameter among the

149 No significant difference in the radical scavenging activit

150 olving patients undergoing PCI, there was no significant difference in the rate of target-vessel fail

151 Race was associated with a significant difference in the reported incidence of carc

152 There was no significant difference in the risk of DFS events (hazard

153 Results There was no significant difference in the size or shape of ablations

154 ort of primary human FL and DLBCL, we show a significant difference in the spectrum of CREBBP mutatio

155 There was no significant difference in the time to mortality between

156 Comparing tIOLs vs PCRIs, there was no significant difference in the UCDVA, BCDVA, and UCNVA.

157 ption, but did not result in a statistically significant difference in tumor burden or survival distr

158 .84; p = 0.001), although there was still no significant difference in TVR between the two groups (HR

159 or without Gag P2/NC CS mutations showed no significant difference in viral loads.

160 e first histologic evidence demonstrating no significant difference in vital bone formation or dimens

161 There was no significant difference in weight gain at 6, 12, or 18 mo

162 The significant difference in, and high overall, medication

163 However, no significant differences in (18)F-FDG-derived SUVs were o

164 The Mann-Whitney test showed significant differences in (68)Ga-DOTATATE SUVmax betwee

165 Our findings revealed no significant differences in 5-year OS (36.7% vs. 44.6%, p

166 members compared to controls, there were no significant differences in allele frequencies between af

167 d of therapy, the two arms of therapy had no significant differences in any of the PROs.

168 There were no significant differences in baseline demographics or tran

169 We found no significant differences in baseline prevalence of infect

170 mia who were taking gemfibrozil did not show significant differences in CAL and PD compared with untr

171 at have learned to produce these sounds show significant differences in central sulcus (CS) morpholog

172 flux, and the results showed that there were significant differences in CO2 fluxes by year, treatment

173 Secondary clinical outcomes demonstrated no significant differences in composite major adverse cardi

174 No significant differences in composite scores were observe

175 Significant differences in costs between the methods wer

176 There were no significant differences in CSF cytokine or chemokine lev

177 Significant differences in CVD mortality rates and chang

178 hen used as carriers for the B-KPro, with no significant differences in device retention, visual reha

179 2.05, p < 0.00001) in the LLR group, without significant differences in disease recurrence, 3- or 5-y

180 No statistically significant differences in early discharge, readmissions

181 Significant differences in FC were observed between the

182 sociated with small but highly statistically significant differences in future statural growth trajec

183 ts-101 and ts-46 in HEK-293 cells and found significant differences in gene-expression patterns, wit

184 dels and the t-test were employed to compare significant differences in GQL-15 scores and to generate

185 There were also significant differences in growth of EFW between countri

186 onstrate that MS-based proteomics can define significant differences in histone PTM patterns in submi

187 in Liver Transplant consortium demonstrates significant differences in IC among centers, the importa

188 There were no significant differences in ICU or hospital length of sta

189 There were no significant differences in image contrast, sensitivity,

190 Despite no significant differences in infarct size, obese patients

191 ve microbial profiles can be correlated with significant differences in KEGG pathways including lipid

192 We detected no significant differences in local or systemic adverse eve

193 Significant differences in male and female sweat metabol

194 Between these groups, significant differences in mean age, gender distribution

195 There were no significant differences in mean CCT between Galilei and

196 RNAseq and qPCR confirmed significant differences in mean expression for 10 genes

197 n checklist is demonstrated by statistically significant differences in mean scores between ICUs, bet

198 l diagnosis of HFpEF was not associated with significant differences in MF (median ECV, 28.2%; IQR, 2

199 In the RD analysis, we found no significant differences in MI risk between patients who

200 The stressor-exposed mice had significant differences in microbial community compositi

201 There were no significant differences in mortality between transplanta

202 not CXR/MRI or CCT/MRI, were associated with significant differences in mortality risk on Kaplan-Meie

203 There were no significant differences in neither trough concentrations

204 3 US institutions, we found no statistically significant differences in outcomes between participants

205 reated by a general internist, there were no significant differences in overall 30-day mortality rate

206 CL, pHT : 7.70) for 1860 generations, showed significant differences in photosynthesis and growth fro

207 No significant differences in postoperative anterior chambe

208 No statistically significant differences in postoperative HRQOL were foun

209 es reactive transport models demonstrated no significant differences in predicting DO and DOC concent

210 The sleep clusters displayed significant differences in properties that were not used

211 Statistically significant differences in quantifiable biophysical para

212 Significant differences in receptor dynamics are observe

213 There were no significant differences in recurrent myocardial infarcti

214 is and placebo, respectively) did not reveal significant differences in residual pulmonary hypertensi

215 assessed alcohol use is not associated with significant differences in risk factors for CVD or marke

216 ilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to identify significant differences in single-nucleotide polymorphis

217 No statistically significant differences in soft-tissue absorbed doses we

218 There were significant differences in sputum proteomics and transcr

219 There were significant differences in stride characteristics and ph

220 No statistically significant differences in surgical complication rates w

221 UVmax Log-rank analysis showed statistically significant differences in survival for patients with bo

222 Significant differences in SVR12 and relapse rates were

223 No significant differences in terms of residual antigenicit

224 ructurally similar cortical regions revealed significant differences in the abundances of receptor-as

225 There were no significant differences in the age, gender distribution,

226 Vessel-based analysis revealed statistically significant differences in the binarized flow index (sup

227 s remained conserved over eons of evolution, significant differences in the chloride-binding characte

228 Significant differences in the community structure were

229 organic speciation revealed no statistically significant differences in the composition of the volati

230 Significant differences in the corresponding prostate sh

231 This study demonstrates that there are significant differences in the dynamics of ILs in SILMs

232 There were no statistically significant differences in the effects of cold-start on

233 Gene expression analysis revealed significant differences in the expression of cancer path

234 d NOD and Ealpha16/NOD mice to host mild but significant differences in the intestinal microbiotas du

235 he moderate-severe group (p = 0.008); (3) no significant differences in the mean rod-mediated respons

236 ss spectrometry, we identified statistically significant differences in the metabolic profile among u

237 There were no significant differences in the odds ratios for treatment

238 There were no significant differences in the proportion of life-threat

239 No statistically significant differences in the survival of mice were obs

240 pite similar severity of illness, there were significant differences in the use of life support and e

241 Although significant differences in the volatomic profiles at the

242 At baseline, HDC and healthy controls had no significant differences in their plasma levels of 38 inf

243 f 258 differently modified peptides, finding significant differences in their relative abundance acro

244 ealed three distinct redox distributions and significant differences in their relative weights betwee

245 Significant differences in total pVAC retention were fou

246 persistent phases of infection demonstrated significant differences in transcriptome profiles of ani

247 There were no significant differences in transplant and pretransplant

248 ite to white distance showed a statistically significant difference (MD -0.14 mm; 95% CI -0.25 to -0.

249 lleles or TSLPrs1898671 homozygotes, with no significant difference observed between wildtype and het

250 int of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism, no significant differences of the NOACs compared with treat

251 Only one gene, PNPLA7, demonstrated significant difference on methylome, transcriptome and p

252 Significant differences on the primary outcome were seen

253 There was no significant difference (p > 0.2) in AUC for BPE quantifi

254 m IL-1beta, OPG, and BALP levels revealed no significant difference (P >0.05).

255 A significant difference (P < .001) in PF in the immediate

256 /hour) during interruptions, a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001).

257 dent paired t-test confirmed a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) between IOP before Nd:

258 or the updated one, reaching a statistically significant difference (P <0.05).

259 Results No significant differences (P > .63) were seen between brea

260 We found significant differences (p < 0.0001; standardised mixed

261 lyses of the PA imaging results demonstrated significant differences (p < 0.001) in quantified hemogl

262 There were significant differences (P=0.001) in high-ranking interv

263 These algorithm-detected colonies show no significant differences (Pearson Coefficient) in terms o

264 There was no significant difference regarding the rate of CNV develop

265 in uncertain, with estimates ranging from no significant difference to nearly 2 degrees C warmer than

266 death from any cause before data cutoff); a significant difference was defined as p<0.025.

267 No significant difference was determined in the OPA levels

268 No statistically significant difference was found between the study and c

269 No significant difference was found in mortality between HS

270 No significant difference was found in serious morbidity be

271 ions obtained before and after FUS, while no significant difference was found in the controls (non-so

272 A significant difference was observed between the impaired

273 No significant difference was observed in short-term surviv

274 No significant difference was seen between the placebo patc

275 follow-up of 85.6 months (IQR 80.6-95.9) no significant difference was seen in the proportions of pa

276 g/L per year to -1.26 g/L per year), but no significant difference was seen in the rate in early-sta

277 Significant differences were detected in water content,

278 No significant differences were found between B2A-CIC-negat

279 Significant differences were found between preinfusion a

280 No significant differences were found between treatment gro

281 No significant differences were found in questionnaires sco

282 tion of viral progeny in SCG neurons, but no significant differences were found in TG neurons.

283 No significant differences were found in the bacterial comm

284 No significant differences were found in the moral distress

285 No significant differences were found with respect to where

286 No significant differences were noted in colour of the samp

287 actors "laser" and "graphite", statistically significant differences were observed (p < 0.05).

288 No significant differences were observed between infant fee

289 Significant differences were observed between samples fo

290 Significant differences were observed between treated te

291 No significant differences were observed for sugar (differe

292 Significant differences were observed in life span betwe

293 No statistically significant differences were observed in ODS between tre

294 No significant differences were observed in sleep timing/aM

295 No significant differences were observed in stool frequency

296 No statistically significant differences were seen for any of the other s

297 Significant differences were seen in delivery-related va

298 In the cleft region, no significant differences were seen in primary or permanen

299 Overall, no significant differences were seen in severe hypoglycaemi

300 e) There was not a statistically significant difference when comparing Fab'1F5-MORF1 with