ライフサイエンスコーパス: significant difference in

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

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

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

4 -to-treat population (n=1525), there were no significant differences in 3-year cognitive decline betw

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

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

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

8 There was no significant difference in acute complications.

9 No significant differences in acute genitourinary or gastro

10 There were significant differences in ADCs between diffuse and norm

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

12 Although there were no significant differences in ADIR and ADBR in the acute ph

13 There was no significant difference in AF event rates by randomized t

14 Furthermore, we identify significant differences in age-acceleration dependent on

15 At T2, there was a significant difference in all FACT-COG subscales, favori

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

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

18 The significant difference in, and high overall, medication

19 There were few significant differences in any diagnostics due to pathog

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

21 d more SCN than the wild-type, there were no significant differences in attractiveness between anothe

22 There was a significant difference in average length of stay, from 4

23 Our results demonstrate significant differences in awake and sleep reactivation

24 dures comprised the study population with no significant difference in baseline characteristics (age,

25 There were no significant differences in baseline demographics or tran

26 We found no significant differences in baseline prevalence of infect

27 roperties of LS-3DCHIm and LS-4DCHIm lead to significant differences in behavior.

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

29 hat changes in pH and ionic strength produce significant differences in binding energies.

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

31 nt up-regulation of serum CRP) levels and no significant difference in both skeletal muscle mass and

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

33 We observed no significant difference in cancer risk over successive ti

34 87, 99]; P = .69) MR imaging, nor were there significant differences in cancer detection rate per 100

35 40 [1.09-1.80], p=0.0090) with BVS, with non-significant differences in cardiac mortality.

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

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

38 There were no significant differences in change from baseline between

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

40 Nevertheless, there were no significant differences in clinical motor outcomes betwe

41 There were no significant differences in clinicopathological features

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

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

44 No significant differences in composite scores were observe

45 iluting tainted meat was demonstrated, as no significant difference in consumability was observed bet

46 Source localization revealed significant differences in cortical network activity bet

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

48 Significant differences in costs between the methods wer

49 There were significant differences in CRKP rates across geographic

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

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

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

53 Significant differences in CVD mortality rates and chang

54 We observed a significant difference in depression scores (standardise

55 with usual care resulted in a statistically significant difference in depressive symptoms at 4-month

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

57 There was substantial variability, but no significant differences, in deviations from the summary

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

59 paired, NLRX1-deficient cells do not display significant differences in differentiation or proliferat

60 he intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in disability-free survival at da

61 2.05, p < 0.00001) in the LLR group, without significant differences in disease recurrence, 3- or 5-y

62 No significant difference in DMRs was observed between the

63 of patient and graft survival rates despite significant differences in donors' characteristics.

64 No statistically significant differences in duration of bacteremia, lengt

65 No statistically significant differences in early discharge, readmissions

66 ion with peritransplant cofactors revealed a significant difference in EC between early allograft dys

67 d SLIT showed good clinical efficacy without significant difference in every assessment.

68 After 4 months, there were no significant differences in extent of inducible ischemia

69 Significant differences in FC were observed between the

70 No significant difference in fetal risk was observed betwee

71 cohort died within 30 days, but there was no significant difference in freedom from chronic lung allo

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

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

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

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

76 37 patients to provide 80% power to detect a significant difference in grade 2 to 4 acute GVHD of 50%

77 There was no significant difference in graft or patient survival, pos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

86 Despite no significant differences in infarct size, obese patients

87 No significant differences in inflammation were found.

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

89 There was no significant difference in Intensive Care Unit admissions

90 infected patients was comparable, except for significant differences in interferon-gamma, CXCL12, XCL

91 No significant difference in interleukins was seen between

92 There were no significant differences in iodine error (range, 0.44-1.7

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

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

95 icantly greater cartilage volume loss and no significant difference in knee pain.

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

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

98 he brain and liver retrospectively showed no significant difference in luciferase expression when con

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

100 There were no significant differences in major 30-day endpoints betwee

101 Significant differences in male and female sweat metabol

102 No significant differences in male puberty onset or adult f

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

104 There was no significant difference in mean hemoglobin concentrations

105 No significant difference in mean lesion volume was found b

106 the same pattern, including a statistically significant difference in mean OMAS at 3 and 6 months in

107 There was no significant difference in mean target error between loca

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

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

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

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

112 No significant differences in mean SI for any ROI and no gr

113 In terms of repeatability, there was no significant difference in measurement of any variable wi

114 side vs carboplatin-paclitaxel, there was no significant difference in median progression free surviv

115 There were significant differences in median first medical contact-

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

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

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

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

120 There were no significant differences in monochromatic error (range, 1

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

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

123 To determine any significant difference in mortality, patient characteris

124 There were no significant differences in mortality between transplanta

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

126 mary and secondary endpoints, we did observe significant differences in multiple outcome measures rel

127 r one year feeding on artificial diet showed significant differences in muscle total lipids (TL) cont

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

129 easured, and we discovered a substantial and significant difference in Na:Ca ratio in the apatite pha

130 There were no significant differences in neither trough concentrations

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

132 We found a significant difference in NK cell activity between the 2

133 Men and women exhibit significant differences in obesity, cardiovascular disea

134 esholds in air, revealing that there were no significant differences in odor impressions from the par

135 There was no significant difference in OS between BRAF/MEK and PD-1 (

136 PTT compared to MRI (P=0.00008) but with no significant difference in other parameters.

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

138 3 US institutions, we found no statistically significant differences in outcomes between participants

139 3.8 years (range, 0-9.4 years), there was no significant difference in overall mortality or cause of

140 There was no statistically significant difference in overall pain scores (effect es

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

142 of 31.5 months (IQR 18.9-50.8), there was no significant difference in overall survival between the l

143 At final analysis, there was no significant difference in overall survival for patients

144 No statistically significant difference in overall survival was observed

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

146 The three diagnostics do not show significant differences in overall ability to distinguis

147 There were no significant differences in overall survival by graft typ

148 CRT-D was not associated with significant differences in overall ventricular arrhythmi

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

150 There were no statistically significant differences in PANSS positive scale score be

151 Despite the significant differences in pathology - much of which are

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

153 Significant differences in physiological responses, urin

154 There was no statistically significant difference in PI, BOP, PD >/=4 mm, and total

155 We did not observe a statistically significant difference in piperacillin plasma concentrat

156 No significant difference in postoperative complications [o

157 No significant differences in postoperative anterior chambe

158 r AEs compared with SC with no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications.

159 No statistically significant differences in postoperative HRQOL were foun

160 While females and males show no significant differences in predicted DNA methylation age

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

162 At follow-up, there were no significant differences in prevalence between groups for

163 ies of 99 haplo-HSCT with PT-Cy, we found no significant difference in progression-free survival betw

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

165 breast tumor samples that are known to have significant differences in protein abundance based on bo

166 No statistically significant differences in proteins profiles were observ

167 Statistically significant differences in quantifiable biophysical para

168 fidence interval, 0.57-1.09; P=0.149) and no significant difference in rate of VOCE between the negat

169 There was no significant difference in rates of anastomotic leak, non

170 There were no significant differences in rates of hospitalized bleedin

171 There was no significant difference in reason for readmission on the

172 Significant differences in receptor dynamics are observe

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

174 with higher doses to the penile bulb but no significant differences in rectal or bladder dose or in

175 There were no significant differences in recurrent myocardial infarcti

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

177 There was a significant difference in repeatability between studies-

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

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

180 improvement, but there was no statistically significant difference in response during the double-bli

181 There was no significant difference in response rates between cisplat

182 There was no significant difference in RFS or overall survival betwee

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

184 There was no significant difference in scar appearance between aCT1-

185 Significant differences in scores related to anger and f

186 No statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes were found

187 No statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes were seen

188 s (117 [70%] vs 91 [43%]), but there were no significant differences in sex composition among the 3 c

189 ass of inhibitors derived from them but with significant differences in shape and size.

190 There was no significant difference in short-term mortality with MV-P

191 In a control group, no significant difference in signal was found between sides

192 equally plausible given the data can lead to significant differences in simulated outbreak dynamics;

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

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

195 There were significant differences in sputum proteomics and transcr

196 We found significant differences in SRH between individuals with

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

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

199 There were significant differences in stride characteristics and ph

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

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

202 We observe significant differences in surface radar reflectivity, i

203 No statistically significant differences in surgical complication rates w

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

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

206 Significant differences in SVR12 and relapse rates were

207 There were no significant differences in symptom severity between the

208 A significant difference in tag diversity over time was fo

209 No significant differences in terms of residual antigenicit

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

211 There was no significant difference in the 6-minute walk test between

212 There was a significant difference in the ADC value of the thyroid g

213 However, there was no statistically significant difference in the ADC value, thickness or th

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

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

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

217 There was no statistically significant difference in the density of neuropeptide Y+

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

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

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

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

222 ed with mass spectrometry further revealed a significant difference in the global flexibility of the

223 The EFS difference reflected a significant difference in the incidence of CNS, not marr

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

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

226 No significant difference in the membrane proteins levels P

227 isoning to other forms of self-harm, with no significant difference in the number of fatal (82 in the

228 , 2.52; 95% CI, 1.43-4.43; P = .001), but no significant difference in the odds of arterial stiffness

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

230 han (18)F-FDG PET alone, with no evidence of significant difference in the overall performance (AUC,

231 aritis (54% vs. 29%, P = .035), there was no significant difference in the presence of other histolog

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

233 There was no significant difference in the primary end point between

234 There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of 6-hour

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

236 No significant difference in the radical scavenging activit

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

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

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

240 s versus placebo; there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of upper gastrointest

241 Results There was no significant difference in the scores without flow images

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

243 In boys > 7.0 years old, a significant difference in the slope of EIM phase ratio t

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

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

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

247 Also, we observed a significant difference in the use of n-grams as the heal

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

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

250 Conjunction analysis confirmed significant differences in the bilateral ACC and right S

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

252 the 4% tibia and anthropometric measures.No significant differences in the change of BMD, BMC, or bo

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

254 Significant differences in the community structure were

255 There were significant differences in the composition of mucosa-ass

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

257 Significant differences in the content, quality of data

258 Significant differences in the corresponding prostate sh

259 PET in the treatment-planning process led to significant differences in the defined target volume, wi

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

261 Subgroup analyses suggested significant differences in the effect of statins by type

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

263 For instance, significant differences in the efficacy for some agonist

264 ynamical simulations demonstrates subtle but significant differences in the electrostatic properties

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

266 There were statistically significant differences in the following OHIP-14 subscal

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

268 try-based shotgun lipidomics analysis showed significant differences in the lipid classes and fatty a

269 We found no significant differences in the magnitude of the response

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

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

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

273 58 chemotherapy-treated samples) reveals no significant differences in the overall mutation rate, mu

274 There were no significant differences in the probability of having a f

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

276 We observed no significant differences in the rates of all other report

277 This is because of significant differences in the rates of hemolysis and as

278 xpression of CB in neurons; and 2) there are significant differences in the results between in vivo a

279 In addition, there were no significant differences in the risk-adjusted, in-hospita

280 and found that hemizygous mutants displayed significant differences in the structure of their activi

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

282 In analyzing these data, significant differences in the total running time, equil

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

284 Although significant differences in the volatomic profiles at the

285 s, the quantum dots generally do not exhibit significant differences in their non-resonantly pumped e

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

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

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

289 Wild-type and mutant OmpT displayed significant differences in their substrate specificities

290 There was no significant difference in total ablation volume and the

291 Significant differences in total pVAC retention were fou

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

293 There were no significant differences in transplant and pretransplant

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

295 In contrast, no significant differences in tumor-to-brain ratios or slop

296 .84; p = 0.001), although there was still no significant difference in TVR between the two groups (HR

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

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

299 There was no significant difference in VOCE between the positive conc

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