ライフサイエンスコーパス: versus

1 higher frequency of two APOL1 alleles (1.0% versus 0.1%) and the HBB variant (2.0% versus 0.7%).

2 ed by 3.5+/-6.4 mm Hg in the treatment group versus 0.5+/-5.0 mm Hg in the control group (P=0.14).

3 t-sided heart filling pressures (0.64+/-0.17 versus 0.56+/-0.19 and 0.53+/-0.20; P=0.0004), higher pu

4 rsus 29%; P<0.0001) and distensibility (0.47 versus 0.64%/mm Hg; P=0.02).

5 ristic [ROC] curve [AUROC] for wPRx was 0.73 versus 0.66 for PRx, p = 0.003).

6 hocardiographic parameters (C statistic 0.71 versus 0.69; P=0.005).

7 (1.0% versus 0.1%) and the HBB variant (2.0% versus 0.7%).

8 .9%, AUC 0.854 versus 0.733, F 1 score 0.854 versus 0.725; P < e -90 ).

9 oach (accuracy 85.5% versus 72.9%, AUC 0.854 versus 0.733, F 1 score 0.854 versus 0.725; P < e -90 ).

10 ventricular eccentricity index (1.10+/-0.19 versus 0.99+/-0.06 and 0.97+/-0.12; P<0.0001).

11 46 for cities < approximately 300000 people, versus -0.22 for all cities), an important finding given

12 lightly higher rate of change in eGFR (-0.47 versus -0.32 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) per year; P<0.03).

13 neutrophils (82.07 x 106/l +/- 18.94 control versus 1,092 x 106/l +/- 165 trauma, p < 0.0005) and CD1

14 rsus 1.04+/-0.22, P=0.001), NCB (1.18+/-0.33 versus 1.03+/-0.21, P=0.004), and HRP prevalence beyond

15 ed total coronary plaque burden (1.22+/-0.31 versus 1.04+/-0.22, P=0.001), NCB (1.18+/-0.33 versus 1.

16 RI) was highest in high volume centers: 1.38 versus 1.21 in medium and 1.25 in low volume centers (P

17 ients with myocarditis at FU0 (2.2 [2.0-2.3] versus 1.6 [1.5-1.7]; P<0.001).

18 other members of the series (10(-3) S cm(-1) versus 10(-4) S cm(-1)).

19 re randomly assigned to the 12-week (n=7452) versus 10-week (n=7449) versus 8-week (n=7456) groups; a

20 cal calcium upstroke was delayed (23.9+/-4.9 versus 10.3+/-1.7 milliseconds; P<0.05) and more asynchr

21 For GPI, the hospital LOS (14.64 versus 10.31 days; P = 0.002) and length of antimicrobia

22 ignificantly lower in segments with PVR (74% versus 104%; P<0.001) and was associated with the highes

23 ents (11.0%) with severe acute kidney injury versus 105 of the 4140 patients (2.5%) without severe ac

24 1.8+/-1.1 per patient; 7 in the right atrium versus 12 in the left atrium; 15 extrapulmonary).

25 the 16-week (n=7550) versus 14-week (n=7567) versus 12-week (n=7568) groups.

26 (mean+/-SEM: 3.3+/-0.1 microm before injury versus 12.5+/-0.2 microm after injury; P<0.001).

27 P class B/C patients (94% versus 78%, and 4% versus 14%, respectively; both P < 0.001).

28 6) groups; and women to the 16-week (n=7550) versus 14-week (n=7567) versus 12-week (n=7568) groups.

29 D was 69.0/1000 patient-years in HF patients versus 14.5/1000 patient-years in patients without HF, a

30 previous pelvic radiotherapy was 24.5 months versus 16.8 months (0.64 [0.37-1.10]; p=0.11).

31 have filled prescriptions for opioids (49.0% versus 17.2%) and benzodiazepines (52.1% versus 26.6%) d

32 nded to be higher in males than females (25% versus 18%, P=0.06); 44% of dissections were type B.

33 2) and length of antimicrobial therapy 24.30 versus 18.97 days; P = 0.018) were reduced.

34 eiving low or iso-osmolality contrast (n=574 versus 189) and low or high contrast volume (n=341 versu

35 he delayed group (5.0, 3.2-7.9) and 88 (15%) versus 19 (3%) were newly enrolled in care (4.4, 2.6-7.4

36 , biopsy recommendation rate was 325 of 1443 versus 195 of 601 (23% vs 32%, P < .001); and specificit

37 worse compared with ypT-stage (DeltaAIC 1.3 versus 2.0 and 8.9, respectively).

38 tional testing (33.4% versus 78.0%, and 0.9% versus 2.1%, respectively; both P<0.001).

39 se wave velocity in the ascending aorta (3.4 versus 2.3 m/s for PAH and controls, respectively; P=0.0

40 eased rates of aneurysm expansion (3.1+/-2.5 versus 2.5+/-2.4 mm/year, P=0.0424), although this was n

41 At 24 months, 7 patients died in PVA group versus 22 in UPVA group.

42 have a history of myocardial infarction (28% versus 22%), higher body mass index (31 versus 29 kg/m(2

43 22%) of 288 patients in the buparlisib group versus 23 (16%) of 140 in the placebo group; the most fr

44 in, P<0.001; increased VE/Vco2 slope, 31+/-1 versus 26+/-1, P=0.002).

45 .0% versus 17.2%) and benzodiazepines (52.1% versus 26.6%) during the last 30 days of life, while dia

46 reased plasma volume (3907 mL [3563-4333 mL] versus 2772 mL [2555-3133 mL], and 2680 mL [2380-3006 mL

47 7.6-50.0) in the inotuzumab ozogamicin group versus 28.7% (11.2-49.1) in the standard care group.

48 (28% versus 22%), higher body mass index (31 versus 29 kg/m(2)), worse Minnesota Living With Heart Fa

49 ely; P=0.001) and reduced aortic strain (23% versus 29%; P<0.0001) and distensibility (0.47 versus 0.

50 was similar in Group 1 versus Group 2: 23.5% versus 29.2% (P > 0.99).

51 1,6; 2D_M0,12 versus 3D_M0,1,6; and 2D_M0,12 versus 2D_M0,6; and assessment of neutralizing antibodie

52 persisted in 1 patient in the placebo group versus 3 of 4 in the rituximab group, where these meanin

53 g (reduced peak oxygen consumption, 24+/-1.3 versus 31+/-1.3 mL/kg/min, P<0.001; increased VE/Vco2 sl

54 r right ventricular dilatation (base, 34+/-7 versus 31+/-6 and 30+/-6 mm, P=0.0005; length, 66+/-7 ve

55 -type natriuretic peptide concentration (403 versus 320 pg/mL; all P<0.01), more signs of congestion,

56 [SD] or local disease progression [DP], 13%) versus 33% of high-grade tumors (grade 3 or 4) (complete

57 nd v1 not equal e: 65% (95% CI = 25% to 83%) versus -33% (95% CI = -78% to 1%).

58 ival compared with the de novo DSA ABMR (63% versus 34% at 8 years after rejection, respectively; P<0

59 e median age in the MFS group was 35.4 years versus 35.6 years in the non-MFS group.

60 earlier than infants of controls (37.6+/-3.6 versus 39.2+/-2.2 weeks; P<0.001), with increased rates

61 eriority of HPV-16/18 antibodies for 2D_M0,6 versus 3D_M0,1,6; 2D_M0,12 versus 3D_M0,1,6; and 2D_M0,1

62 odies for 2D_M0,6 versus 3D_M0,1,6; 2D_M0,12 versus 3D_M0,1,6; and 2D_M0,12 versus 2D_M0,6; and asses

63 ths (95% CI 4.9-7.1) in the buparlisib group versus 4.0 months (3.1-5.2) in the placebo group (HR 0.7

64 is period were uncommon in both groups (4.2% versus 4.3%).

65 atients who received combination prophylaxis versus 4/100 (4.0%) patients who received vancomycin alo

66 innesota Living With Heart Failure score (48 versus 40), higher median N-terminal pro-B-type natriure

67 the unadjusted rates of mortality were 60.2 versus 40.4, respectively.

68 189) and low or high contrast volume (n=341 versus 422) using FFR</=0.80 as a reference standard.

69 of 1472 individuals in the liraglutide group versus 46 (6%) of 738 in the placebo group were diagnose

70 rvival was 40.4% (SD 7.7%) in the open group versus 50.5% (SD 8%) in the minimally invasive group (P

71 pertension (CTEPH) was confirmed in 4 (2.1%) versus 6 (3.2%) cases (p = 0.79).

72 rease in the primary safety outcome with 24- versus 6-month DAPT was greater in patients with low sco

73 tage and similar to ypN-stage (DeltaAIC 17.9 versus 6.2 and 17.2, respectively).

74 +/-6 and 30+/-6 mm, P=0.0005; length, 66+/-7 versus 61+/-7 and 61+/-7 mm, P<0.0001), more right ventr

75 DbpA/C6-OspC ELISA was markedly better (80% versus 63%) than the 2-tier test method in detecting ant

76 -year cumulative HBV reactivation rate (5.6% versus 65.0%, P = 0.004).

77 diagnostic quantification was performed (85% versus 69%; P=0.003), and in patients with mitral regurg

78 , increased epicardial fat thickness (10+/-2 versus 7+/-2 and 6+/-2 mm; P<0.0001), and greater total

79 ar volumes (end-systolic volume: -4.3 [11.3] versus 7.4 [11.8], P=0.02; end-diastolic volume: -9.1 [1

80 ], P=0.02; end-diastolic volume: -9.1 [14.9] versus 7.4 [15.8], P=0.02) and no significant change of

81 17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatme

82 mical feature based approach (accuracy 85.5% versus 72.9%, AUC 0.854 versus 0.733, F 1 score 0.854 ve

83 1); and specificity was 86% (95% CI: 84, 88) versus 75% (95% CI: 74, 82) (P < .001).

84 r than those for females (specificity, 94.3% versus 77.3%, chi(2) = 44.90, P < 0.01; NPV, 95.5% versu

85 CTP class A and CTP class B/C patients (94% versus 78%, and 4% versus 14%, respectively; both P < 0.

86 ndomly assigned to functional testing (33.4% versus 78.0%, and 0.9% versus 2.1%, respectively; both P

87 picardial heart volume (945 mL [831-1105 mL] versus 797 mL [643-979 mL] and 632 mL [517-768 mL]; P<0.

88 tes of small for gestational age births (15% versus 8%; P=0.03).

89 the 12-week (n=7452) versus 10-week (n=7449) versus 8-week (n=7456) groups; and women to the 16-week

90 ditional criterion (10.4%; 95% CI, 6.7-15.7, versus 8.7%; 95% CI, 4.2-16.7; P=0.684).

91 s; P<0.05) and more asynchronous (18.1+/-1.5 versus 8.9+/-2.2 milliseconds; P<0.01) in HF cells with

92 80 (interquartile range [IQR]: 62.5 to 92.6) versus 82.4 (IQR: 67.6 to 93.5; p = 0.025) and were more

93 Corresponding values for CAF were 83.7% versus 82.8% (Pearson's correlation: 0.94).

94 77.3%, chi(2) = 44.90, P < 0.01; NPV, 95.5% versus 86.1%, chi(2) = 18.85, P < 0.01).

95 , 5-year PFS rates in the F group were 99.0% versus 87.1% (HR, 15.8; 95% CI, 3.8 to 66.1) in favor of

96 in favor of ABVD + INRT; the U group, 92.1% versus 89.6% (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.5) in favor of

97 roup, 63 (62%) of 102 patients underwent PCS versus 93 (94%) of 99 patients in the primary surgery gr

98 67.1% (95% confidence interval, 40.9%-83.6%) versus 94.1% (95% confidence interval, 65%-99.1%) for th

99 /- monocytes (34.96 x 106/l +/- 4.48 control versus 95.72 x 106/l +/- 8.0 trauma, p < 0.05) and reduc

100 high CMI (PFS, 2.1 months; OS, 12.3 months) versus a low CMI (PFS, 5.8 months; OS, 21.7 months).

101 oxidative protein product) was higher in SAH versus alcoholic cirrhosis patients and healthy controls

102 pecificity of GPC3 for HB pretreatment group versus all controls were all significantly lower than th

103 risk (top quintile of polygenic risk score) versus all others (WOSCOPS), as well as the association

104 m oral iron supplements given on consecutive versus alternate days and given as single morning doses

105 Effects of conventional ultrasonic scaler versus an erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser

106 of actively touching an animate (human hand) versus an inanimate target (mannequin hand).

107 FAME 2 trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) compared

108 ion factors in mediating these proliferative versus apoptotic fates.

109 ier estimates of PTDM were similar for arm 1 versus arm 2 (17.4% vs 16.6%; P = 0.579).

110 concomitant cardiac procedures (AVR+ARE: 68% versus AVR: 67%, P=0.31).

111 eceived bioprosthetic valves (AVR+ARE: 73.4% versus AVR: 73.3%, P=0.98) and also underwent concomitan

112 lbuminuria (controls: 35-fold; KO: 5400-fold versus baseline), hypoalbuminemia, reduced GFR, and mark

113 assess the efficacy and safety of pacritinib versus best available therapy in patients with myelofibr

114 involves different K(+) channels in non-CAD versus CAD, resulting in an altered capacity for vasodil

115 tween cell elongation (anaerobic conditions) versus cell division (aerobic conditions) in the coleopt

116 tween the epigenomic state and cell division versus cell elongation is suggested, as no differences i

117 <0.01) in HF cells with low t-system density versus cells with high t-system density.

118 e results suggest that the difference in ACh versus Cho binding energies is determined by different l

119 or regulatory sequences residing in episomes versus chromosomes remain almost completely unknown.

120 comparing the association of MAPK1 with open versus closed vinculin, we demonstrate that MAPK1 exhibi

121 ompare the efficacy of polyvalent phage PEf1 versus coliphage T4 in suppressing a model enteric bacte

122 garding effectiveness and safety of surgical versus conservative treatment of acute appendicitis.

123 at, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus continuing a regimen of boosted protease inhibito

124 riments demonstrate that VEGF165b inhibition versus control increased VEGFR1-STAT3 binding and STAT3

125 rsity results obtained from Alb-R26(Met) HCC versus control livers to design an "educated guess" drug

126 CCA versus control, 0.905 for CCA stage I-II versus control, 0.789 for PSC versus control, 0.806 for

127 C versus control, 0.806 for noncirhottic PSC versus control, 0.796 for CCA versus PSC, 0.956 for CCA

128 CCA stage I-II versus control, 0.789 for PSC versus control, 0.806 for noncirhottic PSC versus contro

129 rating characteristic curve of 0.878 for CCA versus control, 0.905 for CCA stage I-II versus control,

130 for CCA stage I-II versus PSC, 0.904 for HCC versus control, and 0.894 for intrahepatic CCA versus HC

131 of adverse events was similar for alirocumab versus control, except for a higher rate of injection-si

132 s, comparing the utility of (18)F-FDG PET/CT versus conventional brain imaging with MRI.

133 y of a clofarabine-based combination (CLARA) versus conventional high-dose cytarabine (HDAC) as postr

134 es) to compare the cost-effectiveness of CXL versus conventional management with PKP.

135 maging, and type of ablation (radiofrequency versus cryoablation).

136 l and CIN2+ detection rates for HPV-screened versus cytology-screened women in Australia's HPV-vaccin

137 alyses using hospital accounting system data versus data in the Pediatric Health Information System (

138 conformation but pairs differently with dTTP versus dCTP.

139 We compared pretransplant DAA treatment versus deferred DAA treatment using a cost-effectiveness

140 t tiger densities were 47% higher in primary versus degraded forests and, unexpectedly, increased 4.9

141 a randomized clinical trial comparing early versus delayed interferon beta-1b treatment in 465 patie

142 y among rural patients with HF who completed versus did not complete a daily diary of weight and symp

143 for two-dimensional digital mammography (DM) versus digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammography.

144 0.81; yearly: OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.39, 0.85) versus discontinued communication.

145 subregions are distinctly targeted by local versus distal acupuncture electrostimulation, acupunctur

146 alleles varied in the usage of the proximal versus distal PAS, with some alleles using only the prox

147 ure electrostimulation, acupuncture at local versus distal sites may improve median nerve function at

148 variable analysis, SRS versus EGFR-TKI, WBRT versus EGFR-TKI, age, performance status, EGFR exon 19 m

149 On multivariable analysis, SRS versus EGFR-TKI, WBRT versus EGFR-TKI, age, performance

150 ing constraint at STRs by comparing observed versus expected mutation rates.

151 This was in line with moderate 11C-PBB3 versus faint 18F-AV-1451 autoradiographic labelling of t

152 : adjusted odds ratio for the fifth quintile versus first quintile, 1.98 (1.23-3.18).

153 ive contributions of leader social influence versus follower social susceptibility in driving this so

154 x (<1%) of 795 contacts infected at baseline versus four (<1%) of 518 contacts uninfected at baseline

155 Two NDIs failed in one patient versus four SDIs in four patients (P = 0.37).

156 7.7 (5.0) at year 2 in PD subjects (p<0.001) versus from 2.9 (3.0) to 3.2 (3.0) in HC (p=0.38), with

157 ficant cancer detection rate of biparametric versus full multiparametric contrast-enhanced MR imaging

158 uperfamily members that are specific for C1P versus glycolipid.

159 Alcohol relapse was similar in Group 1 versus Group 2: 23.5% versus 29.2% (P > 0.99).

160 e enhancers controlling expression in joints versus growing ends of long bones.

161 re differentially expressed in RRMS patients versus HC: hsa-miR-122-5p, hsa-miR-196b-5p, hsa-miR-301a

162 rsus control, and 0.894 for intrahepatic CCA versus HCC.

163 ffer significantly among women with abnormal versus healthy vaginal microbiota as defined by Nugent s

164 due to the differing time scales for proton versus heavy-atom motion.

165 othelial cell (EC) subtypes from cardiogenic versus hemogenic mesoderm with high efficiency without c

166 For the low versus high BPE groups at diagnostic MR imaging, biopsy

167 between PM2.5 and both outcomes among lower- versus higher-income participants.

168 e-specific determinant of differential HLA-A versus HLA-B downregulation activity.

169 ignalling mechanisms direct stress-dependent versus homeostatic regeneration, and highlight the impor

170 Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) continues to be a frequent a

171 A history of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) ( n = 27) was associated with

172 e associated with an increased risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

173 normal tissues through the often fatal graft-versus-host disease (GVHD).

174 myeloablative conditioning, and acute graft-versus-host disease (P values < .01).

175 cal symptoms in animal models of acute graft-versus-host disease and multiple sclerosis.

176 No treatment-related death or graft-versus-host disease had been reported; 15 of the 17 pati

177 Grade II to IV acute graft-versus-host disease related to steroid treatment shows a

178 ssue damage in a unique in vitro human graft-versus-host disease skin explant model.

179 ents <50 years old and without chronic graft-versus-host disease, compared with the remaining patient

180 circumvent central tolerance and limit graft-versus-host disease.

181 riteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease.

182 on Improvement +0.149 versus hs-cTnT, +0.235 versus hs-cTnI (P<0.001).

183 ies: Net Reclassification Improvement +0.149 versus hs-cTnT, +0.235 versus hs-cTnI (P<0.001).

184 rized mesenteric arteries were reduced in KW versus HW (P<0.01), whereas deletion of Nox1 in KW mice

185 ay according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibio

186 thus proving the prototyping ability of FDM versus IM.

187 rapping polymer are mobile (loops and tails) versus immobile (trains).

188 ritically ill adults with infection-positive versus infection-negative systemic inflammation.

189 n and intra-subnetwork association strengths versus inter-subnetwork association strengths.

190 bony defects when comparing efficacy of CBCT versus intraoral radiographs (IRs).

191 toneal cavity, enabling elevated drug levels versus intravenous (i.v.) injection.

192 Noninvasive ventilation versus invasive mechanical ventilation.

193 ntinued to provide superior overall survival versus ipilimumab, with no difference between pembrolizu

194 rient supplements containing iron-folic acid versus iron-folic acid alone in 112 953 pregnant women.

195 nstrated higher pulmonary arterial pressures versus isolated postcapillary pulmonary hypertension (P<

196 both common and unique effects of imipramine versus ketamine.

197 t genetic backgrounds (e.g. wild-type strain versus knockout strain).

198 a mouse model of aGVHD while retaining graft-versus-leukemia effects, unveiling a novel therapeutic t

199 ient periods of lower concentrations in high versus low clearance patients.

200 men, only waist-to-hip ratio (HR for highest versus lowest fifth = 1.33, 95%CI: 1.08-1.65; Ptrend = 0

201 For example, individuals in the highest versus lowest quartile of a 127-variant score had a 2.49

202 Subjects in the highest versus lowest TMAO quartile had a crude 1.86-fold higher

203 greater among recently hospitalized patients versus Medicare patients.

204 ostinfection CD8(+) T cell terminal effector versus memory differentiation are incompletely understoo

205 mical force measurements in aqueous solution versus methanol allowed quantification of the hydrophobi

206 sented more often as ST-segment elevation MI versus MI not related to a stented site (59% vs. 26%, p

207 Therefore, we investigated model-based versus model-free decision making and its neural correla

208 required in patients receiving the T&E (8.7) versus monthly (11.1) regimen, with mean number of postb

209 of ranibizumab 0.5 mg treat-and-extend (T&E) versus monthly regimens in patients with neovascular age

210 al principles governing specialized circuits versus more general-purpose learning machines.

211 of second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) versus most other treatments for this disorder.

212 secting the relative contributions of mTORC1 versus mTORC2 in cancer, their role in tumor-associated

213 of high platelet reactivity (HPR) in SVG PCI versus native lesion PCI is unknown.

214 ll death, such as cells undergoing apoptosis versus necrosis/necroptosis.

215 1.05 to 2.10) for > 60 pack-years of smoking versus never smoking.

216 rather than temporal differences (i.e., day versus night) better-explained the short-term variabilit

217 ase, five (33%) patients assigned to BIIB074 versus nine (64%) assigned to placebo were classified as

218 The ADPKD versus non-ADPKD RRs for biliary tract disease were larg

219 S2 EEG and standard EEG for the epileptiform versus non-epileptiform outcome was kappa = 0.40 (95% CI

220 (<40 yrs), Black or Hispanic race/ethnicity versus non-Hispanic White (OR 1.10, 95% confidence inter

221 To dissociate canonical versus noncanonical functions of DGCR8, we complemented

222 y, with long-term savings of $1870 and $2068 versus noncontrast and contrast-enhanced MR cholangiopan

223 Harmonization reduced climate emissions versus nonharmonized averages.

224 djusted rates for dementia in ADT recipients versus nonrecipients were 38.5 and 32.9, respectively, a

225 aloxone, administration routes, or transport versus nontransport after reversal of overdose with nalo

226 ighest levels detected in metastatic tumours versus normal skin or benign skin lesions.

227 main dimensions of this disagreement: nature versus nurture, coherent theories versus theory fragment

228 ce observed in the dimer abundance under O3- versus OH-dominant environments underlines the competiti

229 fferences in the prefrontal cortex of humans versus other animals [1].

230 fold selective for the hMC1R (EC50 = 4.5 nM) versus other melanocortin receptors.

231 hibited an IC50 value of 233 nM, selectivity versus other P2Y receptor subtypes, and is thought to ac

232 isted with HCC who received exception points versus patients listed with LABMELD.

233 lants performed with robotic technique (RKT) versus patients performed with open surgery at all US ce

234 with asymptomatic high-grade carotid disease versus patients with acutely symptomatic carotid disease

235 ributable to surgery and anesthesia exposure versus patients' baseline factors and hospital course.

236 ., whether the selfie was shared temporarily versus permanently) and are instead driven by the disinh

237 etection of bone lesions at diagnosis by MRI versus PET-CT.

238 issued a guideline titled "Nonpharmacologic Versus Pharmacologic Treatment of Adult Patients with Ma

239 CALGB (Alliance) 100104 study, lenalidomide versus placebo after autologous stem-cell transplantatio

240 ng 150 million bone marrow mononuclear cells versus placebo in 120 patients with anterior ST-segment-

241 FOURIER was a randomized trial of evolocumab versus placebo in 27 564 patients with atherosclerotic d

242 evaluate the effect of subcutaneous anakinra versus placebo on fatigue severity in female patients wi

243 , function, or harms of systemic medications versus placebo or another intervention.

244 atients allocated ramucirumab plus docetaxel versus placebo plus docetaxel (median 4.07 months [95% C

245 Mepolizumab versus placebo showed significant improvements at week 2

246 Changes in both seladelpar groups versus placebo were significant (p<0.0001 for both group

247 The least-squares mean difference versus placebo with respect to the absolute change in th

248 rials), the most common local adverse events versus placebo within the first 14 days were arm pain (5

249 y intervention were randomized to ranolazine versus placebo.

250 ompared relapse rates in patients given SCIg versus placebo.

251 ssessed the efficacy and safety of ceritinib versus platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients.

252 ed upon their maturity (peripheral or mature versus precursor) and lineage (B cell, T cell, and natur

253 and was significantly higher density in live versus prematurely deceased females indicating a potenti

254 inal (c L) and transverse sound speeds (c T) versus pressure from higher than room temperature to T C

255 h 6 (Nankivell) was noninferior for TacHexal versus Prograf using observed values (47.7 vs 38.6 mL/mi

256 LF10 in distinguishing the antiproliferative versus prometastatic functions of TGFbeta.

257 ssociation with disease is through promotion versus protection, thereby linking statistical associati

258 for CCA versus PSC, 0.956 for CCA stage I-II versus PSC, 0.904 for HCC versus control, and 0.894 for

259 ncirhottic PSC versus control, 0.796 for CCA versus PSC, 0.956 for CCA stage I-II versus PSC, 0.904 f

260 arative effectiveness of partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy to preserve kidney function h

261 haracteristic sigmoid plots when represented versus redox potential suggesting that all changes are t

262 C, miR-218 may be a switch of susceptibility versus resilience to stress-related disorders.

263 ooperation and relative contributions of Wnt versus RSPO ligands to in vivo canonical Wnt signalling

264 fference in mean visual outcome of the first versus second NAION events (standardized mean difference

265 articipants were randomised to active (n=12) versus sham (n=13) DBS for 16 weeks.

266 probe the p53 response, SJSA cells (shCDK19 versus shCTRL) were treated with the p53 activator nutli

267 efficacy of prolonged (continuous or >/=3 h) versus short-term (</=60 min) infusion of antipseudomona

268 d to identify the effectiveness of prolonged versus short-term infusion of antipseudomonal beta-lacta

269 As an example, three distinct D-versus-sigma "signatures" are calculated, corresponding

270 ponse in cells representative of the trachea versus small airway bronchiolar cells.

271 y of Cangrelor [PCI]: NCT00305162; Cangrelor Versus Standard Therapy to Achieve Optimal Management of

272 eories versus theory fragments, and symbolic versus sub-symbolic representations.

273 rom 2005 to 2013 to compare outcomes of ACTH versus TCH among patients age older than 65 years.

274 starting dosage sorafenib (800 mg/d per os) versus that of patients who were prescribed reduced star

275 e patch administered by a health-care worker versus the intramuscular route for the H1N1 strain (1197

276 relationship of monomeric unprocessed proMPO versus the mature dimeric MPO and the functional role of

277 ence is determined by their social influence versus the social susceptibility of others [9].

278 nt: nature versus nurture, coherent theories versus theory fragments, and symbolic versus sub-symboli

279 roke who received anticoagulation with NOACs versus those on warfarin (international normalized ratio

280 s acute myocardial infarction (280/397, 71%) versus those with at least 1 additional criterion (10.4%

281 d a higher ratio of tier 2 autologous titers versus tier 1 V3-sensitive titers than BG505 SOSIP.664.

282 ble spectroscopy, and open-circuit potential versus time experiments to understand the galvanic repla

283 tion rate (the percentage of haploid progeny versus total progeny).

284 crostent implantation with mitomycin C (MMC) versus trabeculectomy with MMC.

285 Etanercept-methotrexate first versus triple therapy first.

286 rnate days and given as single morning doses versus twice-daily split dosing.

287 e generate testable predictions for coupling versus uncoupling of phenotypic evolution of tadpole and

288 binary classification of apparently infected versus uninfected to a probability-based interpretation

289 In stimulated versus unstimulated organoid cultures, elevated IFN-gamm

290 ions was significantly reduced in vaccinated versus unvaccinated men (0.0% v 2.13%; Padj = .007).

291 e and survival in patients receiving de novo versus upgrade CRT defibrillator therapy.

292 y a different behavior against the wild-type versus V27A mutant A/M2 channels, and (ii) the compounds

293 tage of patients treated with nepafenac 0.3% versus vehicle in study 1 and similar percentage in stud

294 However, the mechanisms that direct atrial versus ventricular specification remain largely unknown.

295 age-adjusted hazard ratios comparing blacks versus whites were 2.61 (95% confidence interval, 1.57-4

296 profiles by RNA sequencing of ATXN2Q127 mice versus wild-type (WT) littermates.

297 responses to linguistic competition between versus within languages, and demonstrate the brain's rem

298 for discriminating between participants with versus without any masked hypertension was 0.681 (95% co

299 Here, we utilize comparative S672R versus WT NMR analyses to show that the S672R mutation r

300 ed with healthy controls and in older adults versus younger adults but there was no interaction.