ライフサイエンスコーパス: versus control

1 red with 86% of cKO-PT-Mfn2 animals (P<0.001 versus control).

2 >3 years (P=0.025 for 150 million MPC group versus control).

3 tected against OG1RF endocarditis (P = 0.008 versus control).

4 .5% [28.4-33.4] to 32.9% [28.6-36.9]; P=0.04 versus control).

5 3+/-8%, and 11+/-4% respectively (all P<0.05 versus control).

6 L [38.5-50.5] to 56.1 mL [50.3-63.0]; P=0.01 versus control).

7 24 hours after treatment (P < .005; P < .005 versus control).

8 ), and an increase in R2* (P < .005; P < .05 versus control).

9 uminal area increased by 38 +/- 13% (P=0.018 versus control).

10 tic nerve activity of HFrEF subjects (P<0.05 versus controls).

11 susceptibility to VA in HFpEF rats (P<0.001 versus controls).

12 cytometry (P<0.01 and P<0.05, respectively, versus controls).

13 at 8 h with 2 mg/ml A1AT (11-fold induction versus controls).

14 e-dose group and P = 0.028 for overall, both versus controls).

15 increased myofibroblast population (P < 0.05 versus controls).

16 05 for T cell-mediated rejection types >/=IB versus controls).

17 urs after percutaneous coronary intervention versus control.

18 RAS were elevated at days 360, 540, and 720 versus control.

19 ytic bronchiolitis (P=0.0006) in BOS and RAS versus control.

20 , with >2,000 genes differentially expressed versus control.

21 essed as a single profile, typically of case versus control.

22 with the device (hazard ratio 0.51, P=0.006) versus control.

23 in the nine trials of intravenous alteplase versus control.

24 acylcarnitines were markedly reduced in PAH versus controls.

25 to and IKslow were measured for ST3Gal4(-/-) versus controls.

26 % CI 1.2-2.5]) and TNFalpha (1.5 [1.0-2.2]), versus controls.

27 (1.8 [1.0-3.4]), and IL-15 (2.0 [1.1-3.7]), versus controls.

28 pigment epithelium (RPE) layers (P = 0.009) versus controls.

29 signal from the (18)F-FDG in carotid plaques versus controls.

30 s to be significantly downregulated in cases versus controls.

31 whereas MMP-14 and ENG expression decreased versus controls.

32 vity C-reactive protein were increased in HF versus controls.

33 le-1, and leptin and decreased interleukin-8 versus controls.

34 n cases with hippocampal sclerosis of ageing versus controls.

35 ased spontaneous calcium elevation amplitude versus controls.

36 ilar, whereas thiosulfate was higher in RTRs versus controls.

37 clear stratification of individuals with AS versus controls.

38 n of 504 genes in DXR-treated hair follicles versus controls.

39 ir,fb) was upregulated by 79%, in HF animals versus controls.

40 ased phosphorylation of RyR in LQT2 myocytes versus controls.

41 nificant differences between drug fatalities versus controls.

42 n increased degree in essential tremor cases versus controls.

43 anted in mice perinatally infected with MCMV versus controls.

44 tears was higher in patients with pterygium versus controls.

45 ear attenuation in disease onset or severity versus controls.

46 es were differentially expressed in patients versus controls.

47 post-inhibitory bursting in organic dystonia versus controls.

48 tal values were significantly worse in cases versus controls.

49 e and insulin levels were higher in patients versus controls.

50 ) and permanent dentition (DFT, DT) in cases versus controls.

51 staining was increased in KLF4 knockout mice versus controls.

52 the most underexpressed in human oral tumor versus controls.

53 less fibrosis, and improved cardiac function versus controls.

54 rroborated in RV arrays from 10 PAH patients versus controls.

55 enriched, with replication, in ASD subjects versus controls.

56 /CD4 cell ratio and in absolute T(reg) count versus controls.

57 discovery rate <5% were detected in patients versus controls.

58 nd acetylcholinesterase activity was reduced versus controls.

59 ciation analysis was conducted in SADS cases versus controls.

60 ricular S100A8 and S100A9 protein expression versus controls.

61 nd increased stimulated Wnt activity in IPAH versus controls.

62 acylcarnitines were elevated in PAH patients versus controls.

63 ovascular reactivity was diminished in HFpEF versus controls.

64 or of lipotoxicity, was increased in PAH RVs versus controls.

65 onships were significantly lower in patients versus controls.

66 ts of KLF4 as a group were enriched in cases versus controls.

67 omatic AS; 0.75 +/- 0.36% in asymptomatic AS versus controls 0.45 +/- 0.17, both P<0.05).

68 y of t-system components was decreased in HF versus controls (0.37+/-0.01 versus 0.46+/-0.02; P<0.01)

69 reased in PAH patients (PAH, 0.050 +/- 0.005 versus control, 0.029 +/- 0.003; P<0.05) and was closely

70 reduced (PAH, 0.16 +/- 0.01 arbitrary units versus control, 0.20 +/- 0.01 arbitrary units; P<0.05).

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

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

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

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

75 position (N2BA/N2B ratio: PAH, 0.78 +/- 0.07 versus control, 0.91 +/- 0.08), but titin phosphorylatio

76 comeric width (RBM20: 0.791 +/- 0.609 microm versus control: 0.943 +/- 0.166 microm; P < 0.0001).

77 l 8.78 +/- 1.59%) and CE (HCV 0.26 +/- 0.08% versus control 1.92 +/- 0.25%), as well as hepatic FC sy

78 iglyceride content was elevated in human PAH versus controls (1.4+/-1.3% triglyceride versus 0.22+/-0

79 e carotid arteries (TBRmax: CKD, 2.45+/-0.65 versus control, 1.66+/-0.27; P<0.001).

80 omeric length (RBM20: 1.747 +/- 0.238 microm versus control: 1.404 +/- 0.194 microm; P < 0.0001) and

81 e in ejection fraction for EHMs, -6.7+/-1.4% versus control, -10.9+/-1.5%; n>12; P=0.05), we observed

82 ive atrial fibrillation was lower after RIPC versus control (14% versus 50%; P<0.01).

83 cardiovascular disease in patients with MPN versus controls (16.8% v 15.2%) or cerebrovascular disea

84 y with Ang II infusion in patients with POTS versus controls (-166+/-20 versus -181+/-17 mL/min per 1

85 spike amplitude (RBM20: 35.281 +/- 4.060 AU versus control:18.484 +/- 1.518 AU; P < 0.05).

86 (TBR) in the aorta (TBRmax: CKD, 3.14+/-0.70 versus control, 2.12+/-0.27; P=0.001) and the carotid ar

87 4 +/- 2.5% and -18.1 +/- 2.9%, respectively, versus controls -20.7 +/- 2.0%, both P<0.05).

88 l (end film left ventricle 199.8 ms [SD, 16] versus control 201.6 ms [SD, 15]; P=0.004).

89 nder the curve (RBM20: 814.718 +/- 94.343 AU versus control: 206.941 +/- 22.417 AU; P < 0.05) and hig

90 ross-sectional areas (PAH, 453 +/- 31 mum(2) versus control, 218 +/- 21 mum(2); P<0.001), indicating

91 ld-to-moderate DPN (365 +/- 15.2; p = 0.001) versus controls (288 +/- 13.4), but not of T2 relaxation

92 results comparing two treatments (treatment versus control); 3) when such trials are conducted at va

93 esponder rate in the PFO closure (45 of 117) versus control (33 of 103) groups.

94 ythmic drugs at 12 months (CFAE: 30/65 [46%] versus control: 37/65 [57%]; P=0.29) and multiprocedural

95 comeric disorganization (RBM20: 86 +/- 10.5% versus control: 40 +/- 7%; P < 0.001).

96 This slightly reduced infarct size versus control (41% +/- 16% vs 54% +/- 8% of risk zone,

97 reduced in the 150 million MPC group (0/15) versus control (5/15; 33%), 25 million MPC group (3/15;

98 e spinal cord at 7 weeks for treated animals versus controls (5.2 Arbitrary Units +/-0.52 vs 7.1 AU +

99 was significantly higher after LVAD support versus controls (5.2+/-1.0% versus 2.1+/-0.4%, P=0.004).

100 d multiprocedural success (CFAE: 51/65 [78%] versus control: 52/65 [80%]; P=1.0) were not significant

101 as enhanced in PAH tissue (PAH, 9.6 +/- 0.7% versus control, 7.2 +/- 0.6%; P<0.01).

102 atal day (P) 1 mutants had high rates of VUR versus controls (75% versus 3%, p = 0.001) and occasiona

103 as hepatic FC synthesis (HCV 1.68 +/- 0.26% versus control 8.12 +/- 0.77%) was lower in HCV (P < 0.0

104 ole-body synthesis of FC (HCV 1.64 +/- 0.28% versus control 8.78 +/- 1.59%) and CE (HCV 0.26 +/- 0.08

105 ar capillary perfusion in TLN-treated organs versus controls (9.1 vs 2.8 pl/s per mm, P = 0.021).

106 5) [SIDS, 177.2 +/- 15.1 (mean +/- SE) ng/mL versus controls, 91.1 +/- 30.6 ng/mL] (P = 0.014), as de

107 12 mo (12 mo: difference -1.0, intervention versus control, 95% CI -4.9 to 3.0), pain intensity, or

108 e, PLN CD4(+) T cells isolated from anti-CD4 versus control Ab-treated animals displayed increased in

109 MiR-338-3p expression was higher in RIPC versus control after aortic cross-clamping.

110 In trials of statin versus control, allocation to statin therapy did not sig

111 ction of </=45%, randomized subjects to MRAs versus control and reported outcomes on SCD, total and c

112 cancer deaths in all trials of daily aspirin versus control and the time course of effects of low-dos

113 ation treatments motivated 8% energy savings versus control and were particularly effective on famili

114 fidence interval], 16.4 [1.8-147.3]; P=0.012 versus controlled and 2.6 [0.93-7.4]; P=0.068 versus int

115 gy of hippocampal astrocytes in drug addicts versus controls and further supports the involvement of

116 8) F-flortaucipir uptake was elevated in PSP versus controls and PD patients in a pattern consistent

117 cteristic curves of miRNA panels for all CRC versus controls and polyps versus all CRC showed AUC val

118 significantly increased intracellular alphaS versus controls and release significantly more alphaS to

119 d volume transfer constant (P = .07; P < .05 versus control) and enhancing fraction (P < .05; P < .01

120 L [60.7-71.3] to 83.5 mL [74.7-90.8]; P=0.14 versus control) and LV ejection fraction change over tim

121 observed reduced phosphorylation (p < 0.001 versus controls) and lower levels of binding to interleu

122 changes in dietary fat intake (-61%; P<0.001 versus controls) and physical fitness (+34%; P<0.001) le

123 ol) and enhancing fraction (P < .05; P < .01 versus control), and an increase in R2* (P < .005; P < .

124 rinogen degradation, did not cause bleeding (versus controls), and caused less bleeding than clinical

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

126 the effects of low versus high sodium, DASH versus control, and both (low sodium-DASH vs. high sodiu

127 expression is significantly reduced in cases versus controls, and replicate this in two independent c

128 injured SVZ increased approximately twofold versus controls, and, upon differentiation, more than tw

129 bal functional connectivity maps in patients versus controls; and (ii) regional functional connectivi

130 ncrease in CD4(+)IFN-gamma(+) T cell numbers versus control animals at 2 wk post-needle inoculation o

131 AD > 5-fold in liver and >1.2-fold in muscle versus control animals at a 2 h time point.

132 nhibition of eEPSC amplitude of nerve-injury versus control animals in both lamina I and lamina II ne

133 the spinal cord dorsal horn in nerve-injured versus control animals, suggesting a functional increase

134 In mice null for the EFNA1 receptor, EphA2, versus control animals, vascular endothelial growth fact

135 orm-specific monoclonal antibody to VEGF165b versus control antibody enhanced perfusion in animal mod

136 (anti-transferrin receptor [TfR] bispecific versus control antibody) in mouse models of AD.

137 mes as likely to identify anti-HCV+ patients versus controls (aRR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.4; adjusted pro

138 ls; 578 patients) with psychological therapy versus control at the end of therapy for patients with q

139 was significantly lower in DeltaF508 mutants versus controls at 24 weeks.

140 root ganglia (DRGs) of the db(-)/db(-) mouse versus controls at 8 mo of age, which was significantly

141 nce mutations were more frequent in MI cases versus controls at exome-wide significance.

142 mission yielded an AUC of 0.99 to detect TBI versus controls (AUC 0.96 for S100B), and increased to 1

143 atment group had an improved eGFR trajectory versus control, based on our predetermined two-sided 0.1

144 gnificantly reduced (p < 0.05) in betaPax6KO versus control beta cells, and the former displayed atte

145 categorical label (major depressive disorder versus controls), both relevance vector machine and supp

146 cell markers and assessed in denervated mice versus controls by immunofluorescent microscopy and real

147 gressions were used to compare case subjects versus controls (case-control) and case subjects at the

148 HIV-1 RNA 5' ends in infected DBR1 knockdown versus control cells was eliminated by in vitro incubati

149 s were significantly lower in KO alpha-cells versus control cells.

150 appeared less vertical with convoluted edges versus control cells.

151 An SFN-rich diet (3 mumoles/day SFN versus control chow) decreased the arthritis score in th

152 arm trial with 3:1 randomization to r-hIL-7 versus control conducted in Europe and South Africa.

153 rom a single experiment (e.g. drug treatment versus control), creating a need for computational algor

154 g for PR was lower in DC nuclei in abruption versus control decidua and was absent from ITs; GR was h

155 irmed a 10-fold decrease in uNK cells in cKO versus control decidua.

156 iver mitochondrial acetyl-proteome during CR versus control diet in mice that were wild-type or lacke

157 o test for the moderating role of ER on ADHD versus control differences seen across Go/No-Go studies.

158 Of 693 genes showing significant case-versus-control differential expression, their fold chang

159 ession caused postpacing atrial pauses in HF versus control dogs (17.1 +/- 28.9 versus 1.5 +/- 1.3 se

160 significantly increased within the SAN in HF versus control dogs (38 +/- 4% versus 23 +/- 4%; P<0.001

161 eater risks of ocular complications in cases versus controls during the overall observation period (H

162 protein expression were increased in proband versus control EBV-immortalized lymphoblastoid cell line

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

164 s (ONL+PRL) were measured and compared in MS versus control eyes and MS ON versus non-ON eyes.

165 osensory retinal thickening in eyes with AMD versus control eyes in our study contrasts with previous

166 or MSON eyes versus control eyes, MSNON eyes versus control eyes, and MSNON eyes versus MSON eyes.

167 y random effects meta-analysis for MSON eyes versus control eyes, MSNON eyes versus control eyes, and

168 o establish non-inferiority of the test (CM) versus control (FGG) therapy.

169 backgrounds of S. aureus colonizing AE cases versus controls (Fisher exact test, P = 0.03).

170 -year, and 10-year groups, respectively (IPV versus control: Fisher's exact test P < 0.001).

171 of ischaemic stroke accrued for aspirin only versus control from 6-12 weeks, but there was no benefit

172 d memory disorders increased in intervention versus control group (odds ratio = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.28,

173 ean change from baseline: genetic risk group versus control group 0.85 kJ/kg/d (95% CI -2.07 to 3.77,

174 07 to 3.77, p = 0.57); phenotypic risk group versus control group 1.32 (95% CI -1.61 to 4.25, p = 0.3

175 ased to masked sad faces in the experimental versus control group following rtfMRI-nf.

176 the faces dot-probe task in the experimental versus control group following rtfMRI-nf.

177 emic arterial pressure (80.1 +/- 15.1 mm Hg) versus control group patients (89.2 +/- 17.9 mm Hg).

178 esults of the educational intervention group versus control group.

179 genic deletions and duplications in affected versus control groups (1.41-fold, p = 1.0 x 10(-5)) and

180 inpatient stay (d) between the intervention versus control groups (20 [15-35] vs 34 [18-43]; p = 0.3

181 uptake was observed in the afatinib-treated versus control groups (3.0 +/- 0.0 percentage injected d

182 atic patients with CAA (per Boston criteria) versus control groups (healthy participants or patients

183 ondary outcome of stroke in the intervention versus control groups (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99; log-ra

184 the proportions of patients in the treatment versus control groups achieving a 50% or greater AHI red

185 fferences at 11.5 years between experimental versus control groups were as follows: 1.0 mm Hg (95% co

186 e 3 or worse adverse events in the custirsen versus control groups were neutropenia (70 [22%] of 315

187 g blood pressure control in the intervention versus control groups were not different from each other

188 .4% vs. 102.5 +/- 6.2%, p < 0.001), in study versus control groups, respectively.

189 r metabolic syndrome, comparing experimental versus control groups, was 1.21 (0.85 to 1.72).

190 al were not significantly different in study versus control groups, with graft survival of 64.5% (95%

191 stigate the rewiring interactions in disease versus control groups.

192 Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2.5% one-sided alpha for

193 Patients assigned to treatment versus control had similar baseline characteristics.

194 ality measures improved more at intervention versus control hospitals.

195 mulates GIP but not GLP-1) after sitagliptin versus control in 12 healthy lean, 12 obese, and 12 type

196 ted the neurocircuitry of contextual anxiety versus control in awake, conditioned rats (n = 7-10 per

197 31 participants from three trials of aspirin versus control in major acute stroke.

198 t data from all randomised trials of aspirin versus control in secondary prevention after TIA or isch

199 5,778 participants from 12 trials of aspirin versus control in secondary prevention.

200 alysis we pooled data from trials of aspirin versus control in which patients were randomised less th

201 ductions were found in depressed individuals versus controls in global white matter integrity, as mea

202 ntile comparison, the proportion of patients versus controls in the lowest ADAMTS13 quintile was comp

203 fusion was significantly higher in fetal CHD versus controls, in the lateral side-lying patient posit

204 5) per 100 child-years, with an intervention versus control incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.01 (95% C

205 The significant clinical features in cases versus controls included prolonged duration of symptoms

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

207 itance, a significant enrichment in affected versus control individuals (OR = 3.3).

208 ieving LDL-C goals at Week 24 for alirocumab versus control (interaction P-values non-significant).

209 d phospholamban protein were unchanged in MR versus control left ventricles.

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

211 ptake rate in ventilator-induced lung injury versus control lung (0.017 [0.014-0.025] vs 0.011 min [0

212 cleotidohydrolase mRNAs were elevated in PAH versus control lungs (n=10), and proteins were localized

213 uman endogenous retrovirus K (HERV-K) in PAH versus control lungs (n=4).

214 (mean -0.28 nmol/L [95% CI -0.36 to -0.20]) versus control (mean -0.46 nmol/L [95% CI -0.57 to -0.35

215 al disease (median 8.1%; IQR: 3.3% to 12.9%) versus control (median 13.6%; IQR: 11.0% to 15.9%; p = 0

216 plasmablasts is increased in pregnant women versus controls (median fold-change 2.60 vs 1.49 [interq

217 y was 25-fold higher in 14- to 16-week db/db versus control mice.

218 e de novo pathway in L2 MECs of bitransgenic versus control mice.

219 Adipo-MROE versus control-MR mice exhibited reduced vascular contra

220 In human PAD versus control muscle biopsies, VEGF165b: (1) is elevate

221 METHODS AND In human PAD versus control muscle biopsies, VEGF165b: (1) is elevate

222 Intervention (n=199) versus control (n=210) group participants experienced fe

223 andomized at 7 centers to hypothermia (n=28) versus control (n=26).

224 Duchenne muscular dystrophy samples (n = 6) (versus controls; n = 6), including two mitochondrial pro

225 mental health in intervention neighborhoods versus control neighborhoods.

226 sside-enhanced cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus control or sodium nitroprusside-enhanced cardiopu

227 dhood- onset SLE with neurocognitive deficit versus controls or patients with childhood-onset SLE wit

228 variants in the complement pathway in cases versus controls (OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.49-5.79; P = 0.002)

229 ry time did not change in any exercise group versus control (P > 0.33).

230 rol (P = .05) and 0.69 for the docetaxel arm versus control (P = .01), reflecting absolute improvemen

231 a hazard ratio of 0.76 for the cisplatin arm versus control (P = .05) and 0.69 for the docetaxel arm

232 y higher in NASH versus NAFL (P = 0.047) and versus controls (P < 0.0001).

233 er surface area of healthy pocket epithelium versus controls (P = 0.008), and a tendency toward highe

234 RA function was impaired in PH patients versus controls (P<0.001).

235 ted gene IFI44L (rs273259: P = 5.9 x 10(-12) versus controls, P = 1.2 x 10(-9) versus MMR-unrelated f

236 receptor CD46 (rs1318653: P = 9.6 x 10(-11) versus controls, P = 1.6 x 10(-9) versus MMR-unrelated f

237 of de novo or transmitted rare CNVs in cases versus controls, pathway analysis using multiple algorit

238 -positive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients versus control patients with osteoarthritis (OA); and 2)

239 ere found in unaffected siblings and parents versus controls (primary and permanent dentitions).

240 radioactivity uptake in spinal cords of EAE versus control rats could be detected and quantified.

241 er varicosities was higher in epileptic rats versus control rats in the inner and outer zones of the

242 oximal tubule cell surface in Rab38 knockout versus control rats.

243 3% [6.6%-8.0%] versus 8.0% [6.8%-8.8%], DJBL versus control respectively (P = ns).

244 spectively; P < .005, P < .005, and P < .005 versus control, respectively) and with a correlation bet

245 < .005, respectively; P < .005 and P < .005 versus control, respectively).

246 tissue and atrial fibroblasts (-87% and -92% versus control, respectively; p<0.001 for both) and rema

247 rom patients with AD and patients without AD versus control skin, 1185 DEGs were uniquely altered in

248 ions, i.e., controlling all sources together versus controlling some source(s) preferentially are dif

249 dose-dependently, with greater effects in BN versus control Sprague-Dawley rats.

250 statistically significantly enriched in CRC versus control stool samples in both series.

251 ents with coronary atherosclerosis (n = 106) versus control subjects (1.64 +/- 0.49 vs. 1.23 +/- 0.24

252 ocytosis (P < .0001) and in all 3 categories versus control subjects (P < .0001).

253 ring at B-mode US were increased in patients versus control subjects (P < .001), and fascial thickeni

254 antly decreased in patients with suicidality versus control subjects (p < .05).

255 20 min postprandially was also higher in IGT versus control subjects (P < 0.001) in men (0.063 [0.032

256 DFA partitioning after 6 h was higher in IGT versus control subjects (P = 0.006) in both men (2.14 [9

257 t increased in patients with atherosclerosis versus control subjects (p = 0.498).

258 h idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension versus control subjects and to assess the functional sig

259 e also higher (P<0.05) in patients with COPD versus control subjects in association with higher venti

260 o failure yielded a risk ratio among treated versus control subjects of 0.54 (95% confidence interval

261 d in tissue specimens from patients with IPF versus control subjects using quantitative reverse trans

262 racy of the SVM was 85% for patients with AD versus control subjects, 72% for patients with bvFTD ver

263 elded accuracies of 88% for patients with AD versus control subjects, 85% for patients with bvFTD ver

264 ontrol subjects, 72% for patients with bvFTD versus control subjects, and 79% for patients with AD ve

265 ontrol subjects, 85% for patients with bvFTD versus control subjects, and 82% for patients with AD ve

266 t hypothalamic region to be similar in obese versus control subjects, suggesting functional but not s

267 In patients with COPD versus control subjects, there was significant dynamic h

268 ach showed similar changes in LVEF and LVESV versus control subjects, with a small but significant re

269 ulations (P < .1) in patients with severe AD versus control subjects, with significant differences in

270 four increased and six decreased in patients versus control subjects.

271 ferences in complications with the procedure versus control subjects.

272 lu was 21% lower in type 1 diabetic subjects versus control subjects.

273 in alveolar macrophages of patients with IPF versus control subjects.

274 a significant burden is observed in patients versus control subjects.

275 After infection, corneas of rapamycin versus control-treated BALB/c mice showed worsened disea

276 gulation of CDKN1A and FOXO3A in decitabine- versus control-treated cells.

277 ss response before, and 20 min after the CPS versus control treatment.

278 ry units [au]) of anti-VEGF antibody-treated versus control tumors at day 14 was as follows: BR1, 5.2

279 Adjusted comparisons of patients with BRONJ versus controls used multiple linear regression.

280 for previous bereavement among case patients versus controls using conditional logistic regression wi

281 ory bowel disease with psychological therapy versus control was 0.98 (95% CI 0.77-1.24; p=0.87; I(2)=

282 a 4.5-log reduction in colony forming units versus control was demonstrated.

283 detected in the cortex of AD patients (-39% versus controls), was correlated with cognitive impairme

284 ivariate logistic regression in HCV-infected versus controls were determined.

285 Median values in essential tremor cases versus controls were: 5712.1 versus 10 403.2 microm (tot

286 Id-FTR valvular alterations (versus controls) were largest annular area (3.53+/-0.6 v

287 Results from the BMDhigh comparison, test versus control, were not statistically significant (P >0

288 anced ejection fraction or force development versus controls, whereas relaxation improved similarly t

289 urinary microbial diversity in burn patients versus controls, which positively correlated with a larg

290 in the metabolomic profiles of AMD patients versus controls, while controlling for potential confoun

291 l signature was suppressed in patients group versus controls, while Th1, Th2, Treg, and eosinophil ge

292 tion of self-care with 2 intervention groups versus control who were given diaries for 24 months to t

293 end-diastolic pressure and fibrosis (P<0.05 versus control wild type).

294 The hazard ratio for patients versus controls with none of the risk factors meeting ta

295 On comparison of cases versus controls with OSSN, HIV-positive individuals had

296 nt of renal function in experimental animals versus controls, with significant correlations with the

297 0(-3)) were more frequently seen in AD cases versus controls within these families.

298 etrial gene expression in asoprisnil-treated versus control women, and we demonstrate a statistically

299 ting plasmablasts were evaluated in pregnant versus control women.

300 patients taking PPI and patients taking PPI versus controls yielded consistent results.