1 We compared 103 pediatrics under 15 yeas old (age, 10.8+/-2.6
2 and higher pHs where many of these proteins phase separate,
we compared (
13)CO-detect versus (1)H(alpha)-detect experimen
3 We compared 16 patients who had GHPs showing neoplastic trans
4 drophobicity as an exemplary chemical environmental factor,
we compared a range of essential parameters for an oxidation
5 We compared acutely isolated retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) at
6 Thus,
we compared ASCVD risk reduction and T2D incidence increases
7 We compared BIN-Lasso with SNP-Lasso and Q + K-LMM in a simul
8 We compared binding sites of TRAMP components with multiple n
9 When
we compared Binner annotations of 75 compounds previously ide
10 Using Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data,
we compared data on observed waitlist registrations, waitlist
11 We compared demographic and clinical characteristics of IC an
12 We compared different motor-learning tasks, i.e. model-free v
13 ls and B cells), captured either separately or in mixtures,
we compared different scRNA-seq platforms and several preproc
14 We compared existing Porites data with bleached and unbleache
15 rain computation associated with the invariance properties,
we compared experimental data with computational modeling res
16 We compared metabolic parameters of skeletal muscle from glob
17 We compared our results with 23,557 subjects with CF, who wer
18 We compared outcomes in patients who received hydroxychloroqu
19 We compared plasma antibody binding to HIV antigens between 5
20 with Alzheimer's disease and primary age-related tauopathy,
we compared rates of decline in the sum of boxes score from t
21 We compared scores from 5 cognitive tests and multiple choice
22 We compared six "next-gen" VOA employing PCR or ultrasensitiv
23 We compared sputum ACE2 expression in patients with COPD stra
24 We compared stress responsiveness in four populations of tree
25 We compared survival among persons with and without TB at enr
26 As such,
we compared the antibody profile to HA and NA in two naturall
27 In this study
we compared the antibody responses in humans after vaccinatio
28 We compared the effectiveness of Your Path to Transplant (YPT
29 Here
we compared the electrophysiological effects of native (WT) a
30 his glycosylation site may be the binding region for EphA2,
we compared the EphA2 binding activity of EBV gH/gL and the E
31 Herein,
we compared the global metabolome of 231 plasma and 97 fecal
32 We compared the immunomodulatory effect of MSCs, CIMVs and EV
33 We compared the impact of distance presenting binocular VA an
34 We compared the incidence of DM between individuals living in
35 We compared the molecular profiles of canine gliomas with tho
36 We compared the number of WMNsST with labeled claustral and c
37 We compared the pathogenesis of the DUBmut virus to that of t
38 We compared the performance of the Pan-LASV RDT to available
39 We compared the performance of the proposed model with those
40 We compared the requirements for autophagy receptor proteins:
41 thracis PGA confers a pathogenic advantage over other PGAs,
we compared the responses of human innate immune cells to B.
42 We compared the risk of Parkinson's disease in patients with
43 Here,
we compared the RNA-sequenced transcriptomes of ~100 laser ca
44 We compared the transcriptome, phenotype, and function of mem
45 We compared therapeutic properties of natural and engineered
46 We compared these reference values with previously developed
47 -identified data from January 1, 2016 to September 30, 2019
we compared trends in the utilization rates (hearts transplan
48 Here,
we compared two splicing variants (V1, V2) of murine UHRF1 (m
49 We compared various extracted DOM compositions analyzed by ne
50 se seven groups, from diffusion-weighted imaging (n = 300),
we compared white matter fractional anisotropy (FA), mean dif