ライフサイエンスコーパス: between groups

1 , but there were no differences in liver fat between groups.

2 erence in any of the cardiometabolic markers between groups.

3 of stay, and ventilator days) did not differ between groups.

4 Serious adverse events occurred equally between groups.

5 pressure-lowering medications were detected between groups.

6 RT measures were not significantly different between groups.

7 rse events leading to withdrawal was similar between groups.

8 sher exact test was used to compare outcomes between groups.

9 ence in rates of positive microbial cultures between groups.

10 of these showed differential gene expression between groups.

11 postoperative corneal endothelial cell loss between groups.

12 r postoperative complications did not differ between groups.

13 tion effects, and comparing MFI distribution between groups.

14 ry different global within-group variability between groups.

15 s, and these indirect effects were different between groups.

16 but learning was not significantly different between groups.

17 < .001) and boost margin (P = .001) differed between groups.

18 .4 [SD=9.3]), with no significant difference between groups.

19 tetanus immunoglobulin G titers were similar between groups.

20 ial diffusivity (AD), and radial diffusivity between groups.

21 ry end points, 4 are reported and 3 differed between groups.

22 ardiac death was not significantly different between groups.

23 no difference in absolute blood neutrophils between groups.

24 Again, prevalence did not differ between groups.

25 occidioidomycosis were assessed and compared between groups.

26 a C4 levels were not significantly different between groups.

27 cirrhosis and platelet count were comparable between groups.

28 on or emergency department visits at 30 days between groups.

29 ally significant difference in CSF C4 values between groups.

30 Secondary outcomes were similar between groups.

31 (93.8% vs 92.3%, P = 1.00) remained similar between groups.

32 psy-proven acute rejection were also similar between groups.

33 tory arrest, was not significantly different between groups.

34 olongation, were not significantly different between groups.

35 0.20, p = .28) availabilities did not differ between groups.

36 expression quantitative trait loci variants between groups.

37 gions which were considered as hubs differed between groups.

38 tional survival did not differ significantly between groups.

39 ormance differed across discourse genres and between groups.

40 nsient or permanent intraocular side effects between groups.

41 Radiographic appearance was similar between groups.

42 s, whereas Rac1 and Akt2 showed no different between groups.

43 4.3% +/- 4.4%; P = 0.043) with no difference between groups.

44 in incidence or severity of graft rejection between groups.

45 ormalized LUS score was used to discriminate between groups.

46 wever, there were no significant differences between groups.

47 s employed to study the spectral differences between groups.

48 al cognition, with no significant difference between groups.

49 of inflammation did not differ significantly between groups.

50 Baseline BP was similar between groups.

51 baseline data, or procedure characteristics between groups.

52 Lesion type on FA differed between groups.

53 and activation marker profiles were similar between groups.

54 riminant analysis models for the differences between groups.

55 621 children were compared cross-sectionally between groups.

56 and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups.

57 ive decrease over time, which was comparable between groups.

58 he presence of different sampling mechanisms between groups.

59 dance, there were no significant differences between groups.

60 flow and blood oxygen contents were similar between groups.

61 rotein derivative stimulation did not differ between groups.

62 (26 [18] vs 19 [12]; p = 0.352) were similar between groups.

63 d change in scores over time since diagnosis between groups.

64 ain iodine concentrations (mg/ml) to compare between groups.

65 n the number of adjuvant treatments required between groups.

66 ithout statistically significant differences between groups.

67 s, nor in any of these CD4(+) T cell subsets between groups.

68 rajectories were not statistically different between groups.

69 and sepsis-related HRS-AKI, were comparable between groups.

70 and TNF-alpha concentrations did not differ between groups.

71 ission rates for cardiac causes were similar between groups.

72 though insulin sensitivity was not different between groups.

73 Postoperative outcomes were similar between groups.

74 immune stimulation responses did not differ between groups.

75 grade analyses did not differ significantly between groups.

76 ve response or pathological resection status between groups.

77 events (AEs) and serious AEs was comparable between groups.

78 Molecular expression was very similar between groups.

79 stic regression was used to compare outcomes between groups.

80 ferences in structure across the whole brain between groups.

81 istics by DISE and FTP grading were compared between groups.

82 ecause there were no differences in outcomes between groups.

83 10 [3.1%] vs 16 [5.0%]; p=0.23) were similar between groups.

84 Frequencies of adverse events were similar between groups.

85 nd receipt of vasopressors were also similar between groups.

86 y endpoints were not statistically different between groups.

87 , and severity of acute illness were similar between groups.

88 ls in dorsal ACC and thalamus did not differ between groups.

89 of soft tissue contour change were observed between groups.

90 fibrotic scar, gliosis or neuroinflammation between groups.

91 , P = 1.00) were not significantly different between groups.

92 .09, PAH control = -0.25 +/- 0.18, P = 0.91) between groups.

93 lculate standardised mean differences (SMDs) between groups.

94 or salivary cortisol measures were different between groups.

95 18:1n9T contributing to dissimilarity scores between groups.

96 and 9.2%, respectively, without differences between groups.

97 e alterations and AR expression were similar between groups.

98 ute adverse events, both systemic and local, between groups.

99 ondary outcomes were significantly different between groups.

100 phics, VA, IOD, and stereopsis were compared between groups.

101 ccurrence, eventration, or hernia recurrence between groups.

102 Some secondary outcomes differed between groups.

103 than in CTL (P < 0.05), with no differences between groups.

104 or genitourinary toxicity (5% v 5%, P = .76) between groups.

105 oad (pVL), and causes of death were compared between groups.

106 VmPFC value activation was compared between groups.

107 0-2 vs 3-6 or mRS 0-1 vs 2-6) did not differ between groups.

108 tive stress were not substantially different between groups.

109 alus, and thromboembolic events were similar between groups.

110 issue necrosis, and hematoma were comparable between groups.

111 owed that efficiency of six regions differed between groups.

112 iming chosen to potentially discriminate VEs between groups.

113 , and severity of acute illness were similar between groups.

114 eighting to balance baseline characteristics between groups.

115 llow-up was also not significantly different between groups.

116 te (<=6 weeks) postoperative endophthalmitis between groups 1 and 2.

117 interleukin-6 concentrations did not differ between groups 1-hour post-PCI but increased less 24 hou

118 Serious adverse events were similar between groups (112 [43%] of 258 patients in the ramucir

119 vels along the first year were not different between groups (12-mo levels were 8.72 +/- 2.93 and 7.85

120 post-randomization thrombus area was similar between groups: -218.2 mum(2) (95% confidence interval [

121 The 90-day mortality was similar between groups (22 [33%] of 66 patients in the intervent

122 Baseline BMI (mean+/-SD) was similar between groups (36.8 +/- 2.6 vs 37.0 +/- 2.6).

123 median NIHSS score at day 90 did not differ between groups (4 [IQR 2-8] in 150 mg S44819 group, 4 [2

124 al end point was not significantly different between groups (56% women versus 49% men; odds ratio, 1.

125 r filtration rate at month 36 was comparable between groups (68.1 vs 67.3 mL/min/1.73 m(2) ).

126 2), whereas the effect on GIP again differed between groups (+78% in controls, P < 0.01; +39% in RYGB

127 < 0.01), whereas the effect on GIP differed between groups (+90% in controls, P < 0.01; +24% in RYGB

128 bility of being ready for RTx was comparable between groups A and B.

129 re identified with no significant difference between groups across all baseline indices.

130 At 3 months, mean difference in weight between groups, adjusted for baseline weight and group,

131 difference in restricted mean survival time between groups after 13.9 years (P = 0.34).

132 ically significant increase in CSF C4 levels between groups after adjusting for sex and age.

133 he prevalence of adverse events was observed between groups, although one participant experienced tem

134 The probability of ONH schisis was compared between groups and against demographic and ocular factor

135 all adverse events for all eyes was compared between groups and included local, regional, and systemi

136 OVA evaluated pain and satisfaction measures between groups and over time.

137 pplied to study the difference in R2* levels between groups and the association between longitudinal

138 techniques were used to compare differences between groups and to control for case-mix.

139 s that GAKCCA can distinguish a relationship between groups and whether they are correlated or not.

140 h parameter to diagnostic separation changed between groups and years.

141 icant difference were applied for comparison between groups, and multivariate regression models were

142 es in inflammatory mediators were identified between groups, and patterns of inflammation among patie

143 n liver, lung, and spleen were not different between groups, and the phagocytic capacity of Kupffer c

144 The data show that aggressive encounters between groups are initiated by females, who gain fitnes

145 Baseline-adjusted differences between groups at 6 months were assessed.

146 ified EHRA class was significantly different between groups at 6 months; 53% of patients in the digox

147 ay outcomes, OS, TTP, and DFS did not differ between groups at a minimum follow-up of 36 months.

148 antiglaucoma medications, and complications between groups at all other time points.

149 No significant differences were found between groups at baseline.

150 ean ECD, CV, and %HEX values were comparable between groups at baseline.

151 by considering hyperconjugation interactions between groups at C(2) and the two tau bonds (bent bonds

152 difference in mean and minimal scaffold area between groups at post-intervention.

153 ignificant difference in liver fat reduction between groups (beta = 2.8; 95% confidence interval, -2.

154 total improvement in LV measures was similar between groups, Black patients averaged larger gains in

155 often preceded by more frequent interactions between groups, but did not seem to be a product of dire

156 Residents were similar between groups by age (mean, ~79), heart failure, lung d

157 Between groups, children with diabetes exhibited reduced

158 The between groups component was comprised of day v.

159 oss populations; thus, similar HIV incidence between groups could be consistent with a wide range of

160 (12) reactivity unit, differed significantly between groups (crushed, 192 [132-245] versus integral,

161 n in response to OW expectancy or OW reading between groups (CW as baseline).

162 ubstantial does the difference in end points between groups defined by the TBT need to be to determin

163 n antiretroviral therapy (cART) were similar between groups despite strain divergence.

164 al settings (analysis of covariance; P=0.044 between groups) despite lower peak mean+/-SD heart rates

165 onal tidal volume, with PEEP applied equally between groups, did not significantly reduce pulmonary c

166 ide treatment: after treatment, there was no between-groups difference in improvement in Positive and

167 tment weighting) was used to reduce baseline between-groups differences.

168 ng tested for transcriptomic distinctiveness between groups, effect of comorbidities, and differentia

169 baseline pulmonary capillary wedge pressure between groups (eg, pulmonary capillary wedge pressure:

170 eyes, IOD, and stereopsis improved similarly between groups, even after stratifying by amblyopia subt

171 ences in baseline-procedural characteristics between groups except for higher spontaneous echocardiog

172 Secondary outcomes were similar between groups except hospital length of stay (opioid us

173 ative IOP and number of glaucoma medications between groups, except for month 18 (1 patient in the BG

174 ent and operation characteristics were equal between groups, except for open resection (saline n = 5

175 ividual entities within a group, competition between groups favors cooperation.

176 e frequency of EBV-specific T-cell responses between groups following stimulation with an EBV-infecte

177 ere no statistically significant differences between groups for most of the other secondary metabolic

178 s, but there was no evidence of a difference between groups for most other secondary outcomes includi

179 unger than 40 years; there was no difference between groups for patients diagnosed with IBD at an age

180 There were no differences between groups for the components of the composite endpo

181 Rac1 and Akt showed no difference between groups for the human trial.

182 Differences between groups for the microbiological data were determi

183 group changes) did not significantly differ between groups for the primary outcomes of total body LM

184 M (P<0.001) but did not differ significantly between groups for those who required biventricular MCS.

185 wever, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for upright time at 6 months (mean [SD] p

186 While no significant differences were found between groups for whole hippocampal SUVr values (p = 0.

187 n diet (A-MeDi) score, and physical activity between groups, from midlife through 1 year preceding th

188 e survival also did not significantly differ between groups (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.60-1.23; p

189 evere acute GVHD after injection was similar between groups (hazard ratio, 1.1 [CI, 0.53 to 2.4]; P =

190 ular and growth plate cartilage were similar between groups, homozygous mitochondrial DNA mutator mic

191 in mean action potential duration (APD(80)) between groups; however, isoproterenol (ISO) significant

192 EHI index showed no differences between groups in all-time intervals.

193 had lower NT-proBNP (g=0.34) and differences between groups in baseline values for LV end-diastolic v

194 There were no differences between groups in decisional conflict, decision process

195 .62); there were no significant differences between groups in depression incidence or recurrence.

196 nsity at 1 month postoperatively was similar between groups in diabetics (P = 0.627) and non-diabetic

197 s, and there was no evidence of a difference between groups in fall rates (unadjusted incidence rate

198 There were no differences between groups in fever (2 patients in each group: 1.78%

199 There were no differences between groups in frequency of reporting scents as trigg

200 gin corresponds to a 12% absolute difference between groups in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therap

201 evaluated by patients, without a difference between groups in patients and professional analysis.

202 We found no difference between groups in pneumonia, serious infections, any inf

203 wever, there were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients found to have

204 There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of polyps that were comple

205 7) at week 144; no differences were observed between groups in study 2.

206 wed no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of reduction of horizontal width

207 0.166), we found a clear delineation in SUVr between groups in the dentate gyrus (p = 0.009).

208 essments, we compared cognitive trajectories between groups in the domains of intelligence quotient (

209 There was no significant difference between groups in withdrawal time (417 +/- 101 seconds f

210 howed a statistically significant difference between groups, including in-hospital mortality (1.7% fo

211 The incidence of adverse events was balanced between groups, including nausea, anorexia, and musculos

212 Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups, including volume of ascitic tap (4.16 +/

213 Patient age was comparable between groups (intervention, 45 years +/- 13 [standard

214 The cumulative incidence rate difference between groups is -0.05 (95% confidence interval, -0.03

215 We find that cooperation between groups is predicted by how culturally similar th

216 nd 0 days, short-term RD risk did not differ between groups (laser [20/635 eyes], 3.1%; anti-VEGF [1/

217 At 28 days, no difference was found between groups (laser, 97%; bevacizumab, 100%; P > 0.99)

218 of endocarditis did not differ significantly between groups (Melody group, 82%; SPVR group, 86%; P=0.

219 e wave velocity did not differ significantly between groups, nor did abdominal aortic calcification,

220 n fatigue and sexual function did not differ between groups, nor did side effects.

221 Graft loss at 1 month and 1 year was similar between groups (O:E = 0.65 vs 1.00, P = 0.11 and O:E = 0

222 s 3.5 [SD 2.1]; p<0.0001), with a difference between groups of -0.98 (95% CI -1.51 to -0.45; p<0.0001

223 nd products [RAGE], MPO, uteroglobin/CC-10); between groups of DS and NS for extracellular newly iden

224 ically significant differences were observed between groups of EC and NS (myeloperoxidase [MPO], matr

225 s for abundant differential ChIP-seq signals between groups of samples as well as very different glob

226 comparing the shared and different chemicals between groups of samples, and metadata-filtered, reposi

227 erence in the use of BP-lowering medications between groups (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8-1.9; P = 0.34).

228 xel-based morphometry, showed no differences between groups, or in association with clinical measures

229 , and Functional Pain scores were comparable between groups over time.

230 charide binding protein (LBP) did not differ between groups (P > .05).

231 depth, and suppuration at T2 did not differ between groups (P > 0.05).

232 Bone volume formation was similar between groups (P >0.05).

233 erences in demographics, baseline VA, or IOD between groups (P >= .22), although the primary occlusio

234 max IMT; P < .05), while PWV did not differ between groups (P = .06).

235 compared with baseline, with no differences between groups (P = 0.11).

236 as reduced in all groups with no differences between groups (P = 0.15).

237 pparent diffusion coefficient did not differ between groups (P = 0.19).

238 ion greater than or equal to 33% was similar between groups (p = 0.981).

239 was no difference in rates of adverse events between groups (P = 0.99), and no cases of endophthalmit

240 The thickness of the DNFL slab was similar between groups (P=0.19).

241 amine-induced BPRS total symptoms within and between-groups (p < 0.01, d = -0.41; p = 0.04, d = -0.44

242 k heart rate response during static handgrip between groups (patients with HFpEF versus controls: 90+

243 owed no statistically significant difference between groups (POPPIE group 83.3% versus standard group

244 After adjusting for differences between groups, receipt of ceftolozane/tazobactam was in

245 There were no differences observed between groups regarding ischemic events at 30 days.

246 No differences were found between groups regarding maternal glycemic control or ne

247 e that not only are the social relationships between groups retained after they split from one anothe

248 No differences were found in VAS scale between groups (SG, 36.2 +/- 24.8; nSG, 21.5 +/- 24.2, P

249 elation analysis and statistical differences between groups showed that GSDs with a greater back slop

250 asian children was significantly higher than between-groups similarity.

251 Diptera) and exhibit little differentiation between groups supporting the morphological assessments

252 2 and 18.38 sec(-1) +/- 2.09) did not differ between groups (susceptibility, P = .21; R2*, P = .24).

253 of left primary rugae 2 and 3 also differed between groups, tending towards a wavy pattern in the co

254 us research, our approach avoids comparisons between groups that limited previous findings, while ens

255 on, bone remodeling and periosteal reactions between groups that were not measurable by visual observ

256 years in function, being the only difference between groups the BSTD.

257 ing for differences in STN volumes within or between groups, the PD group had lower FA values in the

258 o-parent compound molar ratios were compared between groups to estimate hydroxylase activity.

259 ners have long advocated for greater contact between groups to reduce prejudice and increase social c

260 e events and death at 6 months were compared between groups using Cox regressions.

261 sit, compared unintended pregnancy incidence between groups using discrete-time survival analysis at

262 rticipants and compared progressive thinning between groups using linear mixed effects models.

263 Biomarker measures were compared between groups using linear regression models adjusted f

264 mes were abstracted from charts and compared between groups using multivariable logistic and negative

265 ling, and health status scores were compared between groups using multivariate latent growth curve mo

266 responses to 6 questions about mental health between groups using the t test and chi-squared analyses

267 Absolute differences in STI acquisition between groups varied widely depending on baseline popul

268 clinic encounters before age 1 were compared between groups via logistic regression models.

269 Length of hospital encounters were compared between groups via Mann-Whitney U test.

270 The median absolute risk difference between groups was -2.8%, favoring the intervention grou

271 .3 mm) and similarly for PPD; the difference between groups was not significant.

272 The difference between groups was significant (t-test, p = < 0.001).

273 Differences in fecal microbiota composition between groups were analyzed by multivariate factor anal

274 Avoidance patterns between groups were consistent with an understanding of

275 Although mean hemoglobin A1c levels between groups were equivalent, the EW versus non-EW coh

276 hange in adherence, and thematic differences between groups were examined.

277 No cerebral blood flow differences between groups were found in any of these structures, su

278 Although the mineral deposition rates between groups were indifferent, the mean labeled surfac

279 The differences between groups were not significant (p=0.7 for involved

280 Statistically significant differences between groups were observed across all operative subpha

281 Significant differences between groups were observed for overall procedure quali

282 ubstantial within-group variance and overlap between groups were observed.

283 No statistical comparisons between groups were planned.

284 d the rebubbling rate was 28.6%; differences between groups were statistically nonsignificant for bot

285 nges of GCF biomarker levels after treatment between groups were the primary outcomes.

286 non-mineralized tissues in augmented masses between groups were undistinguishable.

287 statistically significant outcome difference between groups when using ordinal outcomes not detectabl

288 e no differences in baseline characteristics between groups with and without SSPiM.

289 Comparisons of baseline features between groups with and without worsening were performed

290 C. diff toxins A/B (Clarity) concentrations between groups with discordant test results.

291 o were found to be statistically significant between groups with low and high mtDNA copy number (P <

292 There were no differences between groups with respect to age, renal function, or b

293 , death, or loss to follow-up) were compared between groups with respect to glycemic status and body

294 Week 12 TFV-DP distributions were compared between groups with the Wilcoxon test.

295 s were performed with paired Student t test, between groups with unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whit

296 Groups were compared over time and between groups with Wilcoxon Rank Sum and t-tests.

297 tentially be due to ART were few and similar between groups, with 17 (16%) in the OLA-guided therapy

298 ients with at least 1 adenoma) were compared between groups, with a noninferiority margin (relative d

299 Genomic DNA did not differ between groups, with donor DNA undetectable at all time

300 the individual level, within social groups, between groups, within populations and species, and fina