ライフサイエンスコーパス: comparison

1 e strategy (26.5%) groups (P < .001 for both comparisons).

2 ose from 10.3 to 14.2 g/dL (P < .001 for all comparisons).

3 ix/vagina (100%, kappa 1.0) (p<0.005 for all comparisons).

4 d to calculate fold changes for quantitative comparison.

5 osed DNA methylation scores were applied for comparison.

6 ery other patient in a win-lose-tie for each comparison.

7 ated with odds of ASD in the matched sibling comparison.

8 and that it should be essential to any such comparison.

9 es as well as easily interpretable graphical comparisons.

10 ations and Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons.

11 ifference to be 95.4% in point-to-point dose comparisons.

12 rank test was used for pre- and postsurgical comparisons.

13 months 6, 10, and 14, and based on pre-post comparisons.

14 nteropathogens after accounting for multiple comparisons.

15 ntermittency and confound bottom-up/top-down comparisons.

16 variation and divergence read from sequence comparisons.

17 as phylogeny might impact size estimates and comparisons.

18 In pre- and post-SLND PET comparison, 10 of 16 had at least one lesion already det

19 A total of 7 studies with 8 group comparisons (3 randomized) representing 503 women (250 P

20 etal/metalloid levels across studies, making comparison across studies difficult.

21 ironmental goals have been difficult without comparisons across a range of possible actions.

22 ue, respectively, allowing for high-fidelity comparisons across biogeographic sites.

23 ng domains of language development rendering comparisons across programmes difficult.

24 In comparison, after adjusting for alcohol consumption, smo

25 commercial devices were extracted for later comparison against EEG to determine degrees of accuracy.

26 In comparison, all of the other 17 amino acids are encoded

27 to a consistent family to facilitate spatial comparisons among sampling units.

28 Comparisons among the transcriptional regulatory respons

29 timates, dose response curve regression, and comparison analyses were performed.

30 twelve case studies, covering diverse method comparison and data evaluation scenarios from various su

31 elatively modest between NIH Toolbox Pattern Comparison and other PS scales (0.14-0.27).

32 Comparisons and contrasts between 2,3,5,6TMP-TQS isomers

33 ccuracy was assessed with Dice scores, group comparisons and correlations.

34 behavioral choice, but the relevant sensory comparisons and the underlying neural circuits are still

35 ffects meta-analyses were performed for each comparison, and a meta-regression was conducted to adjus

36 nd automated segmentation, a reproducibility comparison, and Bland-Altman plots.

37 endations (from 30 population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes questions) on the management ac

38 For comparison, antitoxin IgG and NAb were measured in cord

39 at are active during memory-guided direction comparisons, area MT and the prefrontal cortex, revealin

40 Model comparisons based on Akaike information criteria (AIC) a

41 Non-parametric tests were used for subgroup comparisons based on posting date and characteristics id

42 The comparison between gene signatures obtained from the in

43 We will provide a critical comparison between growth pathways in vapour- and liquid

44 T cell receptor sequence comparison between patients identifies clonal convergenc

45 , bang sensitivity and climbing behaviour in comparison between single and pairwise dosage manipulati

46 ction relationships are discussed, including comparisons between "outer sphere" mechanisms and "metal

47 e possibility is that flies perform frequent comparisons between anterior and posterior sensory input

48 Comparisons between antibiotic types, doses, administrat

49 In contrast, comparisons between Def and E- or E+ accessions showed a

50 an analysis pipeline that allows statistical comparisons between different conditions, we observed th

51 Comparisons between extreme skin types II and VI showed

52 pidly falling costs of sequencing now allows comparisons between multiple experiments to identify com

53 -loops, have so far not allowed quantitative comparisons between such conditions.

54 thogenic plakophilin 2 (PKP2) mutations as a comparison cohort.

55 ubstantially reducing the burden of multiple comparison correction; (ii) employ brain annotation info

56 HUU comparison data were obtained from the Medicaid Analytic

57 ve signal detection, the sequential-parallel comparison design (SPCD) was chosen.

58 n in laboratory methods between studies made comparisons difficult.

59 Comparison, discussion, and conclusion of the results of

60 esearch works on protein structure alignment/comparison due to lack of real applications associated w

61 Global protein surface comparison (GPSC) studies have been limited compared to

62 the incidence of Parkinson's disease in the comparison group (10 per 10 000 person-years), adjusted

63 First, blood samples from HIV-positive and a comparison group of infection-nonreactive donors were te

64 on, n=400 mixed-delivery intervention, n=376 comparison group).

65 3 reporting results using a population-based comparison group, five using a psychiatric control group

66 group sessions with four home visits; and a comparison group.

67 nvironment and the genetic background of the comparison group.

68 ring multicomponent arms with LNS groups and comparison groups that contained all the same components

69 The structural and mechanistic comparison herein reported between hsNadE and tbNadE pro

70 In silico studies and structural comparisons identify essential elements of both the allo

71 icagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocard

72 In transplant, meaningful international comparisons in organ utilization are needed.

73 Interobserver comparison (intraclass correlation coefficient and Cohen

74 The comparison is driven by an average of a certain computat

75 Species-fair comparisons level the playing field between natural and

76 Also, in a comparison made between normal patients and patients wit

77 By comparison, mean delta(15)N values were similar across d

78 e-associated miRNAs more accurately than the comparison methods.

79 erage of a certain computationally efficient comparison metric between Gaussian mixture models.

80 In comparison, much less is known about the importance of t

81 31), interventions (n = 21), and assessment comparisons (n = 12) and by patient etiology.

82 nservative Holm-Bonferroni correction for 16 comparisons (obese vs normal weight and overweight vs no

83 Such decisions depend on a continuous comparison of a current location's value, with that of o

84 Additionally, comparison of adhesion of dipeptides containing Lys and

85 The comparison of all parameters and homologous or closely r

86 (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With P

87 y of NetPAS in 50 well-curated gene sets and comparison of association studies using Z-scores, modifi

88 Comparison of average percent identities between the C.

89 A comparison of bacterial topoisomerase I structures showe

90 of the diagnostic image quality at baseline; comparison of baseline administered activity data with p

91 use of the formal shortness ratio (FSR) for comparison of bond distances between a broad range of me

92 Comparison of both the fragment drift times and IR spect

93 Comparison of CBP against a pulse wave analysis (PWA) de

94 Comparison of cell line and human patient data suggests

95 he determinants of the rate of human VT with comparison of circuit dimensions and conduction velocity

96 The first head-to-head comparison of clinical features in these conditions is p

97 The comparison of cognitive effort against other primary ave

98 This study provides the first large-scale comparison of commercial molecular assays for detection

99 In a comparison of controls and PDAC stage I-II samples, the

100 for consortium-wide analyses as well as for comparison of data across iterations of the same course.

101 recovery is sufficiently consistent to allow comparison of differences between sampling locations.

102 nes significant (FDR < 0.05) in at least one comparison of each patient response status and time poin

103 nly metabolic imaging analysis (P < .001 for comparison of either technique to combined analysis).

104 brosis was segmented and quantified based on comparison of gray-scale values in normal and fibrotic m

105 Proteomic comparison of ILC and IDC cell lines identified inductio

106 ition that simplifies assay setup and allows comparison of inhibition models is discussed.

107 Quantitative proteomic comparison of mature alpha-smooth muscle actin (alpha-SM

108 FA were evaluated by 2-tailed paired t test comparison of mean 5-minute preinjection and 5-minute po

109 The latter is key for a reliable comparison of metabolic profiles and for unknown biomark

110 e model are found using inverse modeling, by comparison of model results and measurements of floating

111 Comparison of nuclear magnetic resonance-derived structu

112 l GPCRs simulated to facilitate analysis and comparison of our data.

113 re comprehensive evaluation of therapies and comparison of outcomes among studies, and enhances effor

114 The Wilcoxon test was used for the mean comparison of paired nonparametric variables.

115 is interspecies similarity, the intraspecies comparison of particle diffusivity in the mucus obtained

116 For comparison of performance, CA19-9 was assayed in blinded

117 ilineage differentiation of those cells, and comparison of periodontal ligament mesenchymal stem cell

118 We address the quantum-classical comparison of phase measurements in optomechanics in the

119 By contrast, comparison of PhotoPPI profiles in cells experiencing me

120 Comparison of PL and SIMS data has revealed that apparen

121 Through comparison of polished and unpolished BDD electrodes, wi

122 The comparison of present results has been made with the stu

123 ed and compatible peak expression that allow comparison of protein functionality at different cell cy

124 Comparison of runtimes and performance of the different

125 In PIONEER-HF (Comparison of Sacubitril/Valsartan Versus Enalapril on E

126 A comparison of several modeling approaches reveals the pa

127 intact glycopeptides, while the quantitative comparison of site-specific glycans was achieved utilizi

128 Phosphoproteomic comparison of TbDYRK null mutants with wild-type parasit

129 rcreta, and peripartum complications and for comparison of the area under the curve (AUC) versus that

130 Preliminary bench testing for comparison of the Callascope camera to a $20,000 high-en

131 The primary outcome measure was a comparison of the DISCERN and HONcode quality and accoun

132 A comparison of the downstream effectors of directional cu

133 Comparison of the effects of decreased Trem2 expression

134 ion-dependent dimerization provided means of comparison of the functional characteristics of monomeri

135 In this article, we review a vertical comparison of the modern and resurrected ancestral prote

136 escribes the first multicenter retrospective comparison of the performance of the QIAstat-Dx RP assay

137 delity of our mrdna framework through direct comparison of the simulation results with the results of

138 Here, based on a comparison of the two set-ups, I argue that these differ

139 Sequence comparison of these 2 intermediates and iterative rounds

140 Comparison of these structures reveals concerted conform

141 was assembled to perform a morpho-functional comparison of these taxa with 12 models corresponding to

142 Comparison of this method with other C-H azidation metho

143 Direct comparison of time courses between the EOD and corollary

144 SUV between responders and nonresponders and comparison of timing for discordant and concordant respo

145 tion, data processing, etc., is critical for comparison of untargeted data across labs.

146 Comparison of virus titration results to reverse transcr

147 However, there have been no direct comparisons of AKI in hospitalized patients with and wit

148 Real-world comparisons of biologic treatment outcomes for ulcerativ

149 Meta-analyses and prospective comparisons of different formulations support equivalent

150 d in-hospital mortality in the four pairwise comparisons of each trial drug and its control (drug ava

151 We advocate further comparisons of functional responses to understand the in

152 llision cross section distributions to allow comparisons of IM-MS data for commonly analyzed proteins

153 Cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons of K(i) and K(i) change found significant ef

154 Comparisons of shape and integrity of the nuclear envelo

155 q enables rapid, quantitative and systematic comparisons of specificity and cleavage outcomes across

156 Comparisons of the expected and observed frequencies use

157 Comparisons of the fuzzy_AHP and fuzzy_DS methods at 20

158 Comparisons of these collective data with histopathologi

159 ome engineering facilitates precise isogenic comparisons of variants across genetic backgrounds.

160 It offers several visualization and comparison options that are designed to assist in novel

161 By comparison, PM from low elevation contained mixtures of

162 A comparison (pre-PDT [n = 220 cases] vs. PDT [n = 238 cas

163 emission at week 12 or 16 using the multiple comparison procedure and modeling and the Cochran-Mantel

164 ificant dose-response relationship (multiple comparison procedure-modeling, 2-sided p < 0.001) was fo

165 The protocols developed as a result of these comparisons provide valuable guidance on choosing ML wor

166 For comparison purposes, the resultant 2-year OS and PFS rat

167 consistent with evidence that upward social comparison reduces political efficacy(4).

168 Pairwise comparison revealed that the quaternary ammonium group i

169 Model comparison revealed that, for both tasks, the data were

170 The model-data comparison reveals that soil mixing rate varies over the

171 iate matching algorithm to identify a nearby comparison school district with pre-intervention charact

172 elective, indicating that mainly interocular comparisons serve to compute an object's movement at clo

173 One study with a within-population comparison showed similar improvement in survival among

174 Only 2 comparisons showed significant trends across all risk st

175 low machine-learning algorithms in benchmark comparisons, showing nearly a 20% increase in its diagno

176 8 DVS pilot stores, compared with 8 matched comparison stores.

177 The medium comparison study at the fourth site showed that the PPA

178 This comparison suggested that 2 to 4 times less cortical are

179 In comparison, the recovery was significantly lower in the

180 N(4) significantly inhibited tumor growth in comparison to 5-FU while area-under plasma concentration

181 In comparison to a single mouse bed, the cost and time asso

182 tite crystals possess specific properties in comparison to abiotic, chemically synthesized magnetite.

183 By comparison to accompanying high-level quantum calculatio

184 gher frequency of growth plate thickening in comparison to Aip+/, Prkar1a+/- mice.

185 ly from severe neurological complications in comparison to all control patients.

186 lk calves housed in mixed groups (MHigh), in comparison to calves housed with group mates all receivi

187 OE4 variant experienced improved survival in comparison to carriers of APOE2.

188 allows for much lower energy consumption in comparison to commonly used depletion mode devices.

189 t outcomes among PWID and patients on OST in comparison to control cohorts.

190 structural stabilization as demonstrated by comparison to control structures that lack hydrogen bond

191 By comparison to controls (n = 104), patients with SLE had

192 osphatase oxidase (NADPH oxidase) levels, in comparison to DM+INS and DM+RSV+INS (P < 0.05).

193 Single-cell RNA sequencing and direct comparison to fetal specimens suggest that the skin orga

194 ) was higher in DFC-BE (81.82 g/100 g DW) in comparison to FRP-BE (49.04 g/100 g DW).

195 However, in comparison to fructose and sucrose, Rebaudioside A signi

196 -1 had reduced reactivity with antibodies in comparison to gB from the gC-null virus, suggesting that

197 ation of proinflammatory genes in Group 1 in comparison to Group 2 (P = .001).

198 In comparison to in-solution-based TrEnDi, iTrEnDi demonstr

199 w-dose azacitidine shows greater efficacy in comparison to intermittent higher-dose azacitidine, link

200 lecules was used to validate the approach in comparison to MS/MS spectra produced via data dependent

201 have an increased odds of developing SSI in comparison to NBL allergic patients.

202 l synthesized iodine-containing polymers, in comparison to non-iodinated poly(lactic acid) (PLA), val

203 -based violence of chimpanzees, with limited comparison to other apes.

204 l NLGN1 was decreased in patients with AD in comparison to patients with mild cognitive impairment an

205 In comparison to previous catalysts, the GPhos-supported ca

206 Comparison to prior work indicates that these TS are sim

207 erin (BCG) were used as stimuli, with direct comparison to QFT.

208 In comparison to SBP, Doppler-derived arterial load indices

209 of (18)F-flubrobenguane PET, particularly in comparison to standard diagnostic procedures such as MRI

210 s and faster for dihydroxylated biphenyls in comparison to that for triclosan.

211 icantly impacted the molecular properties in comparison to the analogous indolo[3,2,1-jk]carbazole sc

212 cy for kinases with no known phosphosites in comparison to the baseline model and other methods avail

213 algorithm has shown superior performance in comparison to the existing algorithms and demonstrated i

214 CCN) during the focus on breath condition in comparison to the focus on emotion condition.

215 te a robust neutralization antibody titer in comparison to the HSV-1 0DeltaNLS-vaccinated wild-type C

216 electivity but higher conversion achieved in comparison to the isothiourea HyperBTM.

217 tter BCG as reflected by lower PCI values in comparison to the other two MS severity groups (severe:

218 in 4 min, reflecting its freshness status in comparison to the TVB-N and TVC method which takes many

219 ior resistance to macroscopic deformation in comparison to their analogs generated from statistical c

220 or overproduction on the circadian clock in comparison to their effects on cell cycle progression an

221 iderably poorer performance and stability in comparison to their lead analogues, their performance im

222 acnose disease-causing C. gloeosporioides in comparison to wild type and empty-vector control plants.

223 impaired regenerative response to injury in comparison to young (2-3 months old) mice.

224 using simulated data, calibration rulers, or comparisons to secondary imaging modalities.

225 hickness (Monte Carlo corrected for multiple comparisons, vertex-wise cluster threshold of 1.3, p < 0

226 A quantitative comparison was made between the simulation results obtai

227 lable at the time of recent presentation, so comparison was made with gadolinium-enhanced brain MRI p

228 The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited.

229 Using PGS decile comparison, we found a similar trend of association betw

230 In comparison, we found that the isotope enhancement of kap

231 both synthetic and experimental datasets for comparison, we perform FLOW-MAP analysis side by side wi

232 multidecadal measurements are available for comparison, we show that if turnover is fast the accumul

233 Lessons learned from this comparison were then harnessed for the development of bo

234 ining phylogenetic trees and direct sequence comparison were used to detect the presence of HIV super

235 n] or median [quartile 1-3 range], and group comparisons were achieved with bootstrap.

236 Comparisons were made among patients receiving pre-LT LR

237 Comparisons were made with the AJCC staging system and e

238 For comparison, WGS data were generated for the same control

239 rasugrel (IPA, 10.5+/-11.0; P<0.001 for both comparisons), which did not provide higher IPA over inte

240 sent network meta-analysis suggests that, in comparison with 12-month DAPT, short-term DAPT followed

241 cell free DNA from a PDAC cohort (n = 64) in comparison with a non-cancer cohort (n = 243).

242 gnitude and direction of treatment effect in comparison with adjudicated event data, but nonfatal and

243 those with aortic aneurysm or dissection, in comparison with age- and sex-matched controls (1:10 for

244 concordant trend of increase in AD plasma in comparison with age-matched control plasma.

245 in, quebracho, grape-skin and grape-seed) in comparison with ascorbic acid (AA), sulfur dioxide (SO(2

246 d and computational results were analyzed in comparison with available experimental data.

247 ias, and more sensitive variant detection in comparison with bwa, especially for insertions and delet

248 In comparison with clopidogrel, ticagrelor significantly re

249 ity of DW magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in comparison with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (C

250 that there was no significant difference in comparison with controls.

251 elatively high incidence of comorbidities in comparison with earlier S-ICD trials.

252 (13) C and (15) N isotopic substitution and comparison with frequencies calculated by the B3LYP and

253 patients with different clinical severity in comparison with healthy individuals.

254 l mutagenesis studies as well as a point for comparison with high-resolution force spectroscopy exper

255 s of N-acyl isochalcogenouronium species and comparison with kinetic data demonstrate the significanc

256 By comparison with known structures, we deconvolute structu

257 lly unprotected axial bicarbazole radical in comparison with monocarbazole and helical bicarbazole on

258 The comparison with neonatal single-nucleus sequencing data

259 of this many-body excitation, combined with comparison with numerical calculations allows us to iden

260 ncy of various promiscuous biotin ligases in comparison with one-step affinity purification approache

261 UCC1 forms a central CS nanodomain in comparison with other CS-located proteins that are found

262 to detect entanglement in lasso proteins in comparison with other methods.

263 Comparison with other PRO/DUBs from other viral families

264 By comparison with other SSB folds and creation of truncati

265 In comparison with patients with T1MI, patients with T2MI h

266 gulated in patients with peri-implantitis in comparison with peri-implant mucositis sites (P = 0.011,

267 In visual comparison with PET/ex, the rate of good alignment was i

268 Through comparison with previous data, independent replicates an

269 Comparison with previous reports suggests that noncanoni

270 Based on a comparison with previously published data, HuNoV exhibit

271 s conducted to assess overall IRAE rates for comparison with published clinical trials.

272 Systematic comparison with published data from 2,554 prostate tumou

273 on the polymeric device has been obtained in comparison with SAWs traveling on AlN on silicon substra

274 he performance of the sssHD algorithm, and a comparison with several existing selection procedures is

275 n analyses of the rattlesnake venom gland in comparison with several non-venom tissues to characteriz

276 Comparison with similar data from rats indicated a very

277 In comparison with STE derived strain, the RA reservoir and

278 o a continuous scale and permitting a direct comparison with the continuous DeltaSUV(max) scale, whic

279 Ep group were detected slightly impaired in comparison with the control group (P >0.05); and the the

280 pollutant emissions of more than a third in comparison with the counterfactual, leading to a global

281 igen 617 (PSMA) radioligand therapy (RLT) in comparison with the established tumor markers.

282 Comparison with the experimentally derived real hydratio

283 Comparison with the future (2010-2070) period suggests t

284 Comparison with the National Center for Biotechnology In

285 ensporone F was assigned to be (2S,5R,8R) by comparison with the NMR data and specific rotation of th

286 selectivity to give 5-amino-1,3-oxazoles, in comparison with the previously reported syntheses of ami

287 samples (glyphosate range 0.5-36 mg/kg) and comparison with the reference method (Quick Polar Pestic

288 By comparison with the structure of the non-ubiquitinated I

289 g of p53 and PARP1 in breast cancer TMAs and comparison with the TCGA database indicated a higher dou

290 ils but displayed unique genetic features in comparison with those of contemporaneous IAVs circulatin

291 In comparison with those who remained on dialysis, adjusted

292 ural polysaccharides in leatherwood xylem in comparison with trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides) an

293 average relative precision by 80% and 36% in comparison with two state-of-the-art methods, PSICOV and

294 ated to be similar but slightly decreased in comparison with vaccination of 9-year-old girls.

295 e activity in lesions in the Ahr knockout in comparison with wild-type mice.

296 r the history of vertebrates through genomic comparisons with a new chromosome-scale sequence of the

297 Our comparisons with available modern and ancient DNA datase

298 finite-difference, time-domain modeling and comparisons with melanosomes found in other ectothermic

299 ilar), interventions (colonoscopy, autopsy), comparisons (world regions, alternative polyp definition

300 egeneration, respectively, with all pairwise comparisons yielding statistically significant values (P