ライフサイエンスコーパス: significant difference in

1 ollowing propensity score matching, found no significant difference in 1-year overall survival betwee

2 k patients classified by DGM-CM6 (RI-DR) had significant differences in 10-year distant recurrence-fr

3 There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the I

4 There was no statistically significant difference in 28-day mortality between the t

5 justed MSPHM survival analyses also found no significant difference in 28-day survival for cases trea

6 rdantly, the meta-analytic results suggest a significant difference in 2D:4D among MtF individuals co

7 secondary outcomes, there were statistically significant differences in 3 of 7 binary HbA1c outcomes,

8 mean age 78 years, 44% women), there were no significant differences in 30-day heart failure readmiss

9 There was no significant difference in 90-day mortality between the g

10 to usual background therapies resulted in no significant difference in a composite outcome of major a

11 the first time in a UAE population revealed significant differences in a number of metabolites in th

12 The use of PPIs led to a significant difference in absolute levels of only one or

13 majority of proteoforms having statistically significant difference in abundance between genders show

14 d, and 2-aminoheptanoic acid) that displayed significant differences in abundance in patients with ge

15 P = 0.38), which indicated no statistically significant differences in achieving quiescence after th

16 However, there were no significant differences in ADC values between IUGR subty

17 There were no significant differences in ADC when comparing the same p

18 overlap of confidence intervals (CIs) and no significant difference in adenoma detection rates by pan

19 ng affinity than (Hs)CRM1 toward PKI-NES and significant differences in affinities toward potential C

20 rior retina at matching eccentricities and a significant difference in age-related decline of CVI wit

21 There were significant differences in age, clinical features, and o

22 FAs during processing and storage showed non-significant difference in all goshtaba products (P > 0.0

23 At follow-up of 6 to 12 months, no significant difference in all-cause mortality was found,

24 Using anterior segment OCT, we found no significant differences in angle width associated with n

25 There were no significant differences in antimicrobial duration retest

26 At follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the cardiometabolic mar

27 Overall, there were no significant differences in any limb outcome with dapagli

28 mong the 6 secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences in any of the 4 functional outco

29 There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes

30 There was no significant difference in apparent midpoint potential of

31 denocarcinoma (65% vs 51%, P = 0.035), and a significant difference in ARDS in squamous cell carcinom

32 A significant difference in arteriolar C4d score was obser

33 There was no significant difference in average total hospital charges

34 termediate to poor) revealed a statistically significant difference in baseline features of photopsia

35 Among the 71 women and 79 men, there was a significant difference in baseline Kansas City Cardiomyo

36 AF, CFP, and IR, there were no statistically significant differences in baseline area or annual enlar

37 cation was not associated with statistically significant differences in baseline clinical characteris

38 There was no significant difference in BCRL risk between the ALND+RLN

39 trols, mice and glioma patients demonstrated significant differences in beta diversity, Firmicutes/Ba

40 No statistically significant differences in biomarkers of immunity (S100A

41 There was no statistically significant difference in biopsy rate (P = .54), false-n

42 functioning grafts, there were no clinically significant differences in blood type compatibility, deg

43 No significant differences in bloodstream infections or lab

44 There were significant differences in body size, blood pressure, an

45 sp.-positive donor feces did not report any significant differences in bowel complaints in the first

46 with a higher breast cancer incidence but no significant difference in breast cancer mortality.

47 In our study, there was no statistically significant difference in bRFS between the two treatment

48 No significant difference in casewise concordance between m

49 There was no significant difference in catheterizations or MRI scans.

50 There was no significant difference in change between the 3 groups.

51 ion of postoperative steroids did not make a significant difference in clinical outcomes, success of

52 There was no significant difference in clinical severity, hospital le

53 There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the

54 For caffeine concentration, there were significant differences in [CO(2)] response between Arab

55 Additionally, no significant differences in collision cross sections were

56 ese energetic changes such that there was no significant difference in comparison with controls.

57 There were no statistically significant differences in complete or qualified success

58 It revealed significant differences in complex and oligomannose type

59 irin and placebo groups were similar, and no significant difference in compliance between interventio

60 No statistically significant differences in composition were observed bet

61 Our structure reveals significant differences in core and accessory subunits o

62 DME eyes at all studied timepoints, with no significant differences in CRT reduction or adverse effe

63 ariate analysis did not show a statistically significant difference in CSF C4 values between groups.

64 een the lapse and control groups revealed no significant differences in CST (359.9 +/- 108.3 mum and

65 Significant differences in CTRP1 levels were discovered

66 No significant differences in cytokine production were foun

67 No significant differences in cytotoxicity comparing lidoca

68 There were no significant differences in DA transmission in any striat

69 nts completing >=1 diet period, there was no significant difference in DAS28-ESR between the interven

70 Results: There were no significant differences in demographic parameters among

71 There was no significant difference in diabetes-free survival rates b

72 intervention period, such that there was no significant difference in differences (BPCI hospitals +$

73 No statistically significant difference in digestion dynamics was found b

74 PMRT was not associated with a statistically significant difference in disease-free survival (HR: 0.9

75 independent roles for Tbet were suggested by significant differences in disease between PIV-vaccinate

76 pecific measurements can reveal biologically significant differences in DNA methylation between homol

77 Significant differences in DNA yield and purity were obs

78 the circular interdependence value showing a significant difference in driver versus nondriver region

79 No significant difference in early absolute IOP reduction a

80 We did not detect a statistically significant difference in early refills (22% vs. 30%; AO

81 No significant differences in ECD were observed between eye

82 lysis of all 6 studies denied any clinically significant difference in efficacy, and the 95% confiden

83 In contrast, no significant difference in either PFS or OS was observed

84 No significant differences in enlargement rate of new atrop

85 ustment, there was no longer a statistically significant difference in expected kidney donation rate.

86 Six genes showed a significant difference in expression level between good

87 Multiple miRNAs showed significant differences in expression in patients compar

88 ometric Morphometric analysis did not reveal significant differences in facial morphology depending o

89 Furthermore, no significant differences in fasting plasma glucose (2.9%;

90 We did not find significant differences in fecal microbiota composition

91 -years; 95% CI, 7.1 to 9.2; P < .001) but no significant difference in FEV1 decline (-31 vs -33 mL/y;

92 There were no significant differences in food intake and body weight b

93 Our results revealed no significant difference in genetic alterations including

94 No significant differences in glucose metabolism were obser

95 We found no significant difference in graft failure (aHR = 1.27; P =

96 er etiologies of liver disease, there was no significant difference in graft survival at 1 (88% versu

97 There was no significant difference in graft survival between the con

98 There were no significant differences in graft type, ileostomy type, s

99 olic profiling were utilized to discover any significant differences in gut microbial genus and micro

100 We observe significant differences in gut microbiome composition ac

101 However, there were no statistically significant differences in handgrip strength, delirium r

102 There were no significant differences in health care use or missed wor

103 beta7high and beta7negative subsets, with no significant difference in HIV-1 DNA copies.

104 There was no significant difference in hospital mortality.

105 There were no deaths and no significant differences in hospitalization or emergency

106 ame or different parts of the plant) makes a significant difference in how fast and efficient they in

107 This study finds significant differences in how administrative versus reg

108 No significant differences in IAV densities were related to

109 In the quantitative analysis, there were no significant differences in image noise between the two g

110 omorbidities, hypertension, and diabetes, no significant differences in in-hospital mortality, ICU ad

111 compared to those without, but there was no significant difference in incidence of vascular complica

112 Within the validation cohort, no significant differences in index biopsy gene expression

113 l and generic PGAs did not show a clinically significant difference in IOP-lowering effect or tolerab

114 However, no significant differences in KMW were observed across diff

115 s with a given kinase, ultimately leading to significant differences in labeling efficiency of nascen

116 There were no significant differences in leptin (-0.7 ng/mL; -2.1, 0.8

117 llected at 7-12 months post-injury showed no significant differences in lesion size, fibrotic scar, g

118 e clinical condition did not demonstrate any significant difference in LV systolic function compared

119 A targeted MS approach showed significant differences in lysophosphatidylcholines, pho

120 There was no significant difference in maximum VTI(V) among the 3 gro

121 No significant difference in MD slope was seen when patient

122 There was a significant difference in mean BCVA at 1 year among all

123 Statistically significant differences in measurable health outcomes we

124 As reported in prior studies, significant differences in measures between related task

125 There were no significant differences in measures of mitochondrial res

126 main in vivo loading direction; however, no significant differences in mechanical properties were ob

127 Collectively, these data suggest that significant differences in metabolic pathway utilization

128 e experiment, again owing to subtle but very significant differences in methodology.

129 By contrast, noncarriers (GG) showed no significant differences in MI incidence between the trea

130 There were no significant differences in microbiome community richness

131 dult pig jejunal and ileal mucus revealed no significant differences in microstructural organisation

132 There were no statistically significant differences in morbidity or mortality (P = .

133 There was no statistically significant difference in mortality between venovenous v

134 risk of hospital admission, but there was no significant difference in mortality risk.

135 No significant difference in mortality, clinical, and micro

136 In comparison with each other, there were no significant differences in mortality (HR prasugrel versu

137 ; however, orthopedics outcomes did not show significant differences in mortality across teaching and

138 tients receiving neither drug, there were no significant differences in mortality for patients receiv

139 We observed no significant differences in motor velocities, even with A

140 There was no statistically significant difference in MT levels among CP+NS and PH+S

141 nalysis of variance revealed a statistically significant difference in MTR between the preganglionic

142 Patients with IBS had significant differences in network connections between d

143 There were no significant differences in neurocognitive outcomes for p

144 as to histologically determine if there is a significant difference in new bone formation, residual g

145 Although no significant difference in nucleus size and endoreduplica

146 ctively) while in the case of superworms, no significant difference in nutrient composition was obser

147 36+ in the study population was 47%, with no significant difference in obese and non-obese subgroups

148 softeners with standard care did not show a significant difference in objective AE severity with sof

149 ts with nonexudative NV in the study eye had significant differences in ocular and systemic character

150 Consumer study results showed no significant differences in orthonasal perception, yet re

151 A nominally significant difference in OS in favor of patients random

152 e were statistically superior to IT, with no significant difference in OS.

153 There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes.

154 There was no significant difference in outcomes between both groups d

155 We did not identify any significant differences in outcomes among 6 different su

156 For cT1b cancers, there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the t

157 rtificate of need regulations, there were no significant differences in overall hospital procedural v

158 There were no significant differences in overall prevalence or score f

159 laparoscopic, and robotic approaches showed significant differences in overall workload and subscale

160 ght/obese patients (BMI > 25) did not show a significant difference in (p = 0.3) nuclear CTNNB1 stain

161 Taken together, there appear to be significant differences in pancreas islet cell lipid han

162 There were no significant differences in patient characteristics betwe

163 There was no significant difference in patients' satisfaction (p = 0.

164 There were no significant differences in peak heart rate response duri

165 There was no significant difference in periodontal parameters and ser

166 There was no significant difference in periodontal parameters at 3- a

167 Maternal race/ethnicity was associated with significant differences in PFUnA levels.

168 However, plc1 or plc3 mutants showed no significant differences in plaque formation compared to

169 There was a significant difference in post-training leadership behav

170 A statistically significant difference in pregnancy rates for SRI versus

171 ted with increased posttransplant LOS but no significant differences in pretransplant ECMO or other p

172 There was no significant difference in prevalence between the groups.

173 Significant differences in primary metabolites, includin

174 Through our measurements, we found no significant difference in propulsive flows due to the pr

175 alysis between fellow eyes, no statistically significant differences in pupil size were found between

176 The significant differences in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST confirm th

177 in or bisoprolol, there was no statistically significant difference in quality of life at 6 months.

178 estly lower symptom burden, but there was no significant difference in quality of life.

179 e hospital admission, and intubation, but no significant difference in quality of life.

180 With contact lens correction, there was no significant difference in RA between the groups and no r

181 There were significant differences in Raman features corresponding

182 No significant difference in rate of capsule complications

183 There was no significant difference in rate of death by suicide betwe

184 We detected significant differences in rates of transmission and per

185 There was no statistically significant difference in readmission rates.

186 Statistical analyses revealed no evidence of significant differences in regional (11)C-PBR28 volumes

187 tissues for microbiota composition revealed significant differences in relative abundance of specifi

188 s for oxaliplatin-DNA damage, we observed no significant differences in repair efficiency that could

189 No statistically significant differences in responders were observed betw

190 No significant differences in response magnitude were ident

191 k identification of genes with statistically significant differences in ribosome occupancy patterns f

192 , the regulations were not associated with a significant difference in risk-adjusted mean cost per ho

193 Interestingly, we observed no significant differences in risk of advanced disease when

194 om either diploid genomic group did not show significant differences in salt tolerance, but they were

195 However, no significant differences in serum polyamines or related m

196 There were no significant differences in SO(2A) and D(A) among ND, NDR

197 There was no significant difference in specificity between the three

198 structure performance show no statistically significant difference in structure type versus performa

199 ate-derived WT and ICF1 MEFs demonstrated no significant differences in subtelomeric DNA methylation,

200 dred thirty-eight scans were evaluable, with significant differences in success and failure ratings a

201 There was no statistically significant difference in survival on pump support or st

202 ects fed to urban chicks greatly reduced the significant differences in survival rates and body sizes

203 No significant differences in swallow function or neuronal

204 Metagenomic analysis did not reveal significant differences in taxonomic or functional pathw

205 oximal (non-regenerative) amputations showed significant differences in temporal gene expression and

206 to the standard Griess method, and showed no significant differences in term of Student's t-test.

207 obar metastatic patients, again there was no significant difference in terms of the colorectal tumour

208 between meals and snacks does not result in significant differences in terms of FM loss and LBM main

209 Interestingly, no significant differences in terms of soft tissue contour

210 There was no significant difference in the 2-year rates of clinical e

211 ion was performed in four therapies, with no significant difference in the bootstrapped mean differen

212 There was no significant difference in the c-indices of each score ba

213 Overall, there was no significant difference in the composite endpoint between

214 The significant difference in the contents of theobromine an

215 There was no significant difference in the deep surgical site infecti

216 This discrepancy can be attributed to a significant difference in the density of states (DOS) of

217 However, there was no significant difference in the detection of BoV in cases

218 ncrease in virulence for 17dmiR-H1/H6 but no significant difference in the establishment or maintenan

219 But there was no significant difference in the expression of IL-17 mRNA b

220 izes (Cohen's d = 0.8-0.9), but there was no significant difference in the hippocampus.

221 ng the entire follow-up period, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death between

222 There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of kidney failur

223 There was no significant difference in the likelihood of emergency de

224 Lineage analysis revealed no significant difference in the likelihood of maternal ver

225 ting microsphere-protein complex, creating a significant difference in the magnetic properties of pol

226 We did not observe a statistically significant difference in the mean daily case growth rat

227 A significant difference in the mean difference was observ

228 There was no statistically significant difference in the number of tube erosions in

229 There was no significant difference in the percentage of the remainin

230 There was no significant difference in the prespecified secondary out

231 There was no statistically significant difference in the primary end point of the n

232 There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical failure b

233 the donor terminal creatinine, there was no significant difference in the recipient discharge creati

234 verity or GI-specific anxiety but we found a significant difference in the relationship between measu

235 No significant difference in the risk of cardiovascular dea

236 There was no significant difference in the risks of graft failure (ad

237 Among shamma users, there was no significant difference in the scores of PI, BOP, PD, cli

238 This study failed to detect a significant difference in the stability of root coverage

239 There was no statistically significant difference in the total number of adverse ev

240 up analyses for the primary outcome showed a significant difference in the treatment effect (p = 0.01

241 We also found significant differences in the abundance of 15 metabolit

242 In addition, there were significant differences in the abundance of amplicon seq

243 utative host genetic markers associated with significant differences in the abundance of several prev

244 rivatives called "Cas9 beacons." We observed significant differences in the affinities for cognate PA

245 We also show statistically significant differences in the amount of reads observed

246 hearing function, we found that there are no significant differences in the auditory brainstem respon

247 Post hoc analyses revealed significant differences in the Barcelona cohort, with un

248 No significant differences in the components were observed.

249 Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in the concentration of some met

250 We observed significant differences in the distribution of SLA-1 all

251 ied among the individuals, but there were no significant differences in the distribution of the relat

252 We also find significant differences in the electronic properties of

253 Significant differences in the facial morphology of the

254 icant differences for these variables and no significant differences in the frequency or severity of

255 There were no significant differences in the incidence of delayed PPB

256 There were significant differences in the jugular venous bulb oxyge

257 e hydroxyl carboxylic acid catalyst leads to significant differences in the mechanism and origins of

258 covered almost to the original level without significant differences in the microcosm after 40 days o

259 Our data reveal significant differences in the molecular signatures in t

260 Ns can be expanded from 1 h to 1-3 h without significant differences in the number of lesions detecte

261 e extended up to 3 h after injection without significant differences in the number of lesions detecte

262 No significant differences in the occurrence of AAD were fo

263 nts in the forced coagulation group, with no significant differences in the occurrence of types of ev

264 However, significant differences in the perception of wine palate

265 There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients me

266 Moreover, we observe significant differences in the protein composition of de

267 We detected significant differences in the protein decoration of sEV

268 While no significant differences in the rate of torque developmen

269 Statistically significant differences in the ratio of DRMs in the CSF

270 Significant differences in the ratios of DRMs in CSF and

271 pported by nanoindentation experiments, show significant differences in the respective lattice energi

272 We observe significant differences in the response of individual pa

273 nd thermal fluctuation spectroscopy revealed significant differences in the response of the two types

274 In comparison with 12-month DAPT, no significant differences in the risks of ischemic end poi

275 There were no significant differences in the ROC area under the curve

276 No significant differences in the safety profile were obser

277 We demonstrate significant differences in the size of the boutons made

278 smooth muscle revealed only subtle, but not significant, differences in the resting membrane potenti

279 There was no significant difference in their occurrence in both group

280 ns in a set of plausible candidate genes and significant differences in their allele frequency distri

281 ilar in yeast and human kinetochores despite significant differences in their centromeric organizatio

282 We found significant differences in these model-based biophysical

283 Mass spectrometric analysis revealed significant differences in these profiles.

284 95% CI 0.16-0.71)] compared to <=10, with no significant difference in those seeing 31 to 50 patients

285 There were no significant differences in time to progression (unadjust

286 anslationally to date but are limited by the significant differences in timing and distribution acros

287 No significant difference in total OH reactivity was observ

288 Significant differences in total 19 PAHs contents betwee

289 erous morphological axes, corresponding with significant differences in trait distributions among eco

290 Further, expression profiling indicated significant differences in transcript abundance within a

291 Transcriptome analysis revealed significant differences in transcript expression in PMD

292 tions of this interim analysis, there was no significant difference in treatment time, satisfaction a

293 g antioxidant power (FRAP) assays, exhibited significant differences in two biological tests when the

294 There were no statistically significant differences in urinary or bowel function and

295 pite the heterogeneity of IBS, patients have significant differences in urine and fecal metabolomes a

296 There were no statistically significant differences in vaginal birth rates (31.8% in

297 us supervised exercise only, demonstrated no significant difference in walking distance or quality of

298 There was a significant difference in weight change at 12 months by

299 For the primary outcome, although no significant differences in weight regain were observed a

300 use of glyphosate-based herbicides can cause significant differences in wheat protein chemistry and s