ライフサイエンスコーパス: versus control

1 [95% CI 0.91-1.32], p=0.32 for intervention versus control).

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

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

4 46 +/- 19.00% versus -15.19 +/- 23.56%; test versus control).

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

6 05 for T cell-mediated rejection types >/=IB versus controls).

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

8 mediated TMAO formation was increased in CKD versus control.

9 CI -2.2 to -0.2, p = 0.03) with intervention versus control.

10 fibrosis in RA of monocrotaline-treated rats versus control.

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

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

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

14 in the nine trials of intravenous alteplase versus control.

15 8-thyroxine-binding globulin-Cre-recombinase versus control.

16 ic acid, but decreased arachidonic acid (AA) versus controls.

17 uced interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) production versus controls.

18 ceptors, prevented heart block and mortality versus controls.

19 observed in rats with prostatic inflammation versus controls.

20 levels of IL-2 were observed in CDC patients versus controls.

21 evated in clear cell and endometrioid cancer versus controls.

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

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

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

25 nd acetylcholinesterase activity was reduced versus controls.

26 that are differentially abundant in disease versus controls.

27 ciation analysis was conducted in SADS cases versus controls.

28 ricular S100A8 and S100A9 protein expression versus controls.

29 nd increased stimulated Wnt activity in IPAH versus controls.

30 acylcarnitines were elevated in PAH patients versus controls.

31 ovascular reactivity was diminished in HFpEF versus controls.

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

33 onships were significantly lower in patients versus controls.

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

35 acylcarnitines were markedly reduced in PAH versus controls.

36 er minute greater in the 2-lead device group versus controls.

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

38 % CI 1.2-2.5]) and TNFalpha (1.5 [1.0-2.2]), versus controls.

39 (1.8 [1.0-3.4]), and IL-15 (2.0 [1.1-3.7]), versus controls.

40 ring cortical thickness in patients with CBS versus controls.

41 sity and reduced clonality in both CP groups versus controls.

42 ity and specificity in differentiating cases versus controls.

43 episodes was steeper in people with diabetes versus controls.

44 ties Index Mark 3 scores of patients with CP versus controls.

45 ation 3 days after cyclophosphamide exposure versus controls.

46 terial pressures in IST and POTS were higher versus controls.

47 on markers, and excessive replication stress versus controls.

48 ifference in glutamate in the DLPFC in cases versus controls.

49 ts were present in regenerated AB of all KOs versus controls.

50 were significantly differentially methylated versus controls.

51 ed ERK staining and decreased p53 expression versus controls.

52 ytokines and adipokines were increased in CD versus controls.

53 ng infectious challenge in immunized animals versus controls.

54 oosted pSmad3 in PASMC from smLRP1(-/-) mice versus controls.

55 HIVST between the 2 arms (intervention 1.41 versus control 0.36; SMD 0.75; 95% CI 0.47-1.04; P < 0.0

56 HIVST between the 2 arms (intervention 2.18 versus control 0.41; SMD 1.30; 95% CI 1.01-1.59; P < 0.0

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

58 -0.33% [95% CI -2.11 to 1.44], p = 0.709; SF versus control = -0.11% [95% CI -1.92 to 1.69], p = 0.90

59 ce adjusted for GP practice and baseline: BS versus control = -0.33% [95% CI -2.11 to 1.44], p = 0.70

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

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

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

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

64 trols (LVH stiffness constant, 0.053+/-0.027 versus controls, 0.042+/-0.020, P=0.028).

65 ex at 24 hours (mild therapeutic hypothermia versus control: 0.41 [interquartile range, 0.31-0.52] ve

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

67 higher body mass index (mean difference [MD] versus controls=0.59 [95% confidence interval [CI]:0.39,

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

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

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

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

72 ry capillary wedge pressure: LVH, 13.4+/-2.7 versus control, 11.7+/-1.7 mm Hg, P<0.0001).

73 as significantly prolonged with atezolizumab versus control (15.1 vs 10.6 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0

74 and hyperkinetic (GAS2L2-deficient = 19.8 Hz versus control = 15.8 Hz) ciliary-beat pattern.

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

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

77 P delivery (obese 2.5+/-0.9 umol.g(-1).s(-1) versus control 2.2+/-1.1 umol.g(-1).s(-1), P=0.232).

78 treatment modalities (test = -2.2 +/- 1.5 mm versus control = -2.1 +/- 1.3 mm) and similarly for PPD;

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

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

81 entricular ejection fraction, obese +16+/-7% versus control +21+/-4%, P=0.031).

82 sted after propensity matching (PDE5i, 28.9% versus control 23.7%; OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.09-1.57), driv

83 finite ARVC (-21+/-4%) and disease subgroups versus controls (-25+/-3%).

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

85 MAE increased sorghum 3-DXA yield 100% versus control (3100 vs 1520 mg/g).

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

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

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

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

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

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

92 for fellows and faculty in the intervention versus control (6.7 [0.3] vs 6.0 [0.2]; p < 0.001 and 6.

93 an monthly income (intervention, 6,552 taka, versus control, 6,017 taka; p = 0.48), having electricit

94 ify individuals' diagnostic status (autistic versus control; 87% accuracy).

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

96 handgrip between groups (patients with HFpEF versus controls: 90+/-13 versus 93+/-10 bpm; P=0.49).

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

98 12 mo (12 mo: difference -1.0, intervention versus control, 95% CI -4.9 to 3.0), pain intensity, or

99 meters were significantly larger in patients versus controls, a difference that increased with likeli

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

101 and death-censored graft loss in everolimus versus control (adjusted HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.50-2.01).

102 APS versus controls analyses revealed 11 CSF markers with si

103 (DNER) had the strongest effect size in APS versus controls and APS versus PD analyses.

104 17ra L-SNAs reduced the modified PASI by 74% versus controls and decreased epidermal thickness by 56%

105 ential gene regulatory patterns in SCZ-cases versus controls and novel SCZ-associated genes that may

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

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

108 ntially pathogenic variants enriched in case versus controls and relevant to the biological control o

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

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

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

112 iagnostic value for iCCA versus control, HCC versus control, and PSC versus control, with areas under

113 inflammation was upregulated in HFpEF cases versus controls, and the most prominent inflammation pro

114 genic variants in sudden cardiac death cases versus controls, and the prevalence and clinical importa

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

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

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

118 1.6%; p = 0.0003) in TBX18-injected animals versus control animals.

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

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

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

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

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

124 eralized osteoid volume was increased in dKO versus controls at POD15 (3-fold), and mineral density w

125 n individuals destined for joint replacement versus controls at regions of the joint that are not cap

126 Patients with CBS had perirolandic atrophy versus controls at the group level, but locations of atr

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

128 eumococci pre-incubated with influenza virus versus control bacteria without virus.

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

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

131 d uncontrolled BP or resistant hypertension (versus controlled BP) after multivariable adjustment.

132 CD subjects had increased caloric intake versus controls, but no alterations in total fat or PUFA

133 roduced larger [Ca(2+)](Nuc) increases in AF versus control cardiomyocytes, and IP(3)R-blockade suppr

134 Corresponding BCG versus control case-fatality rate RRs were 0.58 (95% CI,

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

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

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

138 d 11.8% versus 16.3% (P = 0.51) in the study versus control cohort, respectively.

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

140 significantly different between the ZO-1cKO versus control (CTL) mice, basally in young or aged mice

141 e-phenotype associations by comparing mutant versus control data.

142 value and adjusted P value for advanced AMD versus control (DE 4/1) without age correction did not c

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

144 ores for this positive control gene in cases versus controls demonstrates markedly more significant r

145 cling, I(NaL) was markedly upregulated in HF versus control (dependent largely on CaMKII [Ca(2+)/calm

146 g more strongly upregulated or downregulated versus control-diet fed groups but actually reversed in

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

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

149 decisions using automatic (e.g., reflexive) versus controlled (e.g., deliberative) cognition, intera

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

151 I(NaL) was slightly increased in HF versus control even when intracellular Ca(2+) was strong

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

153 r MUC5AC protein was lower in all ATD groups versus control eyes, and correlated only with GC area.

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

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

156 reated patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) versus controls (familial adenomatous polyposis [FAP]).

157 amma following administration of IL-12/IL-18 versus control-fed animals (p < 0.0001).

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

159 enous fistula patency through day 42 (P<0.05 versus control for all measures).

160 als comparing clinical outcomes with aspirin versus control for primary prevention with follow-up dur

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

162 ta-analysis, yielding significant impairment versus controls (g = 0.66); however, study quality was r

163 nificantly higher in patients >=60 years old versus controls (geometric mean 4246 ng/mL versus 3402 n

164 (1.90 +/- 2.28 versus 1.47 +/- 1.76 mm; test versus control), GI reduction (-1.14 +/- 1.15 versus -1.

165 n SBP reduction from baseline in the THRIVES versus control group (2.32 versus 2.01 mm Hg, P=0.82).

166 er improvement in CST was seen in the active versus control group (ITT population: -212.1 mum and -17

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

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

169 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

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

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

172 Intensivists in the intervention versus control group were no more likely to offer the op

173 erence were found between intervention group versus control group, with a mean Post-Traumatic Stress

174 and positive cells for AlkP in periodontitis versus control group.

175 esults of the educational intervention group versus control group.

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

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

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

179 with much higher seizure burden in treatment versus control groups (median = 3.1 vs 1.2 min/h, p = 0.

180 low (9.4%; n = 10), similar in the challenge versus control groups (P = 0.8), and all adverse events

181 body geometric mean titer in the chloroquine versus control groups 28 days after vaccination: 2.3 ver

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

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

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

185 ) compared with 2-hour baseline in treatment versus control groups with adjustment for seizure burden

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

187 % 30-day mortality rates in the intervention versus control groups.

188 stigate the rewiring interactions in disease versus control groups.

189 intensive care, mortality was not increased versus control groups.

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

191 tes presented high diagnostic value for iCCA versus control, HCC versus control, and PSC versus contr

192 l (28 days), 6-week, and infant (1-year) BCG versus control hospitalization IRRs were 0.97 (95% confi

193 29 was also significantly elevated in cancer versus control in laying hen plasma samples, consistent

194 31 participants from three trials of aspirin versus control in major acute stroke.

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

196 5,778 participants from 12 trials of aspirin versus control in secondary prevention.

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

198 itted development of fewer cancer metastases versus controls in an animal model.

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

200 GABA concentration was reduced in patients versus controls in the right inferior frontal gyrus, but

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

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

203 lium had defects up to 6 months after injury versus controls, including larger basal cells and nuclei

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

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

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

207 ic effects of type I and type II IFNs on SLE versus control keratinocytes.

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

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

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

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

212 old mice, lentiviral (LV)-short hairpin Shc versus control-LV were used during FFD.

213 ntibody (mAb) regimens (anti-alpha(4)beta(7) versus control mAb).

214 with liver metastases randomized to eribulin versus control (median: 13.4 versus 11.3 months, respect

215 roarrays of carotid arteries from Pcsk6(-/-) versus control mice revealed suppression of contractile

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

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

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

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

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

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

222 atients with decompensated RV failure (n=11) versus control (n=7).

223 ormalities in DICER1 carriers (n = 11 [11%]) versus controls (n = 1 [1.5%]).

224 mental health in intervention neighborhoods versus control neighborhoods.

225 low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health C

226 revention, compared long-term ODT (>3 years) versus control or ODT continuation versus discontinuatio

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

228 stically associate with treatment (e.g. case versus control) or covary with biological factors, such

229 (1.27 +/- 1.14 versus 1.08 +/- 1.04 mm; test versus control) or proportional defect size reduction (-

230 t these were not significantly different: BS versus control p = 0.338; SF versus control p = 0.790.

231 t these were not significantly different: BS versus control p = 0.379; SF versus control p = 0.411.

232 y different: BS versus control p = 0.379; SF versus control p = 0.411.

233 y different: BS versus control p = 0.338; SF versus control p = 0.790.

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

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

236 brushes exhibited reduced osteoconductivity versus controls (P < 0.05).

237 was significantly lower in the MODULEN group versus controls (p = 0.005).

238 s versus MS NAWM (P = 0.002), and in MS NAWM versus controls (P = 0.014).

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

240 afts had significantly higher opening forces versus controls (P<0.01).

241 (2.65 +/- 2.14 versus 1.85 +/- 1.71 mm; test versus control, P = 0.014).

242 cles were different in participants with DMD versus control participants in all age groups by using q

243 xcellent binding affinities (150-fold higher versus control particles) and high selectivity toward th

244 dural complications were more frequent in CA versus control patients (6 of 42 [14%] vs. 2 of 106 [2%]

245 2):GFR was 25% lower in adolescents with T1D versus control patients (P < 0.0001).

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

247 nts undergoing appendectomy for appendicitis versus control patients without appendicitis using Medic

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

249 tion at baseline assigned to an intervention versus control provider, the adjusted percent increase i

250 (-1.14 +/- 1.15 versus -1.04 +/- 0.89; test versus control), radiographic linear bone gain (1.27 +/-

251 HS-cardiomyopathy gene associations in cases versus controls, rare variant burden testing of 56 genes

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

253 eplay by behavior is reduced in MEC-lesioned versus control rats.

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

255 n proneural-like or mesenchymal-like tumours versus control samples from different mouse models with

256 For proven CPA patients versus controls, sensitivity and specificity for the LDB

257 roducible elevation of PMP22 levels in CMT1A versus control skin biopsies, particularly after normali

258 tilization in human PASMCs and PAECs from PH versus control specimens, and that TGF-beta treatment wo

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

260 in the lung from patients with COPD (n = 37) versus control subjects (n = 34) by immunohistochemistry

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

262 Results were specific versus control subjects and replicated across two indepe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

273 , differed between those with asthma or COPD versus control subjects.

274 amples taken from adults with asthma or COPD versus control subjects.Measurements and Main Results: T

275 namic brain network interactions in patients versus control subjects; and 3) the relation between SN-

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

277 spitalization at 2 years was lower with TMVr versus control treatment in patients with prior CRT (48.

278 ials (RCTs) comparing PARP inhibitor therapy versus control treatments (placebo and non-placebo) in a

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

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

281 Engagement interview versus control visit (phase 1) and 12 weeks of CBT deliv

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

283 vidual differential metabolites in ALS cases versus controls were assessed by Wilcoxon rank-sum tests

284 t event post-randomisation for interventions versus controls were nonfatal cardiovascular 0.24 (95% c

285 t effective in reducing CFU counts (P < 0.01 versus control), whereas Chlorhexidine was least effecti

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

287 GWI gastrocnemius weight was ~ 35% lower versus controls, which correlated with decreases in myof

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

289 ed a 13.4% increase in a hemolytic phenotype versus control, while methylated spirits showed a 39.7%

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

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

295 versus control, HCC versus control, and PSC versus control, with areas under the receiver operating

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

297 tiviral T(H)1 response in asthmatic subjects versus controls, with synchronized allergen-specific T(H

298 Early stage breast cancer patients, versus control women, had reduced abundance of the CadA

299 ting plasmablasts were evaluated in pregnant versus control women.

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