129) lt; 0.001) as well as in DR (p < 0.01) compared to control animals. |
130) stile cognitions in rejection conditions, compared to control conditions. |
131) eased by 18.3 ± 2.0% in presence of LGFJ compared to control experiments. |
132) had a hazard ratio of 0·19 (P = 0·002) compared to control group patients. |
133) the highest increase of bond strengths as compared to control group whereas light on |
134) 10 was not statistically significant when compared to control group. |
135) mmunized intra-peritoneally with VLP2/6/7 compared to control group. |
136) reatment groups were significantly higher compared to control groups (p < 0.0 |
137) d reduced TH-fiber densities in ELS males compared to control males; this effect was |
138) ally greater abundance of parenchymal IgG compared to control mice not exposed to DE |
139) ased distance traveled in sensitized mice compared to control mice, was paralleled b |
140) ed Gal-3 serum levels in patients with AD compared to control participants (P=.017). |
141) and frequency among intervention patients compared to control patients. |
142) l model results of posttests showed that, compared to control students (n = 75), int |
143) s noted in high symptom mTBI participants compared to control subjects and low sympt |
144) s did not show significant alterations as compared to control. |
145) ats with and without prior ozone exposure compared to control. |
146) entrations were found in rat brain tissue compared to control. |
147) ly 20 % larger in the experimental group compared to control. |
148) TC genetic test administered by a company compared to a MP because they were less tr |
149) advantage associated with a PDI nomogram compared to a PA nomogram but no differenc |
150) The pathobiology of these 3 strains was compared to a South African NDV strain cla |
151) t-course (n = 122), and outcomes were compared to a control group of early enrol |
152) ledronate-treated rats (n = 18) were then compared to a control group of untreated r |
153) containing monodisperse primary particles compared to a conventional pMDI. |
154) pped by more than 2 m under this scenario compared to a future base condition, and e |
155) lymphoblastic leukemia (SR-ALL) survivors compared to a healthy comparison (HC) grou |
156) individuals with DSM-IV-diagnosed BPD was compared to a nonclinical control sample o |
157) strumental variables (IV) estimate, 34 %) compared to a normal-weight individual. |
158) ure to active beam scanning (ABS) protons compared to a passive delivery system. |
159) children with high-functioning autism as compared to a sample of peers, from the ch |
160) session led by a physical therapist—was compared to a treatment group which receiv |
161) nefit of our proposed marginal model when compared to a two-part mixed model is the |
|