106) on, osteocalcin and osteopontin levels as compared to those grown on PDGF-BB alone- |
107) cant differences in thrombophilias in RVO compared to those in RAO. |
108) metabolism in the serum-free bioreactors compared to those maintained with FCS. |
109) Findings were compared to those of Western studies. |
110) Results were compared to those of a matched group of si |
111) nce were not significantly different when compared to those of non-affected relative |
112) their electronic excited states which are compared to those of non-interacting mono- |
113) of the patients were significantly lower compared to those of the control group, al |
114) f morphological and biological properties compared to those of the conventional mode |
115) d regenerative medicine are described and compared to those of their native physiolo |
116) ejudice event during the follow-up period compared to those who did not. |
117) d OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.51-0.88 respectively) compared to those who were hormone recepto |
118) s of separation anxiety disorder at age 5 compared to those with TD. |
119) ired a longer period for sensory recovery compared to those with an oblique triangul |
120) ities with lower energetic expenditure as compared to those with externalizing disor |
121) were more likely to undergo chemotherapy compared to those with localized staging ( |
122) er group had significantly worse survival compared to those with wild-type TP53 (adj |
123) t rate from rest to social interaction as compared to those without ASD. |
124) high levels of differentiated functions, compared to those without ECs. |
125) tter clinical outcome of 2-year mortality compared to those without OMT. |
126) ressed threefold higher ITGAV mRNA levels compared to those without TiO2 particle st |
127) tween patients with a post-operative pack compared to those without a pack following |
128) did not have significantly worse survival compared to those without the mutation. |
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 |
|