Sentence examples for compared with trials from inspiring English sources

There was no blood draw in the trial, and the experience suggested that recruitment was comparatively easy and the participants' completion rate was high compared with trials requiring several blood draws [ 16].

Compared with trials with EPSPs, P(d Vnorm/d t) was comparably wide for trials with no EPSPs and narrow for trials containing EPSPs; using a threshold in the standard deviation of P(d Vnorm/d t) allowed us to separate "nonresponsive" (high σ) and "responsive" (low σ) trials.

Trials with sufficient sample sizes are scientifically and ethically justified and more credible compared with trials with insufficient sizes.

Forty-eight (19%) reported on multiple cycles, which was significantly more common in trials on intrauterine insemination and ovulation induction compared with trials on IVF (P < 0.01).

In a 64-channel EEG study using electrical stimulation at the threshold level, trials perceived as painful were characterized by a lower prestimulus theta connectivity, compared with trials rated as nonpainful [67].

We then tested participants in a transfer session where trials with novel trajectories (new) were compared with trials with previously experienced trajectories.

Data from the 2017 harvest will be compared with trial results with five corn hybrids grown at two farm sites in 2015 and 2016.

Due to the global nature of SPEs (as compared with trial-by-trial estimates of local confidence) and the blocked structure of our experimental design, we only had access to a limited number of data points per subject (12 task choices in Experiment 1; 30 in Experiments 2 and 3) preventing us from reliably fitting model parameter(s) and discriminating between competing models41.

On average, registry patients had lower blood pressure, worse renal function, less neurohormonal antagonist therapy, and higher use of intravenous inotropes compared with trial patients.

There were no significant differences compared with trial B for specificity (p = 0.44) or partial A z) (p = 0.46), suggesting that the Penn data were inherently more difficult to characterize.

As expected there was less inhibition in trial 2 compared with trial 1 in both cohorts and across both sessions.