Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
greater increase » year increase (Expand Search)
Showing 1,721 - 1,740 results of 24,549 for search '(( significant decrease decrease ) OR ( significantly ((mean decrease) OR (greater increase)) ))*', query time: 0.73s Refine Results
  1. 1721
  2. 1722

    Fig 3 - by Micha Keller (11312748)

    Published 2025
    “…Due to non-significant main effect of ‘time’, means across measurement days are plotted. …”
  3. 1723
  4. 1724
  5. 1725
  6. 1726
  7. 1727
  8. 1728
  9. 1729

    Ecological and Health Risk Mediated by Micro(nano)plastics Aging Process: Perspectives and Challenges by Kexiao Song (13003200)

    Published 2025
    “…The changes in the physical and chemical characteristics of aged MNPs significantly influence their environmental behavior by releasing additives, forming byproducts, and adsorbing contaminants. …”
  10. 1730

    Ecological and Health Risk Mediated by Micro(nano)plastics Aging Process: Perspectives and Challenges by Kexiao Song (13003200)

    Published 2025
    “…The changes in the physical and chemical characteristics of aged MNPs significantly influence their environmental behavior by releasing additives, forming byproducts, and adsorbing contaminants. …”
  11. 1731
  12. 1732
  13. 1733

    Fuzzy c-mean clustering. by Janaina de Freitas Nascimento (3849415)

    Published 2024
    “…The results revealed five proteins that were increased and four that were decreased in common in the presence of Pro+BCAAs, indicating their possible participation in key processes related to metacyclogenesis. …”
  14. 1734
  15. 1735
  16. 1736
  17. 1737
  18. 1738
  19. 1739
  20. 1740

    Analyses excluding participants with BMI 25 kg/m<sup>2</sup> or greater from healthy volunteer groups. by Gabriela Ribeiro (4748373)

    Published 2024
    “…Similarly to the original analyses in the full data set (<a href="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002936#pbio.3002936.g001" target="_blank">Fig 1F</a>), there was a significant post-conditioning increase in preference among participants with low preference at baseline (t<sub>(23)</sub> = 2.7; <i>P</i> = 0.01; <i>n</i> = 24) but not in those with higher baseline preference (t<sub>(19)</sub> = 0.05; <i>P</i> = 0.96; <i>n</i> = 20). …”