Search alternatives:
significant from » significant gram (Expand Search), significant group (Expand Search), significant force (Expand Search)
changes decrease » change increases (Expand Search), largest decrease (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
from increased » fold increased (Expand Search)
significant from » significant gram (Expand Search), significant group (Expand Search), significant force (Expand Search)
changes decrease » change increases (Expand Search), largest decrease (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
from increased » fold increased (Expand Search)
-
1
MS decreases the larger amplitude distribution in adult rats.
Published 2023Subjects: “…glutamatergic events decreased…”
-
2
-
3
-
4
Proteins from volcano plot which had notable increases or decreases listed in order of greatest to least significance (adjusted p-values).
Published 2022“…<p>Proteins from volcano plot which had notable increases or decreases listed in order of greatest to least significance (adjusted p-values).…”
-
5
-
6
Increased or reduced ATGL-1 activity does not significantly change <i>N. parisii</i> growth.
Published 2025Subjects: -
7
-
8
-
9
IR-induced mutation profiles of DNA repair mutants significantly different from wild-type.
Published 2021Subjects: -
10
The carotid canal area is larger on the unaffected side than on the affected side in patients with unilateral moyamoya disease, but the difference decreases according to the contra...
Published 2021“…The carotid canal area on the affected side remained unchanged or showed a subtle increase from 14.12 mm<sup>2</sup> to 14.21 mm<sup>2</sup>, whereas that on the unaffected side decreased from 20.91 mm<sup>2</sup> to 19.17 mm<sup>2</sup> according to the contralateral progression of the stenosis around the terminal portion of the ICA.…”
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
-
15
-
16
-
17
-
18
Spatial information is significantly decreased in dCA1 and vCA1 in APP/PS1 mice.
Published 2024“…The spatial information in dCA1 was significantly larger than circularly shuffled spike trains with similar mean firing rates for C57BL/6 mice (mean ± std: empirical = 0.132 ± 0.048, shuffled = 0.124 ± 0.035, p < 0.001, two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, n<sub>empirical</sub> = 305 units from 5 recording sessions, n<sub>shuffled</sub> = 30500 simulated units from 5 recording sessions), but not for APP/PS1 mice (mean ± std: empirical = 0.128 ± 0.051, shuffled = 0.123 ± .047, p = 0.39, two-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum test, n<sub>empirical</sub> = 180 units from 4 recording sessions, n<sub>shuffled</sub> = 18000 simulated units from 4 recording sessions). …”
-
19
-
20