Search alternatives:
increase increases » disease increases (Expand Search)
largest decrease » largest decreases (Expand Search), marked decrease (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
Showing 1 - 20 results of 208,181 for search '(( significant increase increases ) OR ( significant ((largest decrease) OR (larger decrease)) ))', query time: 2.30s Refine Results
  1. 1
  2. 2

    Tissue, days post-infection (dpi) and the top 10 most significant genes with increased and decreased expression with valid gene symbols for the response contrasts. by Gillian P. McHugo (8965919)

    Published 2025
    “…<p>Tissue, days post-infection (dpi) and the top 10 most significant genes with increased and decreased expression with valid gene symbols for the response contrasts.…”
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13

    Micropatterning significantly increases cell density. by Matthew W. Hagen (627944)

    Published 2019
    “…(B) Micropatterning significantly increases cell density across other culture conditions (p = 0.0002). …”
  14. 14
  15. 15

    Long COVID prevalence decreases with vaccine uptake in the U.S. by Manlio De Domenico (626037)

    Published 2023
    “…The measured correlations are significant (<i>p</i> < 10<sup>−3</sup>) in all cases and highlights that the larger the vaccine uptake the lower the prevalence of long covid, with the effect further increasing with more robust vaccination protocol. …”
  16. 16

    Significant increase in body temperature post-challenge. by Anne E. Boyer (237019)

    Published 2022
    “…<p>The threshold for a significant increase in body temperature (SIBT) is established as the mean pre-challenge (or baseline) temperature plus 2 standard deviations (SD) of the mean pre-challenge temperature. …”
  17. 17

    Spatial information is significantly decreased in dCA1 and vCA1 in APP/PS1 mice. by Udaysankar Chockanathan (18510288)

    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). …”
  18. 18
  19. 19
  20. 20