Search alternatives:
significant tests » significance tests (Expand Search), significant threats (Expand Search), significant events (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
tests revealed » test revealed (Expand Search), results revealed (Expand Search), cells revealed (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
significant tests » significance tests (Expand Search), significant threats (Expand Search), significant events (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
tests revealed » test revealed (Expand Search), results revealed (Expand Search), cells revealed (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
-
1
-
2
-
3
The number of gauging cross-sections where a statistically significant decreasing trend was identified.
Published 2024“…<p>The number of gauging cross-sections where a statistically significant decreasing trend was identified.…”
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
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“…<p>(A) shows the carotid canal area compared between the affected side and the unaffected side in patients with unilateral moyamoya disease, and the unaffected side is significantly wider than the affected side (p = 0.018). …”
-
12
-
13
-
14
-
15
-
16
-
17
-
18
M<sup>pro</sup> confers a significant reduction in growth in yeast caused by decreases in a variety of cellular proteins.
Published 2023“…Plots in A, B, C show averages from three biological replicates and error bars are standard deviations. (***) indicates differences (p<0.001)between EV and tested genes.</p>…”
-
19
-
20
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). …”