Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
mean decrease » a decrease (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
larger decrease » marked decrease (Expand Search)
mean decrease » a decrease (Expand Search)
-
21
-
22
-
23
-
24
-
25
Clustering using the unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA).
Published 2022Subjects: -
26
-
27
-
28
B2 decreases glycolytic intermediates in cells.
Published 2025“…Other abbreviations: HGA, DL-hydroxyglutaric acid; PEP, phosphoenolpyruvic acid; 3-PGA, 3-phosphoglyceric acid; G3P; glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate; Data (n = 5) are shown as mean±SD. Not significant (ns): **<i>P</i> ≤ 0.01, ****<i>P</i> ≤ 0.0001by one-way ANOVA with multiple comparison of the mean of each test group to the mean of the vehicle control. …”
-
29
-
30
-
31
-
32
Table_1_Decreased Serum Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor Concentrations 72 Hours Following Marathon Running.DOCX
Published 2021“…Values decreased significantly with the lowest values at 72 h after the marathon compared to baseline (p = 0.025), a finding that was more pronounced in the larger male cohort.…”
-
33
ECoG timescales decrease during spatial attention.
Published 2025“…Bottom: timescales significantly decrease during covert attention relative to the attend-out condition (two locations: <i>p</i> = 0.0244; four locations: <i>p</i> < 0.0001; mean ± SEM; whiskers indicate maximum and minimum; dots correspond to individual electrodes). …”
-
34
-
35
-
36
-
37
Percent accuracy and mean reaction time across the TLDB task.
Published 2024Subjects: “…correlational analyses revealed…”
-
38
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). …”
-
39
-
40