Search alternatives:
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
reduced decrease » reduced disease (Expand Search), reported decrease (Expand Search), induces decreased (Expand Search)
decrease reverse » decreased levels (Expand Search)
significant decrease » significant increase (Expand Search), significantly increased (Expand Search)
reduced decrease » reduced disease (Expand Search), reported decrease (Expand Search), induces decreased (Expand Search)
decrease reverse » decreased levels (Expand Search)
-
101
-
102
-
103
-
104
-
105
-
106
-
107
Decreased BMP activity in MZ<i>nanog</i> is rescued by knocking down of <i>ctnnb2</i>.
Published 2020“…Error bars, mean ± SD, **<i>P</i> < 0.01; NS means no significant difference. (B) Relative mRNA level of <i>admp</i> was significantly decreased in MZ<i>nanog</i> at 6 hpf, and <i>radar</i> was significantly up-regulated at 2 hpf by RT-qPCR analysis. …”
-
108
Interaction of <i>bmp15</i> and <i>gdf9</i> in zebrafish follicle development.
Published 2023Subjects: -
109
-
110
-
111
-
112
Preference for the EIA – conjoint results.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
113
Marginal means – Pooled across scenarios.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
114
Sample attribute table.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
115
Subgroup analysis – Political affiliation.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
116
Sample scenario description.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
117
AMCEs – Pooled across scenarios.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
118
Methodological flowchart.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
119
Preference for the EIA vs. ETA across scenarios.
Published 2025“…Additionally, preferences polarized along partisan identities, with Democrats favoring impact parity over accuracy maximization while Republicans displayed the reverse preference. Gender and social justice orientations also significantly predicted EIA support. …”
-
120