Similar(60)
Conversely, all of the coefficients for the comparisons with percent abnormal tail and DBP groupings were negative, indicating a smaller proportion of abnormal outcomes with increasing DBP exposure.
This is consistent with our analysis of AML samples in which array CGH rarely detects copy number changes if the neoplastic clone comprises <25% of bone marrow cells (judged by the percent abnormal metaphases) (Walter, et al., submitted).
The percent abnormal lung response was analyzed using mixed effect Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model, with Treatment as fixed effect and Group as a random effect.
The percent abnormal lung was visually estimated for each lobe and total lung involvement calculated as a percentage of total lung as described by Jericho and Langford [ 14].
The coefficients for comparisons made with percent abnormal midsection and THM-Br, HAA-Br, and TOX were positive but low in magnitude.
All surviving calves were euthanized on day 10 of the study, necropsied, and evaluated for percent abnormal lung involvement as previously described [ 13].
The coefficients for percent abnormal midsection and THM4, HAA5, and HAA9 were all negative and statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Table 4), indicating a smaller proportion of abnormal outcomes with increasing DBP exposure.
The frequency of developmental abnormalities in hatchlings was significantly higher in the contaminated site than in the reference site (clutch mean percent abnormal = 16.7 ± 5.7 vs. 10.5 ± 3.6, respectively; p = 0.019).
The beta coefficients for percent abnormal head were positive in comparisons with each of the DBP groupings, although the magnitude of each was small and none was statistically significant.
The coefficients for percent abnormal cytoplasmic drop were positive for comparisons with THM4, HAA5, and HAA9, indicating an increase of approximately one-third of an SD with exposure to these DBP groupings [β = 0.33 (95% CL, 0.02, 0.31); β = −0.47 (95% CL, −0.02, 0.64); and β = 0.37 (95% CL, 0.04, 0.70), respectively) (Table 4).
Sixty percent had abnormal results on a test evaluating their cognition and executive functioning.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com