Principal Component Analysis checks rapidly the balance between the two variabilities; however, a mixed-model analysis of variance is necessary to quantify the biological and technical components of the experimental variance as well as their interactions and to split the total variance into between-subjects and within-subject components.
In summary, as suggested by our results on differences of expression variability between the two clinical types, expression variability can classify the two subtypes remarkably well, pointing to a potentially important relation between expression variability and disease aggressiveness.
The reduced overall variability between the two species and increased variability among different tissues of these species suggested increased accuracy of measuring differential gene expression in common bean CSH GeneChip data after masking with the signal intensity threshold of 80.
Tensile strength tests of restorative resins bonded to dentin, and the resultant strengths of interfaces between the two, exhibit wide variability.
Because Wu et al. (2014) do not provide the data for replicates of their experiment, we are unable to assess whether the variability between the two different studies exceeds the variability between experimental replicates within each study.
Pair wise comparison of sequential normalisation factors showed a relatively high level of variability between the three least variable reference genes (V2/3; Fig. 5).
Consistent with our hypothesis, gene expression variability shows a clear difference between the two subtypes with higher variability associated to U-CLL, the more aggressive disease.
We found a mean difference of −0.06 pmol/L between the two compartments, with a variability of the measurements, also called 95% limits of agreement (1.96 ± SD about the mean) [24] of 12.1 pmol/L, (Fig. 2).
The wide diversity in the time spent at the water between the two groups provides some variability in the results and warrants further research.
There was no significant difference between the two groups in their variability of responses in both the symbolic and the non symbolic tasks.
