Exact(5)
Two-sample Wilcoxon tests were used to test for differences in the distribution of VILIP1 values across subgroups (i.e., histology (SCC vs. adeno), high-stage (stages 1 and 2) vs. lower stage (stages 3 and 4), and low grade (grades 1 and 2) vs. high grade (grades 3 and 4)).
Also of interest was the extremely low prevalence of high grade tumors in the K5-VILIP-1 mice, i.e., whereas in WT mice 13% of SCCs were of high grade (grades III and IV), in K5-VILIP-1 transgenic mice this proportion was only 4% (Figures 4C and 4D).
The extent of budding/sprouting was classified as low grade (grades 0 and 1) or high grade (grades 2 and 3).
Patients with low grade (grades I II) tumors had a higher 5-year CSS (97.8% vs. 91.2%, P = 0.001) and RFS (95.5% vs. 85.5%, P < 0.001) rate than did those with high grade (grades I II) tumors.
When grades of skin toxicity were divided into low grade (grades 0 1) and high grade (grades 2 3), there were significant tendencies that serum levels of AREG, EREG, and HGF were inversely proportional to grades of total skin toxicity (P = 0.021, P = 0.047, and P = 0.019, respectively).
Similar(55)
All tumors were high grade (grade III), invasive ductal carcinomas.
The majority of ovarian cancers were of high grade (grade 1 (5), grade 2 (18), grade 3 (56)) and serous in histology (serous (65), endometrioid (4), mucinous (3), undifferentiated (2), mixed (1), clear cell (1), unclassified (3)).
For comparative purposes with previous reports, the 1973 World Health Organization (WHO) grading system [low grade (grades 1 2) and high grade (grade 3)] was used in this study which is still the most commonly used system despite being superseded by the 2004 WHO/International Society of Urologic Pathology (ISUP) classifications [5].
c: high grade: grade II and grade III.
According to the FNCLCC grade, SS was divided into two groups: low grade (grade 2) and high grade (grade 3) (Guillou et al, 1997).
Tumours were graded as low grade (grade 1, one; grade 2, nine), and high grade (grade 3, seven; grade 4, eight).
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