Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(3)
Exact(5)
Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed no significant main effect of level of restraint and no interaction with meal conditions.
In the study of 23 adults ingesting Pb under fasting and nonfasting (full meal) conditions, James et al. (1985) measured Mg concentrations along with Ca and P, but found it impossible to separate any effects from the individual micronutrients.
A two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to investigate the effects of meal conditions (eating or fasting), the effects of time, and interaction effects between condition and time on physiological parameters.
Supplementary Tables S1 S4 (Supplementary Data are available online at www.liebertonline.com/dia) provide the estimated model parameters, their corresponding FSDs, and meal information for each subject for both LF and HF meal conditions.
Although detailed information about food consumption was not collected in this outpatient study, the overall between-subject variability in CL/F (39.4%) and residual error (33%) estimated with the population PK analysis were reasonably low, suggesting that any variation in the way patients took evacetrapib with respect to meal conditions did not result in excessive variability in exposure.
Similar(55)
Energy and main dish intakes were lower in the group meal condition than in the other four, which did not significantly differ.
There was no significant interaction effect between time and meal condition for DBP.
There was also a significant interaction effect between time and meal condition for HR (F [4, 24] = 6.34, P < 0.001, η G 2 = 0.056).
There was also a significant interaction effect between time and meal condition for salivary cortisol concentrations (F [4, 24] = 3.45, P = 0.023, η G 2 = 0.066).
Two-way repeated-measures ANOVA showed that meal condition had a significant main effect on HF power in the follicular phase (P = 0.047, η G 2 = 0.088).
There was also a significant interaction effect between time and meal condition with HR (F [4, 24] = 5.79, P = 0.002, η G 2 = 0.030).
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