Exact(1)
For transactivated genes, in contrast, their expression status in the responder changes from silent to active upon fusion with the reprogrammer.
Similar(59)
Flow increased significantly in both groups following heat immersion but much more so in the high response group who showed a mean % change of 76.4% (P < 0.0001) compared with a low responder change of 43.5% (P = 0.03).
Cold immersion reduced flow in both subgroups significantly but again the degree of reduction was greater in the high responders with a mean % change of 41.17% compared to the low responder change of 32.98% (P = 0.04 in high responders and P = 0.07 in low responders).
There is no evidence to suggest that the proportion of responders changes with the volume used (H = 1,79 p = .40).40
There is no evidence to suggest that the proportion of responders changes between colloids and crystalloids (M = .53, SD = .15 vs M = .56, SD = .15, F 1,71) = .85, p = .35).35
The secondary outcomes include the proportion of responders, changes in stool quality, mean transit time, proportion of patients using laxatives and adverse events.
The interaction effect captures whether the ratio of national patient register diagnoses in responders versus non-responders changes significantly by year of birth; the interaction was non-significant (Wald χ test 7.71, degrees of freedom 8, P=0.46).
n number of patients or measurements, NR non-responders, ScvO 2 central venous oxygen saturation, R responders Changes in Doppler RI correlated significantly with changes in urine output (r = −0.322, p = 0.03) and changes in MAP (r = −0.443, p < 0.01) but not with changes in PP.
During the observation period 22% of responders and 14% of non-responders changed their DMARD therapy (P = 0.189).
We defined an increase ≥2 in NPH score at 12 months as representative of clinical improvement; the surgically treated patients were categorized either as responders (change in NPH score ≥2) or non-responders (change in NPH score <2), respectively.
The algorithm then identified the first choice where responders changed their preference for one of the alternatives, e.g. ticked the second treatment after they had chosen the first previously.
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