Exact(2)
The unique significant difference was related to age, and was found in the mixtures group vs. control and triptans groups.
The only statistically significant difference was related to leukopenia, which was more frequent in the DD/DI arm than the HDI arm (24.4% vs. 8.7% respectively, p = 0.0074); yet, this increase was not associated to a higher risk of infectious disease.
Similar(58)
The most significant difference is related with the evidence that in nanowire growth, the surfaces of already grown segments are exposed to impurities for the duration of the growth, which can affect the physical and chemical properties of such segments.
It suggested that the absence of statistically significant differences was related to the similarity of the trends and probably not affected by the small sample size.
The most significant differences were related to the length and complexity of the colour path.
With respect to the GPx-1 Pro/Pro and Pro/Leu genotypes, the significant differences were related to the both frequencies, moderate (p = 0.002) and elevated (p = 0.004) damages.
Concerning age groups, these significant differences were related to the frequencies of moderate damages between 20-40 and 41-56 year-olds (p = 0.014), and to elevated damages between 17-19 and 41-56 year-olds (p = 0.044) and between 20-40 and 41-56 year-olds (p = 0.008).
This leads to a question of whether the non-significant differences were related to the chosen comparison.
This difference was related to a high mutation rate in female rectal cancer patients (14/21, 67%) compared to females with colon cancer (14/43, 33%) (p = 0.01), whereas no significant difference related to tumor location was identified in men (41% in rectal cancer and 33% in colon cancer, P = 0.52).
No significant difference was found related to retinol levels, TBARS and APACHE II score between the groups (P = 0.33/ P = 0.24/ P = 0.43).
A high fever (≥39°C) was documented for 7 (22%) patients, although no significant difference was observed related to occurrence of fever among those who died and those who recovered (p = 0.195).
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