Suggestions(1)
Exact(7)
More aggressive tumours are likely to display clinical unfavourable expression of a higher number of biomarkers.
In combined analyses, an increase in the number of biomarkers with unfavourable expression could imply more aggressive tumours.
Our analyses implicated more aggressive tumours when an increasing number of biomarkers, representing main cancer hallmarks, show clinically unfavourable expression.
Analyses of the combination of all three markers showed worse clinical outcome, specifically in colon cancer patients, with an increasing number of markers showing unfavourable expression.
Thus, in combined biomarker analyses, an increasing number of the biomarkers with clinically unfavourable expression in colon tumours indicated worse clinical outcome.
Increased expression of Aldh1 or Survivin, or decreased expression of EpCAM was each associated with poor clinical outcome, and was therefore identified as clinically unfavourable expression.
Similar(53)
Despite frequent detection of Proteobacteria-like nifH genes in PCR amplicons as well as in real-time PCR based studies from open oceans [41] [44], these putative diazotrophs have received limited attention, perhaps because open ocean waters that are well-oxygenated and poor in energy sources would appear to be unfavourable for expression of the nitrogenase genes [45].
A higher group number, with an increasing number of markers showing clinically unfavourable marker expression, was associated with worse survival and higher distant recurrence rates.
We hypothesised that a higher group number, with a higher number of clinically unfavourable marker expression, correlated with poorer clinical outcome.
This is thought to result from the unfavourable co-expression by intimal FLSs and vascular endothelial cells (ECs) of the angiogenic factor VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor), and the angiopoietin-1/2 TIE2 angiopoietin-1/2 TIE2
Multivariate single-marker analyses were used to verify hypothesised clinically unfavourable single-marker expression.
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