2016
DOI: 10.1111/anae.13565
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

It's just a standard deviation!

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 8 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…After the visual analysis of the gonadal tissue, female oocytes were then measured and had their mean diameter determined in order to highlight more nuanced differences regarding H. forskali's gonadal development in captivity (Figure 5). Despite the clear overlap of SD bars, individuals from D1 presented a significantly smaller mean oocyte diameter (105 ± 22 μm), than individuals from the highest density (D2 = 112 ± 21 μm), as the similar SD ’s translate similar scatter between values of each group and do not necessarily equate to a lack of differences between them (Choi & Wong, 2016). The same applies when compared to individuals from the initial baseline group (t 0 = 111 ± 19 μm), in accordance with a One‐Way ANOVA [ F ( 2,782) = 9.169; p < 0.001, Tukey; p < 0.001].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After the visual analysis of the gonadal tissue, female oocytes were then measured and had their mean diameter determined in order to highlight more nuanced differences regarding H. forskali's gonadal development in captivity (Figure 5). Despite the clear overlap of SD bars, individuals from D1 presented a significantly smaller mean oocyte diameter (105 ± 22 μm), than individuals from the highest density (D2 = 112 ± 21 μm), as the similar SD ’s translate similar scatter between values of each group and do not necessarily equate to a lack of differences between them (Choi & Wong, 2016). The same applies when compared to individuals from the initial baseline group (t 0 = 111 ± 19 μm), in accordance with a One‐Way ANOVA [ F ( 2,782) = 9.169; p < 0.001, Tukey; p < 0.001].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%