2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.ab.2010.02.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Statistical significance analysis of nuclear magnetic resonance-based metabonomics data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
74
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 82 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
74
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Statistical significance was considered at p < 0.05 (Goodpaster et al 2010). The small size of the non-exposed group does not allow its use as a control group or identify significant differences between concentrations determined in toenails of exposed and non-exposed groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Statistical significance was considered at p < 0.05 (Goodpaster et al 2010). The small size of the non-exposed group does not allow its use as a control group or identify significant differences between concentrations determined in toenails of exposed and non-exposed groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results were analyzed in the context of the statistical significance of the PCA loadings that drive cluster separation in the PCA scores plot according to an approach developed previously in our lab [5]. PCA and PLS-DA scores plot separations were assessed by comparing “no scaling” and Pareto scaling data pretreatment prior to PCA and PLS-DA.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Application of the statistical test to the total separation dataset analyzed using PLS-DA resulted in a 14% increase in the T 2 statistic for the cluster separation (661.56) (Table 1) compared to simple PCA with a corresponding F-score of 322.30 (Table 1), which when subjected to the F-test using a critical F-value of 3.96, indicated statistically significant separation between the clusters. Note that the statistical significance of the variances in the bucket intensities [5] do not change as a result of analyzing the data using PLS-DA compared to PCA, although the magnitude of the cluster separation and the statistical significance of the cluster separation increases; this point will be discussed further below.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Statistically significant changing buckets for pair-wise analysis (FM vs EC/NEC/NECM/ECM) were determined using both AMIX and MetaboAnalyst 2.0. The significant bucket intensity values identified by AMIX ( p <0.011875, 0.021591, 0.0084821, and 0.0095, respectively; Bonferroni-corrected confidence intervals for significant metabolite analysis) were exported to Microsoft Excel and fold changes were manually calculated by subtracting two corresponding buckets [27]. Calculations of fold changes and T tests were also performed with MetaboAnalyst 2.0 in order to determine whether or not the changes in bucket intensities were statistically significant.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%