Tasaka et al. (A- 61) note that Corynebacterium parvum (CP) increases susceptibi
ID: 3239386 • Letter: T
Question
Tasaka et al. (A- 61) note that Corynebacterium parvum (CP) increases susceptibility to endotoxin, which is associated with increased production of tumor necrosis factor (TNF). They investigated the effect of CP-priming on the pathogenesis of acute lung injury caused by intratracheal Escherichia coli endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide [LPS]) Experimental animals consisted of female guinea pigs divided into four groups. Animals in two groups received a 4-mg/ kg treatment of CP 7 days before the study. Subsequently, nonpretreated animals received either saline alone (Control) or endotoxin (LPS-alone). The pretreated groups received either saline (CP alone) or LPS. Among the data collected were the following values of lung tissue-to- plasma ratio of radio-iodized serum albumin assay (variable RATIO).
What statistical hypotheses were tested to address the study questions?
Were the null hypotheses rejected at the level 0.05?
What conclusions should be made based on the statistical analysis results?
Is there a significant effect of CP-priming on RATIO? What is the mean difference in RATIO (with the corresponding confidence interval) due to CP-priming?
Is there a significant effect of LSP treatment on RATIO? What is the mean difference in RATIO (with the corresponding confidence interval) due to LSP treatment?
Is there a significant interaction between CP-priming and LSP treatment?
Which paired differences among 4 groups are significant at the 0.05 level and what are the corresponding confidence intervals?
The ANOVA Procedure Class Level Information Class Levels Values 2 No Yes CP 2 No Yes LPS Number of Observations Read 24 Number of Observations Used 24Explanation / Answer
Answer:
What statistical hypotheses were tested to address the study questions?
Ho: There is no effect of CP-priming on RATIO
H1: There is a effect of CP-priming on RATIO
Ho: There is no effect of LSP treatment on RATIO
H1: There is a effect of LSP treatment on RATIO
Were the null hypotheses rejected at the level 0.05?
F=18.00, P<0.0001. Null hypotheses were rejected at the level 0.05.
What conclusions should be made based on the statistical analysis results?
We conclude that there was significant effects of CP-priming and LSP treatment on RATIO.
Is there a significant effect of CP-priming on RATIO? What is the mean difference in RATIO (with the corresponding confidence interval) due to CP-priming?
Yes, there is a significant effect of CP-priming on RATIO, F=28.26, P=0.0000. The mean difference is 0.26940 and (95% CI for difference is (0.16369, 0.37511).
Is there a significant effect of LSP treatment on RATIO? What is the mean difference in RATIO (with the corresponding confidence interval) due to LSP treatment?
Yes, there is a significant effect of LSP treatment on RATIO, F=18.95, P=0.0000.
The mean difference Yes-NO is 0.22061 and (95% CI for difference is (0.11489, 0.32632).
Is there a significant interaction between CP-priming and LSP treatment?
Yes, there is significant interaction between CP-priming and LSP treatment, F=6.80, P=0.0168.
Which paired differences among 4 groups are significant at the 0.05 level and what are the corresponding confidence intervals?
Significant pairs and CI
Yes_Yes and Yes_No, (0.15218, 0.055338)
Yes_Yes and No_Yes, (0.20098, 0.60217)
Yes_Yes and No_No, (0.28941, 0.69061)
Yes_NO and Yes_Yes, (-0.55338,-0.15218)
No_Yes and Yes_Yes, (-0.60217, -0.20098)
No_No and Yes_Yes, (-0.69061, -0.28941)
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.