Table 1 CIC data: Method comparison for estimating the Δ Δ C q -value
From: Unaccounted uncertainty from qPCR efficiency estimates entails uncontrolled false positive rates
Estimate | se | t-value | df | p-value | LCL | UCL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MGST1 vs GAPDH | |||||||
EC | –8.62 | 1.62 | –5.31 | 21 | 2.92·10−5 | –12 | –5.24 |
EC&VA1 | –8.62 | 1.66 | –5.18 | 21 | 3.89·10−5 | –12.1 | –5.16 |
EC&VA2 | –8.62 | 1.67 | –5.17 | 21 | 4.04·10−5 | –12.1 | –5.15 |
Bootstrap | –8.66 | 2.06 | 1.00·10−3 | –12.5 | –4.41 | ||
MGST1 vs ACTB | |||||||
EC | –8.98 | 1.61 | –5.57 | 21 | 1.57·10−5 | –12.3 | –5.63 |
EC&VA1 | –8.98 | 1.65 | –5.45 | 21 | 2.08·10−5 | –12.4 | –5.56 |
EC&VA2 | –8.98 | 1.65 | –5.45 | 21 | 2.10·10−5 | –12.4 | –5.55 |
Bootstrap | –8.98 | 2.09 | 1.00·10−3 | –12.7 | –4.48 | ||
MMSET vs GAPDH | |||||||
EC | 0.679 | 0.585 | 1.16 | 21 | 2.59·10−1 | –0.538 | 1.9 |
EC&VA1 | 0.679 | 0.587 | 1.16 | 21 | 2.60·10−1 | –0.541 | 1.9 |
EC&VA2 | 0.679 | 0.589 | 1.15 | 21 | 2.62·10−1 | –0.545 | 1.9 |
Bootstrap | 0.688 | 0.678 | 3.12·10−1 | –0.656 | 2 | ||
MMSET vs ACTB | |||||||
EC | 0.318 | 0.962 | 0.331 | 21 | 7.44·10−1 | –1.68 | 2.32 |
EC&VA1 | 0.318 | 0.962 | 0.331 | 21 | 7.44·10−1 | –1.68 | 2.32 |
EC&VA2 | 0.318 | 0.964 | 0.33 | 21 | 7.45·10−1 | –1.69 | 2.32 |
Bootstrap | 0.342 | 0.987 | 7.05·10−1 | –1.68 | 2.13 |