Table 3B.
Healthy ovary vs serous cystadenoma
| Antigen | Healthy | Benign | Bivariable model | Multivariable model | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N=20 | N=20 | Signif.1 | Signif.2 | Signif1 | Signif2 | |
| NASP | 1 (5%) | 1 (5%) | 1.00 | - - - | 0.90 | - - - |
| MRE11 | 16 (94%) | 19 (95%) | 0.79 | - - - | 0.89 | - - - |
| RCAS1 | 4 (20%) | 10 (50%) | 0.08 | - - - | 0.89 | - - - |
| RAD50 | 18 (100%) | 16 (80%) | - - - | - - - | - - - | - - - |
| Her2 | 1 (5%) | 6 (30%) | 0.003 | 0.02 | 0.85 | - - - |
| NBS1 | 4 (20%) | 10 (50%) | 0.07 | - - - | 0.88 | - - - |
| eIF5A | 15 (75%) | 19 (95%) | 0.01 | - - - | 0.95 | - - - |
| p53 | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | - - - | - - - | - - - | - - - |
1
Significance of the marker based on bootstrapped logistic regression model.
2
Adjusted for multiple comparisons using Holm’s method.