Table 3.
Multivariate analysis showing Rad51 positive association with the Stim-C T0 group in comparison to both Stim-C T30 and IVM-C T30, even after correction for female age. In the case of γH2AX, data corrected for age showed significant association only for Stim-C T0 vs. Stim-C T30
| γH2AX | Rad51 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95 % CI) | P | OR (95 % CI) | P | |
| Age | ||||
| Stim-C T0 vs. Stim-C T30 | 0.96 (0.84–1.10) | 0.529 | 0.97 (0.85–1.10) | 0.609 |
| 4.81 (1.59–14.5) | 0.005 | 4.74 (1.66–13.6) | 0.004 | |
| Stim-C T0 vs. IVM-C T30 | 1.05 (0.94–1.16) | 0.376 | 1.02 (0.92–1.13) | 0.743 |
| 1.40 (0.88–2.22) | 0.158 | 1.73 (1.08–2.78) | 0.024 | |
| Stim-C T30 vs. IVM-C T30 | 1.04 (0.93–1.17) | 0.461 | 0.97 (0.86–1.09) | 0.593 |
| 0.38 (0.11–1.27) | 0.116 | 0.50 (0.15–1.66) | 0.256 | |