Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2017 Nov 27;42(1):21–31. doi: 10.1111/acer.13526

Table 2.

Summary of ANCOVAs examining differences between cases and controls on cluster methylation and NAc MID task percent signal change (β).

Alcohol-Dependent Patients (n = 45) Healthy Controls (n = 45) F P-Value Eta-squared
Percent Methylation
 Cluster A 9.11 (8.53, 9.69) 9.42 (8.84, 9.99) .510 .477 .006
 Cluster B 8.38 (7.89, 8.87) 8.44 (7.95, 8.93) .026 .872 .000
 Cluster C 62.35 (61.25, 63.44) 61.86 (60.75, 62.97) .349 .556 .004
 Cluster D 89.22 (88.92, 89.53) 89.17 (88.86, 89.48) .053 .819 .001
 Cluster E 77.96 (77.35, 78.57) 78.22 (77.61, 78.83) .338 .563 .004

NAc Activation
 High Reward .172 (.038, .307) -.059 (-.195, .077) 5.33 .023 .059
 Low Reward -.031(-.153, .091) -.220 (-.343 -.096) 4.27 .042 .048
 High Loss .078 (-.037, .192) -.160 (-.275, -.044) 7.74 .007 .083
 Low Loss -.026 (-.140, .088) -.224 (-.338, -.110) 5.48 .022 .061

Note. Adjusted means and confidence intervals.