Table 1.

Statistical table

ResultsData structureStatistical testPower or confidence intervals
Fig. 3A–C, EG, IKNo assumptions about the distributions of the degree imbalance on each of the 3 days.Two-sided Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney test with Benjamini–Hochberg multiple comparison/FDR correction for 30 nodes.Separate comparison for: Day 0 vs Day 7 and Day 0 and Day 28.We use two-sided test because we expect to see increase and decrease of degree imbalance.Panel B:FDR ≤ 0.08,AUROC<0.2 or AUROC>0.8;Panel C:FDR ≤ 0.08,AUROC<0.2 or AUROC>0.8;Panel D:FDR ≤ 0.1,AUROC<0.2 or AUROC>0.8;Panel E:FDR ≤ 0.07,AUROC<0.2 or AUROC>0.8;Panel G:FDR ≤ 0.07,AUROC<0.2 or AUROC>0.9;Panel H:FDR ≤ 0.07,AUROC<0.2. or AUROC>0.9;See Extended data Figure 3-1 for values.
Fig. 3D, H, L; Table 2No assumptions about the distributions of the network measures.The Kruskal–Wallis test (nonparametric ANOVA) with Benjamini–Hochberg multiple comparison/FDR correction for 20 analyzed measures.FDR and AUROC values are reported in Table 2.
Fig. 4No assumptions about the distributions of the node ictogenicity on each of the 3 days.One-sided Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney test with Benjamini–Hochberg multiple comparison/FDR correction for 30 nodes.Separate comparison for: Day 0 vs Day 7 and Day 0 and Day 28.We use one-sided test because only test increase of node icotgenicity.Panel B: FDR ≤ 0.1, AUROC>0.8;Panel C: FDR ≤ 0.09, AUROC>0.8;Panel E: FDR ≤ 0.08, AUROC>0.8;Panel G: FDR ≤ 0.02, AUROC=1;Panel H: FDR ≤ 0.01, AUROC<0.9.See Extended data Figure 4-1 for values.
  • Columns are part of the results section, the structure of the data, statistical test, and description of the significance levels.