Table 1. Statistical analysis of... | American Society of Hematology

Table 1.

Statistical analysis of molecular adhesion models

	Model 1			Model 2
			q = 0.1			q = 0.2			q = 0.3		q = 0.4
w, dyne/cm⁻²	k_off,mut, s⁻¹	P, 10⁻³	k_off,mut, s⁻¹	P, 10⁻³	k_off,mut, s⁻¹	P, 10⁻³	k_off,mut, s⁻¹	P, 10⁻³	k_off,mut, s⁻¹	P, 10⁻³
0.5	0.846	14.4	0.828	1.6^*	0.810	.2^*	0.790	.0^*	0.768	.0^*
0.5	1.008	83.9	0.976	23.4	0.944	4.9^*	0.911	.7^*	0.877	.1^*
0.5	0.788	1.9^*	0.777	.2^*	0.766	.0^*	0.752	.0^*	0.737	.0^*
0.5	0.682	2.7^*	0.670	.2^*	0.658	.0^*	0.645	.0^*	0.632	.0^*
0.5	0.853	198.9	0.823	76.0	0.795	23.6	0.766	5.9^*	0.736	.12^*
1.0	1.144	274.9	1.099	111.4	1.057	035.0	1.017	8.3^*	0.979	1.4^*
1.0	1.048	51.3	1.016	12.5	0.985	2.3^*	0.954	.3^*	0.924	.0^*
1.0	1.136	339.1	1.093	141.8	1.052	46.1	1.013	11.4	0.975	2.1^*
1.0	0.957	54.21	0.935	9.9^*	0.913	1.7^*	0.890	.2^*	0.866	.0^*
1.0	0.964	53.9	0.943	11.4	0.922	1.7^*	0.899	.2^*	0.876	.0^*
1.5	1.370	56.1	1.336	10.1	1.300	2.3^*	1.262	.4^*	1.222	.1^*
1.5	1.826	840.1	1.731	655.4	1.636	448.5	1.543	268.5	1.450	139.6
1.5	1.473	140.5	1.421	62.2	1.371	21.2	1.321	5.2^*	1.272	1.0^*
1.5	1.175	78.1	1.152	3.4^*	1.127	.5^*	1.101	.0^*	1.072	.0^*
1.5	1.472	135.7	1.423	55.1	1.373	18.8	1.321	5.3^*	1.268	1.2^*
2.0	1.894	67.6	1.822	25.1	1.752	7.6^*	1.682	1.8^*	1.609	.3^*
2.0	2.313	969.2	2.177	934.7	2.043	877.6	1.911	781.8	1.782	604.3
2.0	2.315	992.6	2.180	965.0	2.048	881.8	1.918	736.0	1.791	553.8
2.0	1.890	201.1	1.813	78.9	1.738	24.3	1.664	5.7^*	1.590	1.0^*
2.0	1.785	566.4	1.704	316.0	1.628	139.0	1.555	45.4	1.484	11.1^*

	Model 1			Model 2
			q = 0.1			q = 0.2			q = 0.3		q = 0.4
w, dyne/cm⁻²	k_off,mut, s⁻¹	P, 10⁻³	k_off,mut, s⁻¹	P, 10⁻³	k_off,mut, s⁻¹	P, 10⁻³	k_off,mut, s⁻¹	P, 10⁻³	k_off,mut, s⁻¹	P, 10⁻³
0.5	0.846	14.4	0.828	1.6^*	0.810	.2^*	0.790	.0^*	0.768	.0^*
0.5	1.008	83.9	0.976	23.4	0.944	4.9^*	0.911	.7^*	0.877	.1^*
0.5	0.788	1.9^*	0.777	.2^*	0.766	.0^*	0.752	.0^*	0.737	.0^*
0.5	0.682	2.7^*	0.670	.2^*	0.658	.0^*	0.645	.0^*	0.632	.0^*
0.5	0.853	198.9	0.823	76.0	0.795	23.6	0.766	5.9^*	0.736	.12^*
1.0	1.144	274.9	1.099	111.4	1.057	035.0	1.017	8.3^*	0.979	1.4^*
1.0	1.048	51.3	1.016	12.5	0.985	2.3^*	0.954	.3^*	0.924	.0^*
1.0	1.136	339.1	1.093	141.8	1.052	46.1	1.013	11.4	0.975	2.1^*
1.0	0.957	54.21	0.935	9.9^*	0.913	1.7^*	0.890	.2^*	0.866	.0^*
1.0	0.964	53.9	0.943	11.4	0.922	1.7^*	0.899	.2^*	0.876	.0^*
1.5	1.370	56.1	1.336	10.1	1.300	2.3^*	1.262	.4^*	1.222	.1^*
1.5	1.826	840.1	1.731	655.4	1.636	448.5	1.543	268.5	1.450	139.6
1.5	1.473	140.5	1.421	62.2	1.371	21.2	1.321	5.2^*	1.272	1.0^*
1.5	1.175	78.1	1.152	3.4^*	1.127	.5^*	1.101	.0^*	1.072	.0^*
1.5	1.472	135.7	1.423	55.1	1.373	18.8	1.321	5.3^*	1.268	1.2^*
2.0	1.894	67.6	1.822	25.1	1.752	7.6^*	1.682	1.8^*	1.609	.3^*
2.0	2.313	969.2	2.177	934.7	2.043	877.6	1.911	781.8	1.782	604.3
2.0	2.315	992.6	2.180	965.0	2.048	881.8	1.918	736.0	1.791	553.8
2.0	1.890	201.1	1.813	78.9	1.738	24.3	1.664	5.7^*	1.590	1.0^*
2.0	1.785	566.4	1.704	316.0	1.628	139.0	1.555	45.4	1.484	11.1^*

When P values corresponding to tests of models are less than 10 × 10⁻³, the model fails the KS test. The best model is model 1, which neglects the contribution of wild-type bonding to the pause time of platelets from the heterozygous patient. Model 2 explicitly accounts for the possibility of tether bond formation via mutant and wild-type interactions. However, as the probability of wild-type bonding is increased, the quality of the model deteriorates. Hypothesis testing demonstrates that model 1 is the best model of adhesion of the platelets from the heterozygous patients.

View Large

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only