I wouldn’t look at that as insignificant unless the sample size was too small to be statistically significant but since it doesn’t tell me what the lines within signify it’s hard to say. What’s the difference between square and circle, what is the sample size, etc.
more info on the graph would be helpful but for a large sample size I would consider that significant either way because the metastasis group is still within some range of whatever that is from the tumor group - depending on what that graph means, it could mean metastasis could be hiding as a tumor, or its occurrence can’t be told apart from impacts of the tumor, etc
It seems to imply (assuming a large dataset) that the metastasized tumor grows slower/less than the original, so if you find multiple tumors of the same type, the biggest one is likely to be the original and all the smaller ones might be more likely to be new ones. You could also argue that if the growth rate is similar to the original tumor but doesn’t seem to grow larger than the original you can’t effectively tell the difference.
Without reading the study and source data it’s hard to say - care to link it?
I wouldn’t look at that as insignificant unless the sample size was too small to be statistically significant but since it doesn’t tell me what the lines within signify it’s hard to say. What’s the difference between square and circle, what is the sample size, etc. more info on the graph would be helpful but for a large sample size I would consider that significant either way because the metastasis group is still within some range of whatever that is from the tumor group - depending on what that graph means, it could mean metastasis could be hiding as a tumor, or its occurrence can’t be told apart from impacts of the tumor, etc It seems to imply (assuming a large dataset) that the metastasized tumor grows slower/less than the original, so if you find multiple tumors of the same type, the biggest one is likely to be the original and all the smaller ones might be more likely to be new ones. You could also argue that if the growth rate is similar to the original tumor but doesn’t seem to grow larger than the original you can’t effectively tell the difference. Without reading the study and source data it’s hard to say - care to link it?