ライフサイエンスコーパス: Pearson

1 Pearson (r) or Spearman (r(s)) correlation coefficients

2 Pearson and Spearman correlations restricted maximum lik

3 Pearson chi(2) and Fisher exact tests were used for anal

4 Pearson chi(2), Student t test, logistic regression, and

5 Pearson coefficients were used to determine the relation

6 Pearson correlation analysis on the average concentratio

7 Pearson correlation and linear mixed models were perform

8 Pearson correlation and principal component analysis (PC

9 Pearson correlation coefficient (r), two-sample t test,

10 Pearson correlation coefficient between method predictio

11 Pearson correlation coefficient for yield and peroxisome

12 Pearson correlation coefficient was used to analyze for

13 Pearson correlation coefficients (r), corrected for atte

14 Pearson correlation coefficients and one-way repeated me

15 Pearson correlation coefficients between observed and Go

16 Pearson correlation coefficients were measured using biv

17 Pearson correlation coefficients were used to assess rel

18 Pearson correlation coefficients were used to evaluate t

19 Pearson correlation confirmed greater CA impairment at c

20 Pearson correlation shows a strong relationship between

21 Pearson correlations between relative signal changes and

22 Pearson correlations between tumor DWI and quantitative

23 Pearson correlations were applied to examine the impacts

24 Pearson correlations were used to compare the reference

25 Pearson's chi(2) test and ANOVA were used to compare tub

26 Pearson's chi-square and analysis of variance were used

27 Pearson's chi2 tests and C-statistics were used to asses

28 Pearson's correlation analysis indicated the sensory att

29 Pearson's correlation analysis showed a strong correlati

30 Pearson's correlation analysis showed that CWEC, CWEN, a

31 Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to assess the

32 Pearson's correlation displayed significant (p < 0.05) p

33 Pearson's correlation studies showed associations betwee

34 Pearson's correlation, linear regression analysis for cl

35 Pearson's correlations assessed whether changes in walki

36 Pearson's correlations between AChE and BuChE inhibition

37 Pearson's correlations confirmed a stronger relationship

38 Pearson's or Spearman's rank correlation coefficient wer

39 Pearson's Product correlations revealed significant corr

40 th MRI PDFF (Spearman rho = 0.82 [P < .001]; Pearson r = 0.76 [P < .001]).

41 of consciousness-impairing seizures (p<0.01, Pearson's correlation) and was associated with impairmen

42 ed with the degree of IOP reduction (n = 13; Pearson's correlation coefficient 0.7; P = 0.007) and th

43 rov-Smirnov test; 2) Mann-Whitney U test; 3) Pearson chi(2) test; 4) Kruskal-Wallis test; and 5) regr

44 ding values for CAF were 83.7% versus 82.8% (Pearson's correlation: 0.94).

45 ment in MD observed postintervention (n = 8; Pearson's correlation coefficient 0.75; P = 0.03).

46 Spearman's correlation coefficient and 0.87 Pearson's correlation for VFI and MD.

47 A Pearson correlation of 0.968 was obtained between serum

48 tions and sequence information, we achieve a Pearson's R(2) of 0.362 for predicting the results of ch

49 structural information, mCSM-AB2 achieved a Pearson's correlation of 0.73 and 0.77 across training a

50 The ReSimNet ensemble model achieves a Pearson correlation of 0.518 and a precision@1% of 0.989

51 te-of-the-art empirical methods, achieving a Pearson correlation of 0.57 and an RMSE of 1.09 kcal/mol

52 d independent variables was established by a Pearson Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis test.

53 Validity was confirmed by a Pearson correlation coefficient of r = 0.95 (EPCO r = 0.

54 root-mean-square error (RMSE) of 3.9 days, a Pearson correlation (PC) of 0.98 and the differences bet

55 example, over 2,900 human proteins exhibit a Pearson's correlation coefficient R between the hydropho

56 We used a Pearson correlation coefficient and linear regression to

57 onal cTACE during the same period by using a Pearson chi(2) test.

58 Using a Pearson correlation, we confirmed that proxies of ESs ar

59 and test set versions were compared using a Pearson correlation.

60 s showed a strong linear association, with a Pearson correlation coefficient between 0.703 and 0.962.

61 l concentration of NAs in the samples with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.89.

62 DNA-RNA (R-loop) complex structures, with a Pearson correlation coefficient ranging from 0.775 to 0.

63 v3 with RDKit molecular descriptors achieved Pearson correlation coefficients of up to 0.836, 0.780 a

64 n and two independent blind tests, achieving Pearson's correlations of up to 0.95.

65 tion with the activated clotting time (ACT) (Pearson's r = 0.86, P < 0.0001).

66 ions and use of observation-only admissions (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.01) or discharge to

67 r cell chemosensitivity to the hybrid agent (Pearson correlation analysis, p < 10(-5)) across a wide

68 strongly correlated with reductions in AHI (Pearson's rho = 0.62, P < 0.0001); results remained afte

69 ges in CH4 concentration in the exhaled air (Pearson's r = 0.669 or r = 0.632, respectively).

70 For voxelwise and patientwise analyses, Pearson correlation coefficients (r (voxelwise) and r (p

71 2) was used to perform correlation analysis (Pearson's coefficient) and the Mann-Whitney U test.

72 s demonstrated with a median CV of 15.3% and Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.95 from biological

73 s analysis, exploratory factor analysis, and Pearson correlations for caudate, putamen, and pallidum

74 ver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and Pearson r, respectively.

75 assess MMI station internal consistency and Pearson's moment correlation co-efficient to explore ass

76 sessed as coefficient of variation (CV), and Pearson's correlation analysis was conducted.

77 We used mean squared errors and Pearson's correlation coefficients between real high-res

78 al comparisons between or within groups, and Pearson and Spearman rank correlation was used to compar

79 h was evaluated using the designed model and Pearson correlation between storage times with quality o

80 imated using a linear random slope model and Pearson correlation.

81 Mixed models and Pearson correlation coefficients were used for body mass

82 cy (mean unsigned error of 1.76 kcal/mol and Pearson correlation of 0.48); however, the reparametriza

83 nt (mean unsigned error of 0.81 kcal/mol and Pearson correlation of 0.75).

84 ble design, multi-response optimization, and Pearson's correlation were used.

85 ariable mixed effects linear regressions and Pearson correlations were performed using STATA14.

86 an plots, coefficients of repeatability, and Pearson correlation results were reported.

87 cy metrics: the Imputation Quality Score and Pearson's correlation R (2) for predicting power of asso

88 Nonparametric tests, effect sizes, and Pearson correlations examined differences between T1-onl

89 y concordant in absolute terms (Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients >=0.94).

90 y concordant in absolute terms (Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients >=0.95).

91 r down-regulated DEGs, and both Spearman and Pearson correlations between SeqMonk LFC and RT-qPCR LFC

92 rk connectivity in 528 college students, and Pearson correlation was performed to investigate the rel

93 We used the Wilcoxon rank-sum and Pearson chi-square tests to examine race differences in

94 We used Wilcoxon rank-sum and Pearson chi-square tests to examine race differences in

95 ta were analyzed with the Student t test and Pearson correlation.

96 itney test, Student t test, chi(2) test, and Pearson correlation coefficient.

97 regression model, the Fisher exact test, and Pearson correlation.

98 sts, concordance and Bland-Altman tests, and Pearson correlations were used to evaluate degeneration,

99 , t-tests, one-way analysis of variance, and Pearson or Spearman's correlation analyses were used to

100 Wilcoxon and Pearson chi(2) tests were used to compare the groups.

101 ld contribute to the antioxidant activity as Pearson correlation suggested.

102 ed rank tests and rank sum tests, as well as Pearson correlation analysis.

103 rrelation with the spectrophotometric assay (Pearson's r 0.918-0.957) and was less influenced by haem

104 We assessed Pearson's correlation with a comprehensive measure for c

105 Associated Pearson correlation coefficients for ML-PI, ML, and PI w

106 tion and quantification, yielding an average Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.90 for IRC and of

107 t of and evening movements into the borough (Pearson R = -0.88 [-0.52, -0.99]).

108 tinal vein occlusion (RVO) were evaluated by Pearson correlation and linear regression.

109 Conventional quantification of FC by Pearson's correlation captures linear, time-domain depen

110 7, correlated with functional improvement by Pearson's correlations.

111 ompartments information, with the ranking by Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) calculated from ge

112 ated in terms of performance, as revealed by Pearson's rank correlation coefficients (>0.99 for sesam

113 tending surgeons' NOTSS ratings at category [Pearson coefficient 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0

114 rrelation with the supplied electric charge, Pearson's r = 0.994.

115 in rates were low overall (3.7% [95% Clopper Pearson confidence interval [CI]: 2.3%, 5.6%]) and did n

116 eek 12, was assessed using exact 95% Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals.

117 ral patency was evaluated by using a Clopper-Pearson exact binomial test.

118 metrics were estimated by using the Clopper-Pearson method (accuracy, recall, specificity, and preci

119 rvey measure and age group using the Clopper-Pearson method.

120 oportion CIs were obtained using the Clopper-Pearson method.

121 nd ACE levels were significantly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.205; P = .001, 2-side

122 regulated lncRNAs significantly correlated (|Pearson Correlation Coefficient|>= 0.9) with 91 up-regul

123 ensor demonstrates an excellent correlation (Pearson's r > 0.90) with the reference method for a tota

124 NFL_MD had significantly higher correlation (Pearson R: 0.68 vs 0.55, p < 0.001) with VF_MD than the

125 nd 2WIN yielded high degrees of correlation (Pearson product-moment) on linear regression for spheric

126 rveillance systems in the various countries (Pearson correlations ranging from 0.69 for Italy to 0.88

127 tryptase correlated with eosinophil counts (Pearson r = 0.514; P < 0.01) on aspirin.

128 baseline to 24 weeks for both BCVA and CST, Pearson correlation coefficients were: ME from RVO, -0.3

129 For baseline BCVA and CST, Pearson correlation coefficients were: ME from RVO, -0.5

130 D2 expression as measured by flow cytometry (Pearson r = 0.88, P = 0.01), distinguishing moderately G

131 ely correlated with high population density (Pearson's r 0.52, 95% CI 0.34-0.66).

132 ensitivity, we recommend using the developed Pearson's correlation and agglomerative hierarchical clu

133 orrelation with visual field mean deviation (Pearson r = 0.819 and 0.831), and repeatability (intracl

134 st for constant and intermittent deviations (Pearson correlation 0.64-0.71).

135 ed colonies show no significant differences (Pearson Coefficient) in terms of their biological featur

136 lidated against the cumulative heparin dose (Pearson's r = 0.71, P < 0.0001).

137 ing using Dice similarity coefficient (DSC), Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman analyses.

138 Fe-tCDTA Pearson R, 0.99; P = .0003; Fe-DTPA Pearson R, 0.97; P = .003).

139 We present both linear and rank-order (i.e., Pearson and Spearman) correlations between loads of 42 b

140 lated to the degree of J-ST point elevation (Pearson R, 0.81; P<0.001).

141 MRI methods were assessed by percent error, Pearson correlation, and Bland-Altman analyses.

142 gly correlated for end-systolic volume (ESV: Pearson r = 0.99, P < .001), end-diastolic volume (EDV:

143 Fisher exact, Pearson chi(2), and Student t tests were applied as indi

144 orbent assay (ELISA), resulting in excellent Pearson correlation and intraclass correlation coefficie

145 automated and manual volumes were excellent (Pearson r = 0.97, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0

146 or discharge to a skilled nursing facility (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.05).

147 positive correlation between FFR and CT-FFR (Pearson correlation coefficient, R=0.64, P<0.0001).

148 detect gastrointestinal syndrome in France (Pearson correlation of 0.66).

149 in the total scan area minus the area of GA (Pearson r = 0.747; P < 0.001) than those in the regions

150 gnificantly correlated with H2O2 generation (Pearson's r = 0.91), no correlation was observed between

151 and AMFM measurements was moderate for GGR (Pearson's correlation r = 0.60, P < 0.0001; mean differe

152 nd angiotensin II-treated mice showed a high Pearson correlation, reflecting a highly ordered process

153 -out data showed low levels of bias and high Pearson correlation coefficients for calcification (-0.0

154 The high Pearson's correlation coefficient R values are obtained

155 oposed topological approach has a 84% higher Pearson correlation coefficient than the current state-o

156 ge features computed from day 3, the highest Pearson Correlation coefficients between the top two fea

157 (HRM) and showed high concordance with HRM (Pearson correlation is 0.92).

158 healthy adult population suggested that: (i) Pearson's correlation cannot comprehensively capture BOL

159 In Pearson correlation analysis of the development cohort,

160 In Pearson's test, all Ganglion Cell Complex (GCC) thicknes

161 Analyses include Pearson's exact chi test and binary logistic regression.

162 ion strength than other quantities including Pearson correlation, Spearman correlation, distance corr

163 ificantly with RIFs at 72 h after injection (Pearson r = -0.34; P < 0.05).

164 because the predictors are intercorrelated (Pearson's r > 0.5).

165 from Luanda, the later the date of invasion (Pearson's r 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.66).

166 As a preliminary investigation, Pearson and Kendall rank correlations are examined to ex

167 ures to quantify FC by investigating: (i) Is Pearson's correlation sufficient to characterize FC?

168 EC and NGS was observed in all laboratories (Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.996).

169 : health, education, and standard of living (Pearson correlation of 0.84-0.86).

170 remained after controlling for weight loss (Pearson's rho = 0.36, P = 0.014).

171 dicted and actual tumor burden measurements (Pearson r = 0.5658, P < 0.0001).

172 l microbiota profiles (58 taxa with a median Pearson's r 0.93 [IQR 0.62-0.99]; p<0.05 for all 58 taxa

173 correlation with conventional ELISA method (Pearson's r = 0.987).

174 orrelated significantly with VA at 6 months (Pearson r = 0.55; R(2) = 29%; P < 0.0001).

175 igh agreement between LC-MS and MALDI-Q-MSI (Pearson correlation r = 0.87).

176 rom SDOCT (mean +/- SD: 226.0 +/- 73.8 mum) (Pearson's r = 0.88; R(2) = 77%; P < .001), with mean abs

177 ss all 25 brain structures [T1w/T2w vs. MWF (Pearson r = 0.33, Spearman rho = 0.31), FA vs. MWF (r =

178 4), with an overall higher Cp value in NPsp (Pearson coefficient 0.579).

179 ormulated hypotheses were: first, in lieu of Pearson's correlation, an augmented, composite and multi

180 found between K(i) and TBR, with a square of Pearson correlation of 0.98 and 0.93 for (68)Ga-DOTATOC

181 -to-excellent accuracy (mean R(2) [square of Pearson's correlation coefficient]: 0.966, range [min, m

182 pairwise concentration correlation based on Pearson correlation coefficients.

183 bsorbed dose until 4 h after injection only (Pearson r = 0.42; P < 0.01).

184 thin-hospital correlation across operations (Pearson rho: intestinal-hysterectomy = 0.50, intestinal-

185 ta, as measured by the mean squared error or Pearson's correlation coefficient.

186 the manual microscopy counts with an overall Pearson correlation of 0.96 across the three sample type

187 eep, and the Numerical Rating Scale of pain (Pearson correlations, P < 0.0001 for all).

188 compare different lung function parameters, Pearson correlation coefficient and Fisher z transformat

189 We calculated partial Pearson correlations between 617 metabolites and 55 food

190 icted fat fraction correlated with MRI PDFF (Pearson r = 0.85).

191 n OCT parameters and RGC count, we performed Pearson's correlation.

192 ated with dose rates across all time points (Pearson r = 0.78; P < 0.01) and with absorbed dose until

193 Positive Pearson correlation was found between total phenolic con

194 cal data was moderate for sepsis prevalence (Pearson coefficient, 0.64) and mortality (0.61).

195 luorescence intensity with standard RT-qPCR (Pearson coefficients > 0.7 for the N1, N2 and RPP30 gene

196 adiologists and one in-training radiologist (Pearson r).

197 lated with lower monthly percentile ranking (Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.69; P = .01).

198 L2 correlated with disease progression rate (Pearson's r=0.49, p<0.001; r=0.42, p<0.001, respectively

199 ing correlated with increased PE yield rate (Pearson's R(2)=0.43; P<0.001).

200 all 30-day risk-adjusted complication rates (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.213, P = 0.303).

201 igen levels and tumor-to-liver volume ratio (Pearson correlation coefficients, 0.105 and 0.113, respe

202 U/ml in whole blood with a linear response (Pearson's r = 0.99) from 0 to 2 U/ml heparin in plasma a

203 A robust Pearson correlation (R = 0.9801 +/- 0.0167; mean +/- sd;

204 ) were strongly correlated on the log scale (Pearson r = 0.75).

205 related positively with offspring HEI score (Pearson r = 0.22, p < 0.001).

206 ILI trend of the 2016-2017 influenza season (Pearson correlations ranging from 0.60 for Ireland and U

207 elation was validated in the validation set (Pearson correlation values of 0.36 and 0.44; P < .01).

208 Duplicate TIMFIE sampling showed Pearson's correlation coefficient r = 0.998.

209 hly correlated with positive and significant Pearson and Spearman coefficients, respectively (P < 0.0

210 h the Folin-Ciocalteu assay was significant (Pearson coefficient, R = 0.970-0.991) while the antioxid

211 mm and 12x12 mm scan patterns were similar (Pearson r = 0.99), with an average ER using the square r

212 the "burstiness" of approximately 20 Hz SM1 (Pearson r approximately 0.65) and peripheral fluctuation

213 Strong Pearson's correlations were found between the two system

214 for precuneus, P < 0.0001) than with SUVRCB (Pearson r: from 0.51 for temporal lobe [P = 0.002] to 0.

215 VT correlated better with SUVRWM (Pearson r: from 0.63 for posterior cingulate to 0.89 for

216 e and were compared by means of a one-tailed Pearson correlation test.

217 rved for gadopentetate dimeglumine (Fe-tCDTA Pearson R, 0.99; P = .0003; Fe-DTPA Pearson R, 0.97; P =

218 owing good agreement between the techniques (Pearson's r = 0.821, P < 0.0001).

219 was performed with the t test, chi(2) test, Pearson correlation coefficient, and receiver operating

220 istical analyses included Fisher exact test, Pearson chi2 test, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic reg

221 amined retrospectively using Student t test, Pearson chi(2) test, and logistic regression.

222 sual field mean deviation (VFMD) was tested (Pearson coefficient, r).

223 in RSFC in the hippocampus and the thalamus (Pearson r =-0.23; P <.001 corrected for familywise error

224 Globally, we found that Pearson's correlation is greater than 0.6 between effect

225 The Pearson correlation coefficient between estimated and ex

226 The Pearson correlation coefficient for double-positive samp

227 The Pearson correlation of modeled versus measured hourly lo

228 The Pearson linear correlation coefficient was used to asses

229 The Pearson's analysis demonstrated correlation between IC(5

230 The Pearson's correlation coefficient between the forecasted

231 The Pearson's correlation results showed the specific relati

232 rformed by using nonparametric tests and the Pearson correlation coefficient.

233 icant loss of fidelity, as quantified by the Pearson and concordance correlation coefficients.

234 Group-level agreement was assessed by the Pearson correlation, paired t test, and Bland-Altman (bi

235 of A. arguta fruits can be explained by the Pearson's correlation found between flavonols (r = 0.709

236 ffinity prediction models by calculating the Pearson correlation between predicted and experimental b

237 utions of synaptic vesicles, and further the Pearson value of colocalization of pre and postsynaptic

238 Using set size of 500 genes, the Pearson correlations between LPv and F-measure as well a

239 combination in each group that maximizes the Pearson correlation.

240 We propose that the Pearson residuals from "regularized negative binomial re

241 According to the Pearson results, acrylamide showed a negative correlatio

242 cal significance was determined by using the Pearson chi(2) test and was expressed as odds ratios and

243 ts in home isolation were compared using the Pearson chi(2) test.

244 ematoma expansion were assessed by using the Pearson chi(2) test.

245 riate (MV) analyses were performed using the Pearson Chi-squared tests and Cox proportional hazard, r

246 compared with noble gas MRI scans using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and mean absolute er

247 ere studied in multiple tissues by using the Pearson correlation.

248 hin each participant, were assessed with the Pearson correlation coefficient r.

249 test for mean, and the correlation with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

250 ons among parameters were evaluated with the Pearson correlation coefficient.

251 SMR, and 1-year RSMR were estimated with the Pearson correlation.

252 proximation improved with increasing time tl Pearson r exceeded 0.95 for a tl of 96 h or more in all

253 n time alignments, accurate mass tolerances, Pearson's correlation analysis, and peak height similari

254 ing different targets within the same tumor (Pearson R(2) = 0.3068; P = 0.0139).

255 s and DCN protein expression between tumors (Pearson R(2) = 0.3977; P = 0.0066) and when evaluating d

256 Statistical tests included Mann-Whitney U, Pearson correlation, and linear regression.

257 VT in the orbitofrontal cortex (uncorrected Pearson correlation r = 0.62; P = .005).

258 nd GP to CA were calculated, and univariable Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated.

259 n HealthLNK in comparison with MESA, we used Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots.

260 We used Pearson correlation to determine the relationships betwe

261 We used Pearson correlation to quantify the similarity between l

262 Using Pearson correlation and normalized root mean square erro

263 Using Pearson correlation coefficients and mixed-effect logist

264 Using Pearson's correlation coefficient, serum creatinine-to-s

265 mental health variables were analysed using Pearson's coefficient and ANOVA.

266 We conducted validity analyses using Pearson r and Spearman rho correlations with Kansas City

267 Data were analyzed using Pearson chi-square test or Fisher exact test for categor

268 nd categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson chi-square tests as well as covariate-adjusted C

269 nsive complication index were analyzed using Pearson coefficient, receiver-operating characteristics

270 nd RT from CARTO and ECGI was assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient, rho (AT) and rho (RT),

271 ween density estimates was assessed by using Pearson correlation, linear regression, and Bland-Altman

272 Data were analyzed by using Pearson correlation, linear regression, and nonlinear re

273 hereas correlations were quantified by using Pearson r and intraclass correlation coefficients.

274 t test, correlation was determined by using Pearson test, agreement was found by using weighted kapp

275 ients with persistent AF were compared using Pearson chi(2) and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

276 Categorical measures were compared using Pearson chi-square tests; continuous measures were compa

277 in case characteristics were compared using Pearson chi2.

278 y automated measurements were compared using Pearson correlations, relative volume errors, and Bland-

279 Outcome rates were compared using Pearson's chi(2) or Fisher's exact test.

280 Data were compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots

281 function measured by echocardiography using Pearson's correlation.

282 on was correlated with gene expression using Pearson and partial correlations.

283 Comparisons were made using Pearson chi-square tests or Fisher exact tests for categ

284 Comparison of sCA and dCA parameters (using Pearson's r for continuous and Spearman's rho for ordina

285 redicted and observed RNFL thickness values (Pearson r = 0.832; R(2) = 69.3%; P < 0.001), with mean a

286 udent t tests, one-way analysis of variance, Pearson correlation, and multivariable binary regression

287 ank sum tests, one-way analysis of variance, Pearson correlation, and Spearman rank correlation, with

288 analyzed using a 1-way analysis of variance, Pearson's chi-square test, and simple linear regression.

289 hese limitations, we utilized a time-varying Pearson's correlation coefficient, spike-sorting, wavele

290 d drug combination efficacies both in vitro (Pearson's correlation = 0.93 when comparing predicted ef

291 correlation with fibrosis measured ex vivo (Pearson r = 0.9038 and Spearman rho = 0.8107 [P = .0002

292 The weighted Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for hospi

293 oth reducing and scavenging activities, with Pearson's coefficient of 0.90 and 0.91, respectively.

294 and FDa from each region were analyzed with Pearson correlation coefficients.

295 binocular visual function were assessed with Pearson's correlations (r), as was the relationship betw

296 ed using a paired t test and correlated with Pearson analysis.

297 water column were strongly correlated, with Pearson correlation coefficient 0.993.

298 with normal distribution was evaluated with Pearson's correlation coefficient and Spearman's rho.

299 reement with experimental observations, with Pearson correlation coefficients of r = 0.79 and r = 0.8

300 9.9% after 6 months and 91.7% after 3 years (Pearson's correlation: 0.91).