Skip to main content

Table 5 Correlation between LPC levels and the examined parameters in various subgroups

From: Plasma lyso-phosphatidylcholine concentration is decreased in cancer patients with weight loss and activated inflammatory status

subgroup Δ FD vs. LPC HPO1 vs. LPC CRP1 vs. LPC ECF vs. LPC albumin1 vs. LPC
breast (n = 17) r = 0.2646 -0.811 -0.473 -0.666 0.325
  p = 0.3047 0.0000* 0.0537 0.0035* 0.196
prostate (n = 6) -0.347 -0.257 -0.507 -0.534 0.638
  0.5 0.658 0.297 0.275 0.175
lung (n = 5) -0.291 -0.7 0.000 0.51 -0.7
  0.634 0.233 1.000 0.38 0.233
lymphoma (n = 8) 0.777 -0.595 -0.655 -0.731 0.401
  0.0233* 0.102 0.0716 0.0394* 0.29
GIT (n = 12) 0.382 0.055 -0.567 -0.514 0.653
  0.22 0.852 0.0512 0.0873 0.0203*
other (n = 11) 0.258 -0.482 -0.397 -0.48 0.693
  0.443 0.124 0.21 0.135 0.0321*
Δ FD>10%loss (n = 15) 0.5315 -0.136 -0.575 -0.6612 0.386
  0.0414* 0.62 0.0241* 0.0153* 0.15
BMI ≤ 21 (n = 9) 0.422 -0.833 0.008 -0.828 0.51
  0.258 0.0019* 0.948 0.0059* 0.138
CRP > 1 (n = 22) 0.337 -0.301 -0.427 -0.4691 0.33
  0.125 0.17 0.0467* 0.0276* 0.131
HPO ≥ 500 (n = 18) 0.014 -0.29 -0.519 -0.318 0.384
  0.956 0.238 0.0269* 0.198 0.114
alb. < 3,5 (n = 10) 0.217 -0.345 -0.713 -0.583 0.428
  0.546 0.309 0.0186* 0.0769 0.199
  1. 1non-normal distribution; correlation tests performed with Spearman rank correlation test
  2. * significant correlation (p < 0.05)
  3. Upper number in cells corresponds to correlation coefficient r of respective pair analysis, lower number corresponds to p (as displayed in first cell)