To be “2.5x the reference” a “statistically significant” deviation depends exclusively of the errors, including systematics, and I doubt that such has been so strongly constrained, known the abnormal behaviour and growing of cancer tissues in general versus none, not to mention that even if such can be evaluated as a significant deviation it does not imply causation, it can perfectly be consequence of the sample argument before (abnormal grown, which may imply abnormal densities easily) so I am still at a loss of the conclusions…
If you read the article, the concentration was 2.5x higher than non-cancerous tissue. That’s a statistically significant increase.
To be “2.5x the reference” a “statistically significant” deviation depends exclusively of the errors, including systematics, and I doubt that such has been so strongly constrained, known the abnormal behaviour and growing of cancer tissues in general versus none, not to mention that even if such can be evaluated as a significant deviation it does not imply causation, it can perfectly be consequence of the sample argument before (abnormal grown, which may imply abnormal densities easily) so I am still at a loss of the conclusions…
I never said a word about causation. Being statistically significant doesn’t imply causation.
The causation was an adendum to the context, the rest apply to the “statistically significant” claim