oryzae) Designation Disease reaction Maturity (Days) HUA 564 1 (d) 140 (d) SACG
4 1 (d) 120 (bcd) Weed tolerant 3 (c) 123 (bc) JH-15-1-1-1 1 (d) 122 (bc) HHZ-11-Y-11-Y3-DT1 5 (d) 125 (b) HHZ5-Y3-SAL3-DT1 3 (c) 124 (b) HHZ9DT7-SAL2-DT1 3 (c) 123 (bc) HHZ5-SAL10-DT2-DT1 3 (c) 126 (b) IR-83140-B-28-B 9 (a) 120 (bcd) KS-133 5 (b) 122 (bc) Any two means sharing common letter are statistically nonsignificant at 5% level of probability.
SACG was calculated as Serm Chol-Ascitic fluid Chol.
However SACG had small effect size in comparison and less % of discrimination (60.4%).
Whereas SACG with mean value of (124.74 [+ or -] 29.81 in cirrhotic vs 96.44 [+ or -] 26.14 in tuberculous) showed a sensitivity and specificity of 68% and 100% respectively at a cut off value of < 95mg%.
Hence it is clear that SAAG and TP ratio and AF chol are better markers than SACG for differentiating cirrhotic ascites and tuberculous ascites.
Whereas SACG at a cut off value of < 95 mg% showed a sensitivity and specificity of 68% and 100 % respectively.
SACG at cut off value of < 53 mg% showed sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 95%.
And the SACG showed sensitivity and specificity of with 80% each at a cut off of 64 mg%.
We differ with other studies in terms of TP ratio and SACG. We conclude that TP ratio is also equally good marker.