A: Angio invasion binary vs Inv3/C5 Cluster Label Crosstabulation

Inv3/C5 Cluster Label / Total
good / poor
Angio invasion in three steps / No Angio invasion or only 1 or 2 vessels / Count / 76 / 139 / 185
% within Angio invasion 0 or 1 vs 2 / 35.3% / 64.7% / 100.0%
% within Inv3/C5 Cluster Label / 80.9% / 69.2% / 72.9%
More than 2 vessels / Count / 18 / 62 / 80
% within Angio invasion 0 or 1 vs 2 / 22.5% / 77.5% / 100.0%
% within Inv3/C5 Cluster Label / 19.1% / 30.8% / 27.1%
Total / Count / 94 / 201 / 295
Value / df / Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square / 4.43 / 1 / 0.04

B: Hypoxia-induced signature vs Inv3/C5 Cluster Label Crosstabulation

Inv3/C5 Cluster Label / Total
good / poor
Hypoxia clustering Numbers / Non-Hypoxic / Count / 76 / 94 / 170
% within Hypoxia clustering / 44.7% / 55.3% / 100.0%
% within Inv3/C5 Cluster Label / 80.9% / 46.8% / 57.6%
Hypoxic / Count / 18 / 107 / 125
% within Hypoxia clustering / 14.4% / 85.6% / 100.0%
% within Inv3/C5 Cluster Label / 19.1% / 53.2% / 42.4%
Total / Count / 94 / 94 / 201
Value / df / Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square / 30.473 / 1 / <10-7

C: Wound Signature vs Inv3/C5 Cluster Label Crosstabulation

Inv3/C5 Cluster Label / Total
good / poor
Wound Signature / Quiescent (CSR<0) / Count / 69 / 84 / 153
% within Wound Signature Score / 45.1% / 54.9% / 100.0%
% within Inv3/C5 Cluster Label / 73.4% / 41.8% / 51.9%
Activated (CSR>0) / Count / 25 / 117 / 142
% within Wound Signature Score / 17.6% / 82.4% / 100.0%
% within Inv3/C5 Cluster Label / 26.6% / 58.2% / 48.1%
Total / Count / 94 / 201 / 295
Value / df / Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square / 25.639 / 1 / <10-6