Which correlation was NOT a significant finding in the study?

• A. No significant correlation between CIBDAI and ASBT protein (ileum or colon)
• B. No significant correlation between ASBT expression and serum cobalamin or albumin
• C. Significant correlation between DI and histopath score
• D. Significant correlation between ASBT protein and % secondary BAs

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is how to interpret correlation and its statistical significance in a study. A correlation looks at whether two variables tend to move together, and statistical significance tells us whether that observed relationship is unlikely to be due to chance given the sample size.

In this study, there was no significant association between the clinical disease activity index (CIBDAI) and ASBT protein expression in the ileum or colon. This means that, across the dogs studied, how severe the clinical signs were did not reliably predict how much ASBT protein was present in the gut tissue. Clinically, this makes sense because a patient’s symptoms are influenced by many factors beyond transporter protein levels, such as patchy disease activity, time lag between molecular changes and clinical signs, sampling variability, or other pathways driving symptoms.

Meanwhile, other findings did show significant relationships: a significant correlation between DI and histopath score indicates that the disease index tracked with the degree of histologic inflammation or damage, aligning clinical severity with tissue pathology. A significant correlation between ASBT protein and the percentage of secondary bile acids suggests that ASBT expression relates to how bile acids are transformed and reabsorbed, reflecting a link between transporter presence and bile acid metabolism.

So, the correlation that was NOT a significant finding is the link between CIBDAI and ASBT protein expression.