The subsequent three-way analysis of variance (site×time×protocol) did not show a significant interaction effect or "protocol" main effect, suggesting that the two protocols share an underlying mechanism.
However, HBeAg status was found to be a significant predictor as a main effect suggesting that patients with positive HBeAg status are less likely to achieve response after controlling for baseline HBV DNA and time-of-response measurement.
A somewhat surprising finding is that significant reductions in DDS, RD, and EB occur without a significant overall treatment group main effect, suggesting that the pattern of change in DD over time for all three groups is similar.
When age and IQ were included as covariates in a general linear model (Table III), the best-fitting model for the Physical Stories only contained age and IQ as main effects, suggesting the worse performance of the focal epilepsy group, relative to the control group, could be accounted for by their lower IQ.
The results of main effects suggested the sense of controlling one's own movement, the sense of ownership over the moving body part, and a threaten event can put more stress on an individual.
All the second-order or quadratic main effects of the extraction variables were found to be significant; the negative values of all the quadratic main effects suggested that all the constituents had an adverse effect at experimental outcomes, at higher concentration, which was overcome by higher positive first-order main effects.
Sensitivities, combined with the main effect results, suggest that bone is less likely to grow if the implant is increasingly moved from the neutral position towards the anterior part of the femur, where the highest micromotions occur.
Although the main effect condition suggests that across modalities more antisaccade errors were made than prosaccade errors, the interaction type*modality was not significant.
This resulted in a significant interaction term (P=0.035) but non-significant main effects (P>0.1), suggesting no evidence for a convincing interaction effect.
Other interactions regarding the probe block data were not significant, nor was the main effect of CONDITION, suggesting that the overall RTs did not differ across conditions.
With respect to the cue-presentation phase of the experiment, a mixed ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of hour, suggesting that over six hours of testing under abstinence (extinction) conditions, both paired and unpaired animals decreased response rates, F 5, 60) = 10.75, p<.
