This provides a level of consistency between the joint bivariate estimator and the marginal quantities as compared to other approaches.
This means that potential determinants not included in the study most probably have a marginal effect as compared to variables included in the present study.
Interestingly, exploiting both additive and dominance effects in the prediction model led only to a marginal improvement as compared to using additive effects exclusively.
Before testing our method by comparison with the large-scale data from Pal et al., we wanted to test the efficacy of our method in recovering the marginal probabilities as compared to an exhaustive enumeration of the exact sequence space, assuming correctness of the paradigmatic model.
The HFA group revealed significantly greater activation in the left Supra Marginal Gyrus (SMG) as compared to the control group, whereas no brain area was more activated in the reverse contrast, i.e., Controls>HFA (Figure 3, Table 5).
We can observe that power estimates were constantly lower in scenarios with heterogeneous marginal distributions (right panel) as compared to those with homogeneous marginal distributions (left panel).
In general, nanocomposites based on the higher molecular weight polyamides yielded superior composite properties, having higher degrees of clay exfoliation, higher stiffness and yield strength values, and marginal loss of ductility as compared to nanocomposites based on the low molecular weight polyamide.
Although NZB IgTg mice have an increased proportion of marginal zone (CD21hiCD23−) B cells as compared to their B6 counterparts [23], the proportion of marginal zone and marginal zone precursor (CD21hiCD23+ or CD21hiCD24hi) cells were significantly reduced in NZB dTg mice comparably to B6 dTg mice (Table 1).
In addition, it is demonstrated that the greedy scheduling algorithm only offers a marginal increase in spectral efficiency as compared to the fair scheduling algorithm, while the latter exhibits up to 20% lower outage.
The decomposition of the Group by Session interaction shows that the influence of the LP task was marginal at immediate post-test as compared to pre-test (F 1, 10) = 3.61, CMe = 11.33, p = .087) and significant for the late-test measurement (F 1, 20) = 25.21, CMe = 4.37, p<.001).
