Ai Feedback
Exact(23)
For 2001 to 2099, the mean model p value over all sites was <0.001 for all varieties.
Of the 179 patients who did not have any systemic progression, 38 were classified in the poor outcome category by the model (p value = 0.0066, Fisher exact test).
Of the 98 patients who did not suffer a prostate cancer death, 60 were predicted to have a poor outcome by the Lapointe et al. 2004 recurrence model (p value = 0.0001, chi-square test).
This difference is statistically significant before correction for multiple comparisons in a regression model, p value = 0.014, but because 26 different such comparisons could have been performed it is not statistically significant after correction for multiple testing.
Of the 98 patients who did not suffer a prostate cancer death, 61 were classified in the poor outcome category by the model (p value = 0.0008, chi-square test).
In the entire cohort, rs7665116 showed a significant effect in the dominant model (p value = 0.008) and the additive model (p value = 0.009).
Similar(37)
Among males, modelled ground-level dioxin concentrations revealed significant in the univariate model (p-value = 0.04), but not in the multivariate approach (Table 3).
Temperature had no significant effect on the model (p-value = 0.9322) at a 95% confidence interval.
A significant quadratic model (p-value <0.0001, R2 = 0.9369) was derived using analysis of variance (ANOVA).
In addition, the very low value of the model p-value confirmed the significance.
A significant quadratic model (P-value < 0.0001, R2 = 0.9442) was derived using analysis of variance (ANOVA), which was adequate to perform the process variables optimization.
Related(19)
pattern p value
sample p value
system p value
specimens p value
model p values
template p value
models p value
model innovation value
model p x
model aperture value
model output value
model p concept
model state value
model trust value
model p bass
model fitness value
model boundary value
model range value
model parameter value
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com