Sentence examples for more significant tests from inspiring English sources

While none of these p-values are significant under a Bonferroni correction, there are more significant tests than would be expected at random – 4 rather than 2 – from 40 trials with a significance threshold of P = 0.05, suggesting that several of the tests are likely to be true positives [21].

In general, larger values of α will result in more significant tests and thus more independent mutations will be inferred, but the number of mutants for a given lethality does not change significantly, which are mostly determined by the percentage of z/z offspring in the F3.

For many experts, a more significant test is whether the law will slow the growth of health costs and provide greater value to consumers, taxpayers and employers in return for the $2.5 trillion a year they spend on health care.

Go Soeda and Vincent Millot should not, and did not, provide any serious resistance, but a more significant test against 26th seed Felicianio Lopez was passed in style.

Second generation CARs, which are just now entering the clinical arena in the B cell malignancies and other cancers, will provide a more significant test for this approach.

The more significant test would come when Hyperloop One brings the components together and attempts to accelerate a pod inside a miles-long tube as soon as this winter.

Therefore, for all inferential analysis using weighted data, such as logistic regression, weights were rescaled by dividing the weight for each respondent by the average weight of all respondents to produce more accurate significant tests and confidence intervals [ 2].

While high-stakes tests certainly introduce more significant impacts on test takers, the role of classroom assessment should not be ignored in enhancing language learning also (Rahimi et al. 2014).

As shown in Supplementary Figure 4 (available on the Arthritis & Rheumatology web site at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.38875/abstract), at almost every significance threshold, there were many more significant Kruskal-Wallis tests under the new scheme than with the ILAR subtypes.

With regard to the HUI 3, which contains a vision domain, this was considered to better reflect the visual functioning impact; with a mean utility value of 0.34 (standard deviation = 0.28) it had a larger and more significant correlation with tests of visual function than the other preference-based measures.

Our evaluation of 92 meta-analyses indicated that both the Begg and Egger tests give more significant results than Deeks' test.