Sentences with phrase «analysis p value»
Significant differences were identified in the bivariate and multivariable analyses employing factor loadings, regression analysis p values, and, where applicable, comparisons of 95 % confidence intervals (z set to 1.96).
http://www.thepermanentejournal.org/ Not exact matches
If the words «regression analysis,» «confidence interval,» and «P - value» are foreign to you, you're not alone.
Professor Steve Odin's «A Metaphysics of Cumulative Penetration: Process Theory and Hua - yen Buddhism» (PS 11:65 - 82), is a highly stimulating and challenging essay not only for Whiteheadian and Buddhist studies, but also for its comparative value.1 He has presented a searching analysis of Whiteheadian metaphysics of cumulative penetration, but his treatment of Buddhism in general and Hua - yen in particular in terms of that metaphysics leaves much to be desired, thereby marring the comparative nature of the whole essay.
Professor Steve Odin's «A Metaphysics of Cumulative Penetration: Process Theory and Hua - yen Buddhism» (PS 11:65 - 82), is a highly stimulating and challenging essay not only for Whiteheadian and Buddhist studies, but also for its comparative value.1 He has presented a searching analysis of Whiteheadian metaphysics of cumulative penetration, but his treatment of Buddhism in general and...
We reported the results of subgroup analyses quoting the Chi ² statistic and P value, and the interaction test I ² value.
A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant for all statistical analyses.
We will report the results of subgroup analyses quoting the Chi ² statistic and P value, and the interaction test I ² value.
The Bonferroni correction divides the type I (α) error (0.05) by the number of comparisons in the analysis to yield a more conservative p value that is denoted to be statistically significant.
We reported the results of subgroup analyses quoting the χ2 statistic and P value, and the interaction test I ² value.
Current practices lead to «cherry - picking which analyses or experiments to report on the basis of their P values» and «corrupts science and fills the literature with claims likely to be overstated or false,» he wrote.
Microsoft Excel 2003 was used to perform statistical analysis and two - tailed Student's t - test for determining the p - value.
Statistical analyses were conducted if a mass appeared in two of six seedling or inflorescence samples with a P value < 0.01 and fold change > 2.
Similarly, the Permanova analysis resulted in a Pseudo-F value of 1.98 (p = 0.001).
Additional file 10: Supplementary Table 10 — Fold - changes and p - values from quantitative RT - PCR analysis.
Squares represent P values of ORs for each year of the analysis.
Sensitivity analyses excluding extreme values of sugar intake and excluding person - observations with self - reported doctor diagnosis at baseline attenuated the association of sugar intake from sweet food / beverages and recurrent depression slightly (before P for tertile trend 0.003 after 0.022 and 0.010, respectively).
When we stratified our analysis by weight at baseline (normal weight [BMI < 25 kg / m2], overweight [BMI ≥ 25 and < 30 kg / m2], and obese [BMI ≥ 30 kg / m2]-RRB- the negative weight change associated with greater intake of fruits and vegetables was stronger among overweight individuals compared to normal - weight individuals (S10 Table, p - values for interaction terms between total fruit and BMI 0.03 in HPFS, 0.06 in NHS, and 0.09 in NHS II; p - values for interaction terms between total vegetable intake and BMI 0.03 in all three cohorts).
A P / B ratio analysis fits nicely into an overall value investing approach, since a foundational belief of this strategy is that the market is inefficient and at any given time, there are firms trading for significantly less than their actual worth.
However, contrarian trading strategies tend to be driven more by market sentiment factors than are value investing strategies, and to rely less on specific fundamental analysis metrics such as the P / B ratio.
The results of our analysis are generally a bit stronger when the aggregate valuation measure is used, but three of eight factors (value blend, momentum, and investment) and two of eight smart beta strategies (Fundamental Index and dividend index) show a stronger correlation when the P / B valuation measure is used.11 The aggregate valuation measure is likely stronger because it captures differences in profitability that can be missed by P / B.
This value approach does not employ the classic low P / E, P / B, P / CF, high dividend yield etc. for security analysis.
accretion, activist investors, Avangardco, Cal - Maine Foods, corporate governance, eggs, enhanced EPS / NAV, free cash flow, intrinsic value, Iryna Marchenko, lowest cost producer, M&A, majority control, minorities, Nataliya Vasylyuk, Oleg Bakhmatyuk, P / E ratio, P / S Ratio, Return on Equity, risk aversion, share buyback, technical analysis, Ukraine, Ukrlandfarming
It drives me crazy that most experts in this field were advising investors to go with high stock allocations in 2000, when the P / E10 value was so high that a regression analysis of the historical return data showed that the most likely 10 - year annualized return on stocks was a negative 1 percent real and when Treasury Inflation - Protected Bonds were offering a risk - free return of 4 percent real for time - periods of up to 30 years.
Learn about P / E ratios, price - to - book - value ratios, price - cash flow ratios, debt - to - equity ratios, plus other steps to strong investment portfolio analysis.
y = HSWR80 Calculated Rate (percent) and x = percentage earnings yield = 100 / [P / E10] 1941 - 1950 y = 0.7318 x + 2.3723 1941 - 1960 y = 0.9635 x + 0.3354 1941 - 1970 y = 1.0644 x - 0.5469 1941 - 1980 y = 0.7842 x + 0.9624 y = HSWR80 Calculated Rate (percent) and x = percentage earnings yield = 100 / [P / E10] 1951 - 1960 y = 1.201 x - 1.2943 1951 - 1970 y = 1.1936 x — 1.2958 1951 - 1980 y = 0.649 x + 1.562 y = HSWR80 Calculated Rate (percent) and x = percentage earnings yield = 100 / [P / E10] 1961 - 1970 y = 0.6831 x + 1.1174 1961 - 1980 y = 0.5835 x + 1.5399 Confidence Limits (approximately 90 %, add and subtract these values) Degrees of freedom... Confidence Limits 10... 1.71 % 20... 1.63 % 30... 1.60 % 40... 1.59 % 50... 1.58 % 60... 1.58 % January 2000 Results January 2000 Rates (Safe, Calculated and High Risk) 1941 - 1950 2.33 % 4.04 % 5.75 % 1941 - 1960 0.91 % 2.54 % 4.17 % 1941 - 1970 0.28 % 1.88 % 3.48 % 1941 - 1980 1.16 % 2.75 % 4.34 % More January 2000 Rates (Safe, Calculated and High Risk) 1951 - 1960 (0.26) % 1.45 % 3.16 % 1951 - 1970 (0.20) % 1.43 % 3.06 % 1951 - 1980 1.44 % 3.04 % 4.64 % Even More January 2000 Rates (Safe, Calculated and High Risk) 1961 - 1970 0.97 % 2.68 % 4.39 % 1961 - 1980 1.24 % 2.87 % 4.50 % January 2003 Results January 2003 Rates (Safe, Calculated and High Risk) 1941 - 1950 3.86 % 5.57 % 7.28 % 1941 - 1960 2.91 % 4.54 % 6.17 % 1941 - 1970 2.50 % 4.10 % 5.70 % 1941 - 1980 2.80 % 4.39 % 5.98 % More January 2003 Rates (Safe, Calculated and High Risk) 1951 - 1960 2.24 % 3.95 % 5.66 % 1951 - 1970 2.29 % 3.92 % 5.55 % 1951 - 1980 2.80 % 4.40 % 6.00 % Even More January 2003 Rates (Safe, Calculated and High Risk) 1961 - 1970 2.39 % 4.10 % 5.81 % 1961 - 1980 2.44 % 4.07 % 5.70 % This Week's 2004 Results This Week's 2004 Rates (Safe, Calculated and High Risk) 1941 - 1950 3.29 % 5.00 % 6.71 % 1941 - 1960 2.16 % 3.79 % 5.42 % 1941 - 1970 1.67 % 3.27 % 4.87 % 1941 - 1980 2.19 % 3.78 % 5.37 % More of This Week's 2004 Rates (Safe, Calculated and High Risk) 1951 - 1960 1.31 % 3.02 % 4.73 % 1951 - 1970 1.36 % 2.99 % 4.62 % 1951 - 1980 2.29 % 3.89 % 5.49 % Even More of This Week's 2004 Rates (Safe, Calculated and High Risk) 1961 - 1970 1.86 % 3.57 % 5.28 % 1961 - 1980 2.00 % 3.63 % 5.26 % Safe Withdrawal Rate Comparisons January 2000 1941-1950 2.33 % 1941 - 1960 0.91 % 1941 - 1970 0.28 % 1941 - 1980 1.16 % 1951 - 1960 (0.26) % 1951 - 1970 (0.20) % 1951 - 1980 1.44 % 1961 - 1970 0.97 % 1961 - 1980 1.24 % January 2003 1941-1950 3.86 % 1941 - 1960 2.91 % 1941 - 1970 2.50 % 1941 - 1980 2.80 % 1951 - 1960 2.24 % 1951 - 1970 2.29 % 1951 - 1980 2.80 % 1961 - 1970 2.39 % 1961 - 1980 2.44 % This Week 2004 1941-1950 3.29 % 1941 - 1960 2.16 % 1941 - 1970 1.67 % 1941 - 1980 2.19 % 1951 - 1960 1.31 % 1951 - 1970 1.36 % 1951 - 1980 2.29 % 1961 - 1970 1.86 % 1961 - 1980 2.00 % Calculated Rate Comparisons January 2000 1941-1950 4.04 % 1941 - 1960 2.54 % 1941 - 1970 1.88 % 1941 - 1980 2.75 % 1951 - 1960 1.45 % 1951 - 1970 1.43 % 1951 - 1980 3.04 % 1961 - 1970 2.68 % 1961 - 1980 2.87 % January 2003 1941-1950 5.57 % 1941 - 1960 4.54 % 1941 - 1970 4.10 % 1941 - 1980 4.39 % 1951 - 1960 3.95 % 1951 - 1970 3.92 % 1951 - 1980 4.40 % 1961 - 1970 4.10 % 1961 - 1980 4.07 % This Week 2004 1941-1950 5.00 % 1941 - 1960 3.79 % 1941 - 1970 3.27 % 1941 - 1980 3.87 % 1951 - 1960 3.02 % 1951 - 1970 2.99 % 1951 - 1980 3.89 % 1961 - 1970 3.57 % 1961 - 1980 3.63 % High Risk Rate Comparisons January 2000 1941-1950 5.75 % 1941 - 1960 4.17 % 1941 - 1970 3.48 % 1941 - 1980 4.34 % 1951 - 1960 3.16 % 1951 - 1970 3.06 % 1951 - 1980 4.64 % 1961 - 1970 4.39 % 1961 - 1980 4.50 % January 2003 1941-1950 7.28 % 1941 - 1960 6.17 % 1941 - 1970 5.70 % 1941 - 1980 5.98 % 1951 - 1960 5.66 % 1951 - 1970 5.55 % 1951 - 1980 6.00 % 1961 - 1970 5.81 % 1961 - 1980 5.70 % This Week 2004 1941-1950 6.71 % 1941 - 1960 5.42 % 1941 - 1970 4.87 % 1941 - 1980 5.37 % 1951 - 1960 4.73 % 1951 - 1970 4.62 % 1951 - 1980 5.49 % 1961 - 1970 5.28 % 1961 - 1980 5.26 % Analysis: Calculated Rates There are two effects that cause these predictions to vary.
Now consider this fascinating Lindsell Train analysis (published prior to the Kraft Heinz bid): Investors appear to vastly underestimate the value of consistent compounding — one could have paid a 46 P / E for ULVR 20 years ago & still have achieved market returns since!
The ORs generated from each disorder analyses of the 50 sets were averaged along with the lower and upper 95 % CIs and the associated P values.
A regression analysis points to a clear link between GCR and the aa - index, and the analysis of variance yields R2 = 0.1466 and the p - value = 0.
First, the pooled meta - analysis under the presence of heterogeneity in the study can lead to reduced statistical power of our meta - analysis approach even though the rank - based p values enable the meta - analysis using the pooled samples.
This may be totally off, since I know squat about climate science & the high - powered statistical programs used, but when there is a dearth of data in the social sciences (not enough to give low enough p values on correlations & regressions, simply due to small numbers of data, which is sometimes due to loading in too many control variables), we sometimes turn to chi - square & log - linear analysis to see if actual data reveal patterns incongruent with expected patterns.
The canonical p value for most statistical analysis is p <.05.
The p values using the nine climate variables (denoted as «Overall» in Table 4) of MMEs are larger than the threshold (0.05, significant level = 5 %), which means that, according to this analysis, these ensembles have not been shown to be unreliable.
Comparable Company Analysis: values a company through multiples used from similar publicly traded companies (EV / EBITDA, P / E Ratios, etc.).
Fixed asset accounting, business process re-engineering, risk management, value added analysis, SAP, GAAP, financial projections, general ledger, trial balance, financial statements, expense analysis, tax reporting, tax planning, payroll, benefits administration, portfolio management, cross functional team leadership, financial and strategic planning, P & L management, auditing and compliance, operating and working capital, budget management, mergers and acquisitions, cash flow management, business valuations, data warehouse reporting, audits and compliance, A / P, A / R, regulatory accounting, CA, ICWA, MBA, ICFAI, MS Excel, bank reconciliations, Crystal reports and spreadsheets.A, ICFAI, MS Excel, bank reconciliations, Crystal reports and spreadsheets.
Tags for this Online Resume: Management, Project Leader, Project Management, Supply Chain, 3PL, Account Management, Forecasting, Inventory, Joint Ventures, Logistics, Six Sigma, Asian Supply Chain Leadership, China Supply Chain Leadership, Six Sigma Master Black Belt, Business restructure, Oracle ERP, Change Management, Constant Improvment, P and L Leadership, Joint Venture Supply Chain Leadership, Joint Venture Contract Negotiation, Minitab, Oracle, Supply Chain Director, Supply Chain Leader, Value Stream Mapping, Enterprise Resource Planning, Material Planning, logistics and warehousing, FMEA, Root Cause Analysis, Organisational Leadership
As a result of this interim analysis, we reduced the P value in our current analysis of the data from.050 to.049, as determined by the sequential design criteria of Fleming et al. 18 After the completion of the study, we also performed an analysis of the subsample, women who were enrolled prior to January 2002, to verify that these results were consistent with the full study sample.
Using logistic regression analysis, odds ratios, 95 % confidence intervals and significance p values were estimated for association between each outcome and each childhood measure individually and in models including all childhood measures, each adjusted for cohort and gender.
Interactions were tested via the Wald test, with a p value of < 0.01 considered to indicate statistical significance given the large sample size available and the multiple testing involved.42 All analyses were carried out using Stata.43
The P values from this truncated data analysis were virtually identical to the analysis of ranks, so the results are reported from the truncated analysis.
P values and 95 % CIs were obtained by using Wald tests adjusted for the survey design.26 Interactions of parenting variables with the BMI status of the corresponding parent, for all but the combined parent analyses, were investigated and only included in the final model if statistical significance was < 5 %.
Factors with p values < 0.05 in the univariate analysis were adjusted for age, gender, baseline viral load and glucose.
We implemented unadjusted and adjusted analyses (potential prognostic factors listed in table 2) of the outcomes (all quantitative) by using random effects linear regression models fitted by maximum likelihood estimation to allow for the correlation between the responses of participants from the same maternal and child health centre.29 We present means and standard deviations for each trial arm, along with the mean difference between arms, 95 % confidence intervals, and P values.
Significant independent variables (p - value < 0.2) were considered for multivariable analysis.
When the sex life item was removed from the analysis, the alpha value was increased to 0.89 (p < 0.05).
Differentially methylated regions from the microarray analysis with varying p values (between 0.0001 and 0.03 with FDR < 0.2) and fold differences (Log2 CPA / Controls between 1.1 and 0.5) at the probe level were selected for validation.
For the Positive — Negative and the Negative profiles, this regression analysis did not provide further evidence for a differential predictive value (p =.60 and p =.18, respectively).
In addition, since from a practical - clinical perspective effect sizes are the most relevant objective of the analyses, and due to the fact that p - values are strongly dependent on sample size, all effect sizes for the relationships analyzed have been estimated by the confidence interval for the parameters, with the R2 measuring the global predictive capacity of the models (adjusted to the covariates).
Follow - up analyses revealed that parents in the Parent Training condition engaged in distraction significantly more than those in the Control or Distraction conditions (p values <.05).
Regarding construct validity, the factor solution in the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was considered adequate, so the KMO test had a value of 0.91, and the Barlett's test of sphericity was significant (χ 2 = 852.8; gl = 45; p < 0.001).
As indicated in Table 1, the analysis revealed no significant gender differences in observed support seeking behavior nor in observed support provision behavior (p - values between 0.14 and 0.96).