Barely Significant

Excerpts

6,422 sentences · 1 filter applied

highly significantqualifiedgold
Linear mixed effect models explaining brain age gap from bio-psycho-social factors We ran the proposed five baseline and bio-psycho-social models with the first principal component (PC) of the numeric predictors from each of the models showing a small proportion of the variance in brain age uniquely explained by the principal components ( R 2 < 1%; Supplementary Table S5 ), with differences between these models and respective baseline models yet being highly significant ( Supplementary Table S6 ).
We found that: participants showed a temporal overestimation effect for fear stimuli compared to neutral and disgust stimuli in the middle phase of bed rest (day 8), and a decreasing trend in temporal sensitivity to the three types of stimuli in the middle and later phases (day 8 and 15), especially for fear and neutral stimuli.
did not reach statistical significanceP = 0.0571.1× alphaplainly factual
In terms of anxiety rate, there was no discrepancy between groups at any assessment time points (all P > 0.05), however, anxiety rate showed a decreasing trend at M6 in CBSM group compared with UC group although it did not reach statistical significance (20.3 vs. 34.2%) ( P = 0.057) ( Figure 3A ).
Specifically, a positive trend detected in at least one of the MAS’s subscales is an indication of an increase of that specific metacognitive function, therefore distinguishes a good therapy process; similarly, for what concerns the IDAAP methodology, a positive trend of both WRAD and WRRL scales, remaining over their cut-off through all sessions (see the cut-off values in the IDAAP’s results paragraph), together with a negative trend of the REF/WRAD covariation, are a numerical reflection of a good therapeutic process.
We considered a positive evolution of the therapeutic processes when we identified, through the application of the IDAAP methodology on sessions transcripts, a positive trend of WRAD and WRRL scales (i.e., their values had an increasing trend along the eight considered sessions and/or they were both over their threshold, respectively 0.5 for WRAD and 0.54 for WRRL) and, at the same time, negative values for REF/WRAD covariation scale.