fa_TC_DORsm-SSp_ll+SSp_ul_contralesional_ROI+CCcut_log.txt 3.5 KB

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667
  1. Model Name: fa_TC_DORsm-SSp_ll+SSp_ul_contralesional_ROI+CCcut
  2. Mixed Linear Model Regression Results
  3. ===================================================================
  4. Model: MixedLM Dependent Variable: Value
  5. No. Observations: 361 Method: REML
  6. No. Groups: 2 Scale: 0.0016
  7. Min. group size: 156 Log-Likelihood: inf
  8. Max. group size: 205 Converged: Yes
  9. Mean group size: 180.5
  10. -------------------------------------------------------------------
  11. Coef. Std.Err. z P>|z| [0.025 0.975]
  12. -------------------------------------------------------------------
  13. Intercept 0.000 77668.745 0.000 1.000 -152227.943 152227.943
  14. merged_timepoint 0.001 0.000 3.347 0.001 0.000 0.001
  15. Group Var 0.000
  16. ===================================================================
  17. Posthoc Analysis for Stroke:
  18. Multiple Comparison of Means - Tukey HSD, FWER=0.05
  19. ===================================================
  20. group1 group2 meandiff p-adj lower upper reject
  21. ---------------------------------------------------
  22. 0 3 0.0042 0.9 -0.0253 0.0336 False
  23. 0 7 0.0233 0.263 -0.0078 0.0543 False
  24. 0 14 0.0218 0.3191 -0.0088 0.0524 False
  25. 0 21 0.0184 0.5105 -0.0122 0.049 False
  26. 0 28 0.0233 0.2878 -0.0085 0.055 False
  27. 3 7 0.0191 0.3945 -0.0095 0.0477 False
  28. 3 14 0.0176 0.4688 -0.0105 0.0458 False
  29. 3 21 0.0143 0.6679 -0.0139 0.0424 False
  30. 3 28 0.0191 0.4265 -0.0103 0.0485 False
  31. 7 14 -0.0015 0.9 -0.0313 0.0284 False
  32. 7 21 -0.0048 0.9 -0.0347 0.025 False
  33. 7 28 0.0 0.9 -0.031 0.031 False
  34. 14 21 -0.0034 0.9 -0.0328 0.0261 False
  35. 14 28 0.0015 0.9 -0.0291 0.0321 False
  36. 21 28 0.0048 0.9 -0.0258 0.0355 False
  37. ---------------------------------------------------
  38. Posthoc Analysis for Sham:
  39. Multiple Comparison of Means - Tukey HSD, FWER=0.05
  40. ===================================================
  41. group1 group2 meandiff p-adj lower upper reject
  42. ---------------------------------------------------
  43. 0 3 -0.012 0.8208 -0.0411 0.0171 False
  44. 0 7 0.0054 0.9 -0.0215 0.0323 False
  45. 0 14 0.012 0.7316 -0.0138 0.0378 False
  46. 0 21 0.0212 0.3081 -0.0083 0.0507 False
  47. 0 28 0.0112 0.8412 -0.0168 0.0392 False
  48. 3 7 0.0174 0.5299 -0.0122 0.0469 False
  49. 3 14 0.024 0.1529 -0.0045 0.0526 False
  50. 3 21 0.0332 0.0369 0.0012 0.0652 True
  51. 3 28 0.0232 0.2481 -0.0074 0.0538 False
  52. 7 14 0.0067 0.9 -0.0196 0.0329 False
  53. 7 21 0.0158 0.63 -0.0141 0.0458 False
  54. 7 28 0.0058 0.9 -0.0226 0.0343 False
  55. 14 21 0.0092 0.9 -0.0198 0.0381 False
  56. 14 28 -0.0008 0.9 -0.0283 0.0266 False
  57. 21 28 -0.01 0.9 -0.041 0.021 False
  58. ---------------------------------------------------
  59. Sidak Multiple Comparisons:
  60. Group1 Group2 TimePoint PValue SignificantDifference
  61. Stroke Sham 3 [0.52801285] No
  62. Stroke Sham 14 [0.93990284] No
  63. Stroke Sham 21 [0.21672841] No
  64. Stroke Sham 28 [0.8980838] No
  65. Stroke Sham 7 [0.48090022] No
  66. Stroke Sham 0 [0.3274905] No