fa_TC_DORsm-SSp_ll+SSp_ul_ipsilesional_ROI+CCcut_log.txt 3.4 KB

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667
  1. Model Name: fa_TC_DORsm-SSp_ll+SSp_ul_ipsilesional_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 77113.337 0.000 1.000 -151139.364 151139.364
  14. merged_timepoint 0.001 0.000 3.819 0.000 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 0.0142 0.6931 -0.0147 0.043 False
  23. 0 7 0.01 0.9 -0.0205 0.0404 False
  24. 0 14 0.0227 0.2544 -0.0073 0.0527 False
  25. 0 21 0.022 0.2854 -0.008 0.0521 False
  26. 0 28 0.0308 0.055 -0.0004 0.0619 False
  27. 3 7 -0.0042 0.9 -0.0323 0.0239 False
  28. 3 14 0.0085 0.9 -0.0191 0.0361 False
  29. 3 21 0.0079 0.9 -0.0197 0.0355 False
  30. 3 28 0.0166 0.5529 -0.0122 0.0455 False
  31. 7 14 0.0127 0.7865 -0.0166 0.042 False
  32. 7 21 0.0121 0.8231 -0.0172 0.0414 False
  33. 7 28 0.0208 0.3655 -0.0096 0.0513 False
  34. 14 21 -0.0006 0.9 -0.0295 0.0282 False
  35. 14 28 0.0081 0.9 -0.0219 0.0381 False
  36. 21 28 0.0087 0.9 -0.0213 0.0388 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 0.0042 0.9 -0.0258 0.0342 False
  44. 0 7 0.0102 0.8914 -0.0175 0.0379 False
  45. 0 14 0.0244 0.0909 -0.0022 0.051 False
  46. 0 21 0.0217 0.3141 -0.0087 0.0522 False
  47. 0 28 0.0174 0.5037 -0.0114 0.0463 False
  48. 3 7 0.006 0.9 -0.0244 0.0364 False
  49. 3 14 0.0202 0.358 -0.0092 0.0496 False
  50. 3 21 0.0175 0.6253 -0.0155 0.0504 False
  51. 3 28 0.0132 0.809 -0.0183 0.0447 False
  52. 7 14 0.0142 0.6352 -0.0129 0.0413 False
  53. 7 21 0.0115 0.8872 -0.0194 0.0423 False
  54. 7 28 0.0072 0.9 -0.0221 0.0365 False
  55. 14 21 -0.0027 0.9 -0.0326 0.0271 False
  56. 14 28 -0.007 0.9 -0.0353 0.0213 False
  57. 21 28 -0.0043 0.9 -0.0362 0.0277 False
  58. ---------------------------------------------------
  59. Sidak Multiple Comparisons:
  60. Group1 Group2 TimePoint PValue SignificantDifference
  61. Stroke Sham 3 [0.7282952] No
  62. Stroke Sham 14 [0.49886832] No
  63. Stroke Sham 21 [0.58651728] No
  64. Stroke Sham 28 [0.4938302] No
  65. Stroke Sham 7 [0.49952438] No
  66. Stroke Sham 0 [0.51959295] No