Search alternatives:
significant size » significant side (Expand Search), significant shape (Expand Search), significant sex (Expand Search)
linear decrease » linear increase (Expand Search)
size decrease » sizes decrease (Expand Search), size increase (Expand Search), size increased (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
significant size » significant side (Expand Search), significant shape (Expand Search), significant sex (Expand Search)
linear decrease » linear increase (Expand Search)
size decrease » sizes decrease (Expand Search), size increase (Expand Search), size increased (Expand Search)
a decrease » _ decrease (Expand Search), _ decreased (Expand Search), _ decreases (Expand Search)
-
1
Significant condition.
Published 2024“…Micro-cracks appeared in the cemented body by Day 7, resulting in a slight decrease in strength (3.92%) from Day 3 to Day 7. …”
-
2
Results of significance for regression factors.
Published 2024“…Micro-cracks appeared in the cemented body by Day 7, resulting in a slight decrease in strength (3.92%) from Day 3 to Day 7. …”
-
3
-
4
Contrasting Size Dependence of Photochemical Lifetimes of Polypropylene and Expanded Polystyrene Microplastics in Surface Waters
Published 2025“…We hypothesized that plastic dissolution would increase linearly with increasing surface area (SA)-to-volume (V) ratio as plastics decrease in size. …”
-
5
Linear covariate analysis of prognostically significant metabolites. Presenting the effect sizes of metabolites that showed significant differences among prognostic groups in ICU-treated COVID-19 patients. Metabolites were included based on an F-value > 2.5 and a p-value < 0.05. Metabolites marked with a single asterisk (*) were significant in both two-way ANOVA and ASCA, whereas those marked with double asterisks (**) were significant only in two-way ANOVA. Positive effect sizes indicate an increase in metabolite concentration between the compared groups, while negative values indicate a decrease.
Published 2025“…Positive effect sizes indicate an increase in metabolite concentration between the compared groups, while negative values indicate a decrease.…”
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
-
15
Design of the D-trial.
Published 2024“…An increase in PD led to a linear decrease in inflorescence yield per plant (<i>p</i> = 0.02), whereas a positive linear relationship was found for inflorescence yield (<i>p</i> = 0.0001) and CBD yield (<i>p</i> = 0.0002) per m<sup>2</sup>. …”
-
16
Estimated mean values for light interception.
Published 2024“…An increase in PD led to a linear decrease in inflorescence yield per plant (<i>p</i> = 0.02), whereas a positive linear relationship was found for inflorescence yield (<i>p</i> = 0.0001) and CBD yield (<i>p</i> = 0.0002) per m<sup>2</sup>. …”
-
17
Raw data V-trial.
Published 2024“…An increase in PD led to a linear decrease in inflorescence yield per plant (<i>p</i> = 0.02), whereas a positive linear relationship was found for inflorescence yield (<i>p</i> = 0.0001) and CBD yield (<i>p</i> = 0.0002) per m<sup>2</sup>. …”
-
18
Raw data D-trial.
Published 2024“…An increase in PD led to a linear decrease in inflorescence yield per plant (<i>p</i> = 0.02), whereas a positive linear relationship was found for inflorescence yield (<i>p</i> = 0.0001) and CBD yield (<i>p</i> = 0.0002) per m<sup>2</sup>. …”
-
19
Study-related adverse events.
Published 2025“…We recorded 12 study-related, Grade 1–2 AEs and no serious AEs. In a linear mixed model analysis (LMM), the MBSR + PAP arm evidenced a significantly larger decrease in QIDS-SR-16 score than the MBSR-only arm from baseline to 2-weeks post-intervention (between-groups effect = 4.6, 95% CI [1.51, 7.70]; <i>p</i> = 0.008). …”
-
20
Study flow chart.
Published 2025“…We recorded 12 study-related, Grade 1–2 AEs and no serious AEs. In a linear mixed model analysis (LMM), the MBSR + PAP arm evidenced a significantly larger decrease in QIDS-SR-16 score than the MBSR-only arm from baseline to 2-weeks post-intervention (between-groups effect = 4.6, 95% CI [1.51, 7.70]; <i>p</i> = 0.008). …”