1988
DOI: 10.1016/0169-2607(88)90003-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Robust alternatives to traditional analysis of variance: Welch W∗, James JI∗, James JII∗, Brown-Forsythe BF∗

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Patients were stratified into different treatment-induced response groups, and distribution of HLC values at baseline according to response category was assessed by the Welch test. 19 Kaplan–Meier survival curves were compared using the log-rank test, 20 whereas univariate and multivariate analysis were performed by Cox proportional regression analysis 21 (SPSS version 18, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Patients were stratified into different treatment-induced response groups, and distribution of HLC values at baseline according to response category was assessed by the Welch test. 19 Kaplan–Meier survival curves were compared using the log-rank test, 20 whereas univariate and multivariate analysis were performed by Cox proportional regression analysis 21 (SPSS version 18, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All statistical analyses were performed using R. The differentially methylated promoters were defined as follows: absolute methylation changes ≥5% and P < 0.05 (Welch-ANOVA [24] with Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) correction [25]). The Games-Howell test was used to identify sample pairs with significant methylation differences ( P < 0.05).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After the classification analysis, descriptive statistics of the HRV features were implemented in order to make observable the changes of the HRV features according to the presented stimuli ( Table 1 ). The Kruskal-Wallis statistic-test was used to determine if there were significant differences between the features [ 57 ]; a p-value less or equal to 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant ( Table 5 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%