CFI
complement factor I
Gene Context Sentence
Table 2. Analysis of context sentence of CFI gene in 20 abstracts.
| PMID | Gene Context Sentence |
|---|---|
| 32479113 | The described model exhibited an acceptable fit (χ2(1611) = 2485.84, p < .001, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .032, SRMR = .055). |
| 32621755 | Confirmatory factor analysis partially supported the 2-factor model (RMSEA = .057; CFI = .729, TLI = .708, and SRMR = .098). |
| 32718717 | Goodness-of-fit índices were satisfactory (CFI=0.995; GFI=0.997; TLI=0.991; and RMSEA=0.059, 95% CI=0.012 - 0.077). |
| 32837434 | The results support a bifactor model consisting of one general factor and two specific factors-one of emotional fear reactions and another of somatic expressions of fear of COVID-19 (CFI = 0.988, RMSEA = 0.075). […] Invariance between healthcare workers and age groups was reached (ΔCFI < 0.01), but the invariance between men and women was not met (ΔCFI = 0.02). |
| 32848918 | Using confirmatory factor analysis, the factor structure of the IES-COVID19 was found to be similar to the original IES, indicating two latent factors: intrusion and avoidance, χ2 (85) = 147.51, CFI = .92, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .044, SRMR = .049. |
| 32952438 | Factor analysis supported the validity of the scales and the structural model achieved a good fit (CFI = 0.961, RMSEA = 0.051, SRMR = 0.067). |
| 33092568 | The PCFA for NFI was 0.970, CFI 0.978, and TLI 0.967. |
| 33123063 | < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.04. |
| 33169075 | < .001; CFI = .99; TLI = .99; RMSEA = .03; SRMR = .010; AIC = 71.40). |
| 33192888 | Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted with one split-half sub-sample to investigate the underlining dimensional structure, suggesting a three-component solution, which was confirmed by the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with the second one split-half sub-sample (CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.06). |
| 33251337 | Goodness-of-fit índices were satisfactory (CFI = 0.995; GFI = 0.997; TLI = 0.991; and RMSEA = 0.059, 95% CI = 0.012-0.077). |
| 33293904 | = 2.664, CFI = 0.994, NFI = 0.984, TLI = 0.984, GFI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.044, SRMR = 0.024, AIC = 81.334, ECVI = 0.084). |
| 33305716 | An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. […] A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: ‘excessive mistrust’ (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and ‘positive healthcare experiences’ (r=-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. |
| 33306335 | Confirmatory factor analysis resulted in CMIN / DF = 3.540, RMR = 0.043, NFI Delta 1 = 0.928, TLI rho 2 = 0.939, CFI = 0.947, RMSEA = 0.072, SRMR = 0.0368. |
| 33323307 | (9)=52.00; CFI=0.99; RMSEA=0.09 [0.07, 0.12]; WRMR=0.85. |
| 33349495 | Our aim was to explore whether the pandemic had had any impact on patients presenting with cervicofacial infections (CFI) of odontogenic origin to secondary care and management. […] Comparative analysis was carried out evaluating prospective and retrospective consecutively admitted patients with a diagnosis of CFI of odontogenic origin in the COVID-19 lockdown period from 15 March to 15 June 2020 and pre-COVID-19 during the same period of the previous year. […] Across both cohorts there were one hundred and twenty-five (125) patients admitted with CFI of odontogenic origin, with a 33% reduction (n=75 (2019) vs n=50 (2020)) in number of patients admitted during COVID-19 lockdown. […] This study suggests that the COVID-19 lockdown has had adverse effects on the presentation of CFI of odontogenic origin and its management within a Regional Acute Maxillofacial Service. |
| 33456406 | Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded a one-factor structure for the COVID-19 Anxiety Scale (CFI = .98, TLI = .96, SRMR = .02, RMSEA = .09), COVID-19 Coping Scale (CFI = .97, TLI = .97, SRMR = .03, RMSEA = .12), and General Health Scale (CFI = .99, TLI = .97, SRMR = .01, RMSEA = .04) which were developed for the purpose of this study and exhibited satisfactory reliability. |
| 33478604 | CFA demonstrated a good model fit (χ2 = 2108.43, df = 278, p < 0.001, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.950, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.942, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.033, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.038). |
| 33526156 | The CFI, NFI, GFI, TLI and RMSEA indices were used to evaluate the model and showed good adjustment. |
| 33566868 | All indices indicated the two-factor model emotional fear reactions and symptomatic expressions of fear a better fit for our data than a single-factor model in Confirmatory Factor Analysis (χ2 = 164.16, p<0.001, CFI 0.991, TLI = 0.985, RMSEA = 0.043). |