Stent assisted coiling resulted in a highly significant increase of the inflow angle α from a mean value (SEM) of 119° (±6.5°) pretreatment to 130° (±6.6°) posttreatment (P ≤ .001).
Excerpts
Assessment of model fit The results of the Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients were highly significant (all respondents’ model: χ2 (34) = 988.1; p < .001; physical wellness’ model: χ2 (36) = 255.1; p < .001; psychological and emotional wellness’ model: χ2 (37) = 233.7; p < .001; social wellness’ model: χ2 (36) = 551.8; p < .001; and self-rated wellness’ model: χ2 (36) = 305.2; p < .001), indicating that the final model in each analysis is significantly better than the unadjusted baseline model.
The t-test was highly significant when comparing muriquis+tapirs vs. muriquis only (t = −4.5437, P<<0.001), muriquis+tapirs vs. tapirs only (t = −19.12, P<<0.001) and muriquis only vs. tapirs only (t = −15.37, P<<0.001).
For the Ipsi conditions, there was no significant effect of synchronicity [ F (1,7) = 0.87, p = 0.382], while the effect of frequency region was highly significant [ F (2, 7) = 18.45, p <0.001].
Within-group analyses of the SCAS reports from pre to 12-month follow-up (see Fig 4 and Table 4 ) revealed large and highly significant improvements for all responders (adolescents: d = .99, p < .001; mothers: d = 1.10, p < .001; and fathers: d = .94, p < .001).
In these calculations, the NRI is estimated at 0.16 and the IDI at 0.05, both of which are highly significant ( p <0.001).
Statistical significance (p<0.05) is indicated by a single asterisks or double asterisks if highly significant (p<0.001).
3.2 DTI change over time There was a highly significant change in most DTI parameters for both NAWM and All_WM with p-values ≤0.001 ( Table 2 ).
Statistical analysis indicates highly significant differences ( p < 0 . 001 ) across treatments for most variables, emphasizing the positive impact of zeolite on the growth and health of European seabass under conditions of ammonia stress.
Depending on the sample number ( n ), statistical test were done using either the Student’s t test with bilateral distribution and equal variance (results were considered significant for p <0.05 and labeled with *), or the Mann-Whitney rank sum test (results were considered statistically highly significant when p <0,001 (***); significant when p <0,01 (**); marginally significant when p <0,05.
We found that the full-null model comparison was highly significant (GLMM; χ 2 3 = 16.23, p = 0.001, N = 672).
The GROUP×ARRAY SIZE interaction (F (2,90) = 2.92, p = 0.06) was marginally significant, and the main effect of ARRAY SIZE (F (2,90) = 120.23, p <0.001) and GROUP (F[ (1], [45) ] = 5.64, p = 0.02) was significant.
Interestingly, after step-wise forward selection exclusively ATIII-activity remained highly significant with an odds ratio of 0.863 (95% Confidence interval 0.809–0.920, p-value <0.001; Table 2B ).
The one-sample t-test indicated a highly significant difference t (54) = 5.01, p < .001, with a mean difference of.14 grams (95% CI :.08 to.19).
The model predicted 32% of the variance and was highly significant (R 2 = 0.32, P <0.001).
sativa revealed a highly significant coefficient of correlation (r = 0.996 at p<0.001) ( S1 Fig ).
There was a highly significant difference in performance between the 4 dietary groups (F 1, 25 = 7.915, P<0.001), and a highly significant effect of time (F 6, 150 = 5.354, P<0.001) but no significant interaction was seen between diet and time (F 18, 150 = 0.789, NS) ( Fig. 1 A).
During the 6 years of anthelmintic treatment, differences between baiting and control areas were highly significant ( P <0.001).
Age was found to be statistically highly significant (χ2 = 22.05; p = 0.001) with anxiety.
Eight variables showed a highly significant (p<0.001) association with at least four ANC visits in the chi-square analysis.
The association between MVO and myocardial salvage was highly significant also after adjustment for covariates [β/SE (β)] = −6.93, p<0.001.
There was a highly significant effect of floor pattern orientation on the extent of veering, F(6.8,139.9) = 21.733, p<.001, partial η 2 = .486, observed power = 1.00.
The significance level was p < 0.05, and the highly significant level was p < 0.001.
The heterogeneity test was highly significant, Q W (12) = 38.43, p < .001, indicating that the effect sizes indeed systematically differed from each other.
Effect of Bd infection load on thermal tolerance limits The linear model used to analyse differences in CTmax of tadpoles was highly significant (R 2 = 0.63, F 3,76 = 41.359, p < 0.001).