Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
An ANOVA comparing the impact of these parameters with biological variation in both species revealed that although all effects are highly significant (Table S1, P < 0.001), the sensitivity parameters explain only a minor component of the total variation in oROM in both species (Table S1, effect size: sums of squares; Fig. 8 ).
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Two weeks after the booster immunization, the serum antibody titer of the mice in the 10 μg RBD-Alum-CpG group was 5.12 × 10 6 , the serum antibody titer of the mice in the 2.5 μg RBD-Alum-CpG group was 1.08 × 10 6 , and the serum antibody titer of the mice in the 10 μg RBD-Alum group was 1.06 × 10 4 , and the difference in the antibody titers between the three groups was highly significant ( P < 0.001 ) ( Fig. 2 c–e).
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Though the correlation was overall still highly significant between Step-wise and Simultaneous models (L-TLE, rho = 0.58, P < 0.001, R-TLE, rho = 0.55, P < 0.001), all Step-wise correlations in the L-TLE versus R-TLE task were significantly lower than in the HC versus TLE task (all Fisher’s Z s > 10.5, P s < 0.001).
highly significantP-value = 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Results This study found that there is an effect of coronavirus infection on the bone strength measured by the Mean of the OPG level, which was found to be highly significant in the serum of post-COVID-19 patients when compared with non-COVID-19 subjects (P-value = 0.001), but the Mean of ACE-2 level was statistically non-significant between the two groups (P-value = 0.13).
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The Cochran-Armitage test for trend confirmed a highly significant trend (Z = 5.5578, p < 0.001), indicating that as the spatial heterogeneity of perfusion (discreteness grade) increases, the probability of a malignant diagnosis rises monotonically. 3.3.
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
However, the intragroup comparison shows that pain reduction was highly significant ( P < 0.001) in three treatment groups (Group A, B, and C) as compared to the control group after 3 months [ Table 4.3 ]; there was no significant ( P > 0.05) difference in pain reduction between Group A, B and C after 3 months [ Table 4.3 ].
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
These values not only clearly exceed the statistical threshold of 0.5 but are also highly significant at p < 0.001, fully confirming the strong representational capacity of the observed indicators for their corresponding theoretical constructs.