Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The statistical analysis revealed highly significant differences with moderate to strong effect sizes on the multivariate level [ F (6,214) = 7.05, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.17], on the univariate level for the PTSD severity [ F (3,108) = 5.88, p = 0.001, η p 2 = 0.14] and for the sum score of the regularly experienced violence [ F (3,108) = 14.09, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.28].
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Milk Yield and Composition—Milk microbiology There were highly significant differences ( p < 0.001) in milk yield at the farm and animal level and also in the gross composition of milk during the milk collection period ( Table 3 and Figure 4 ).
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The difference in negativity across the four panels was highly significant (χ 2 = 932.4, df = 3, p < 0.001) and remained so in every pairwise comparison, including those between the adjacent extremes of the gradient (ME versus GI, χ 2 = 56.6, p < 0.001; upper-respiratory versus pneumonia, χ 2 = 44.3, p < 0.001).
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
GE significantly reduced the liver-to-body weight and inguinal fat-to-body weight ratios (18.64% lower) compared to those in the HFD group, and the high-dose GE group had a highly significant inhibitory effect on both (32.25% lower, P < 0.001; 51.46% lower, P < 0.01, respectively, Fig. 1I–J ).
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The terms X2X3 and X1 2 were highly significant ( p < 0.001), indicating that the interaction of temperature with time played a key role in polysaccharide extraction and the quadratic term of liquid–solid ratio dominated the exponential change in the extraction yield.
showed a trendP < 0.0010.0× alpha
QUNT factors and gender The distribution of the QUNT factors was not different in the two sexes; however, men using cannabis showed a trend towards higher scores (mean ± SD) at the following factors: “Social withdrawal” (2.44 ± 0.38 vs 2.23 ± 0.39, P < 0.001) and “abstraction from reality” (3.12 ± 1.74 vs 2.24 ± 0.46, P < 0.001).