[3] Highly significant correlation was found between conventional and digital radiograph for alveolar bone level measurements (p<0.001).
Excerpts
The interaction between the diagnosis of HTN and the benefit of trandolapril treatment was highly significant (p < 0.001) ( Gustafsson et al 1997 ).
Approachiness (a measure of directionality of hive approach) was the only parameter that showed a highly significant reduction from 0.30 and 0.42, for C GE and C S bees respectively, to 0.11 in the Nc-group ( F TR 2, 86.3 = 9.98, p <0.001) ( Tables 1 and S1 ).
Significance level was set at p < 0.05, highly significant p < 0.001 and non-significant p > 0.05.
The administration of the test medication at dosages of 200 and 400 mg/kg and syndopa at a dose of 10 mg/kg resulted in a highly significant (p < 0.001) improvement of neuromuscular strength.
Heritability was estimated by the formulae of Wricke and Weber ( 1986 ): H = σ 2 g / σ 2 p. Results Variation of the parental banana germplasm for Fusarium wilt Genotype mean squares determined by ANOVA were highly significant ( P < 0.001) for RDI and LSI as the measure of Fusarium wilt resistance and non-significant for PSS ( P > 0.05) (Table 4 ).
Similarly, its improvement relative to CNN-ISA is also extremely significant ( p -value < 0.001).
All path coefficients (direct effects), except between Psychological distress and Pain intensity ( p = 0.054), were highly significant (all other p -values <0.001).
We specifically addressed these two issues in our reanalysis of this noisy data by - (a) Considering a series of four thresholds of decreasing stringency, starting with the highly significant threshold used in the original study, and decreasing to weakly significant(WS - p ≤ 10 -3 ).
Finally, the model on the VAS-11 yielded both a significant main effect of Time – with scores being overall lower at T1 ( M = 1.22, SE = 0.44) when compared to T0 ( M = 3.61, SE = 0.44) net of Group ; however, when exploratively assessing a marginally significant Time * Group interaction term (Fig. 2 ), post-hoc comparisons revealed that such a decrease in scores was actually significant ( p < .001) only for hyperhidrosis patients (T0: M = 4.67, SE = 0.65; T1: M = 1.44, SE = 0.65) and not for dystonia ones ( p = .110).
Their serum 17β-oestradiol levels were dramatically lower (66.70 ± 4.82 pg/ml) than those of normal rats (136.15 ± 2.83 pg/ml), a difference that was highly significant ( P < 0.001).
Planned contrast analyses revealed that the difference in performance between Consistent and Inconsistent trials was highly significant on Other trials, that is, when the task was to report what was in front of the novel entity, t (32) = 7.0, p < .001, d = 0.74; this provides evidence of egocentric interference.
3.3.3 IL‐6 The model group showed higher expression than that of the control group, and the difference was extremely significant ( p < .001).
Differences were considered significant when * P < 0.05, very significant when ** P < 0.01 and highly significant when *** P < 0.001.
The ICCs of the HORIBA analyzers were highly significant ( P < 0.001) and similar to that of the HPLC for both sweat [Na + ] and sweat [K + ] (≥ 0.99).
On the contrary, the same ANOVA on staccato articulation showed a highly significant influence of tempo condition on the tongue-reed contact duration [ F (2, 34) = 25.2, p < 0.001].
The repeated measure analysis of variance showed a decreasing trend for pain score during the study (Greenhouse-Geisser time factor F-value=52.685; P<0.001) with equal trends for the three groups (Greenhouse-Geisser interaction factor F-value = 0.994; P=0.43) ( Fig.1 ).
After treatment at 4 °C, it showed an increasing trend ( p < 0.001) for the first 6 days and then decreased to the lowest value by day 9 ( p < 0.00001).
A highly significant difference in terms of prevalence of infection was found between sheep aged 6–12 months and sheep aged 13–24 months ( P < 0.001), between sheep aged 6–12 months and sheep aged more than 2 years ( P = 0.001), but not between sheep aged 13–24 months and sheep aged more than 2 years ( P = 0.051).
The IE% showed a highly significant difference among the UTC and treatment groups ( χ 2 =193.2–250.0, P <0.001), as well as among the doses on days 3, 7/14 ( χ 2 =10.4–18.9, P <0.01).
The model’s overall fit was highly significant (F = 209.07, p < 0.001), with variables such as age, gender, qualification, marital status, experience, hospital, unit, and courses considered.
At week 12, the time of the designated primary end point, divergence from placebo was highly significant ( P < 0.001) with the 1 mg dose.
The corresponding odds ratios, for the explanatory variables, are found in Table 1 : all models were highly significant with P <0.001.
2b ), while the root decomposition rate showed an increasing trend ( R 2 = 0.189, P < 0.001, Fig. 2d ).
Intention-to-treat data were imputed from the last observation carried forward (LOCF), and an ANOVA on the PDS scores showed statistically highly significant improvement [ F (1, 207)=455.8, p <0.001].