Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp <.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
To test for the scalar invariance of the controlling-behavior items, the ∆CFI between the configural model and the scalar model was not within its recommended range of ≤ 0.002 [ 34 ], and the χ 2 difference test comparing the nested scalar model with the configural model was highly significant, at p <.0001.
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The analysis revealed a highly significant influence of pH on Cr( vi ) photoreduction efficiency ( F = 762.06, p < 0.0001), with an R 2 = 0.9965, confirming that pH accounted for over 99% of the total variation in removal performance.
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Lens transmission and pupil responses to blue (470 nm) light Lens transmission of blue light in relation to age Our results revealed a highly significant linear decrease in blue (a peak at 480 nm) light transmission through the lens with increasing age (r = −0.91, p < 0.0001, transmission = 1.08–(0.01 * age), see Figure 4 ).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The resulting regression equation is as follows: (1) Y = 80.03 + 11.13 A − 0.6750 B − 9.75 C − 0.125 AB + 1.93 AC − 3.43 BC − 7.41 A 2 − 1.76 B 2 − 11.61 C 2 According to the analysis of variance results ( Table 3 ), the model was highly significant ( p < 0.0001), while the lack-of-fit term was not significant ( p = 0.1019 > 0.05), indicating that the model was well-fitted.
marginally significantP < 0.00010.0× alphagold
The association between the APOA5 -1131 T>C polymorphism and higher levels of TC under dominant model was significant in East Asians, and marginally significant in European descendents: SMD = 0.09, 95% CI (0.05, 0.13), P < 0.0001, P heterogeneity = 0.69, and SMD = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.00, 0.15), P = 0.05, respectively (Table 1 ).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Conversely, when false negatives were regarded as more critical, the standardized examination again yielded a substantially higher average kappa (0.59, SE = 0.023) relative to the non-standardized method (0.45, SE = 0.027), with this difference being highly significant ( p < 0.0001) and a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.07 to 0.21.
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Analysis assessing model fit revealed a better fit for the model including CASP-12 score, depressive symptoms, age and sex (Bayes information criterion 42,354.75) compared with the same model excluding CASP-12 score (Bayes information criterion 42,402.88) (a lower Bayes information criterion score indicates a better model fit); this difference was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Correlations of SAGE and eSAGE to MoCA and MMSE are also highly significant. eSAGE comparisons to SAGE Spearman correlation of SAGE versus eSAGE was 0.882 ( p < 0.0001). eSAGE and SAGE are related by the formula: eSAGE score = –1.05 + 0.99 × SAGE score (Fig. 2 ).
highly significantP < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Postmortem histopathological analyses at 35 days post‐SCI confirmed improved outcomes with higher IVIg doses, with highly significant reductions in lesion volumes following treatment with either 0.5 g/kg (31% reduction; P < 0.0001), 1 g/kg (34% reduction; P < 0.0001), or 2 g/kg IVIg (27% reduction; P < 0.0001).