Results below are all statistically highly significant ( P <0.001): Brazil : for sub-national HDI ratios between years 2010 and 2000 R P =0.98, while it was lower between 2010 and 1990 (R P =0.94) Canada : for sub-national HDI ratios between years 2011 and 2005 R P =0.99, while it was almost as good between 2011 and 2000 (R P =0.985) Chile : for sub-national HDI ratios between years 2003 and 1990 R P =0.92 China : for sub-national HDI ratios between years 2014 and 2003 R P =0.97, while it was lower between 2014 and 1997 (R P =0.90).
Excerpts
All parameters showed highly significant changes during the study (repeated-measures ANOVA, P < 0.001, except MAP, P < 0.01).
Three reviews specifically on Baduanjin reported highly significant improvements (all p < 0.001) [ 31 , 33 , 42 ].
The relationship between staining intensity and mortality was highly significant (P < 0.001 by the chi-square test).
The findings showed that positive rates displayed a highly significant statistical difference ( P = 0.001) between NPS and induced sputum specimens at day 3.
One-way ANOVA showed a highly significant difference among EDC severity groups (F = 47.3, p < 0.001).
The choice difference between the two conditions (i.e., black versus white wall) was highly significant (χ 2 > 44.36, df = 1, and P < 10 −3 for each of the three light levels, chi-square test for independence).
For all IRT data, ambient temperature (°C) and relative humidity (%) were included as additional covariates in the REML model to adjust for changes in environmental conditions that were highly significant for all anatomical locations ( P < 0.001) with the exception of the eye, which is less sensitive to changes in environmental conditions ( P = 0.288).
In particular, all aspects of achievement motivation exhibit highly significant gender differences ( p < 0.001), with a moderate impact size.
A similar finding was reported by Mishra and Sultan.[ 7 ] In the category AUB-A, the clinical diagnosis was confirmed histopathologically which was statistically highly significant ( P < 0.001); however, additional 55 (48.2%) cases were diagnosed histopathologically which were missed clinically.
eGFR and mean blood pressure were highly significant at the level of P < .001.
6B ), which was also highly significant (p < 0.001).
6A , using two cell lines, the reduction in 6FGA transport when the buffer lacks sodium was large, 56 % and 48 %, in LLC-PK1 and HEK293 cell, respectively and this effect was highly significant ( P = 0.001 and P = 0.000007, respectively).
Thirty-eight of the 46 samples (83%) that expressed CXCR4 also expressed HIF-1α ( Figure 4B ), and this association was highly significant (p<0.001, Spearman's rank correlation).
The genotypic differences in the Ct value of TaITS2 were highly significant (P < 0.001).
The global incidence of PM caused by non-PCV13 serotypes exhibited an increasing trend over the study period ( p < 0.001).
Free will On ratings of Mary's free will, ANOVA revealed a highly significant main effect for the within factor stage ( F (3, 354) = 25.14, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.18), a small significant interaction ( F (6, 354) = 2.48, p = 0.028, η 2 p = 0.04), and a highly significant between-subjects effect for substance ( F (2, 118) = 8.81, p < 0.001, η 2 p = 0.12), see Fig. 1 .
BMI was highest in Stage 3 (30.73 ± 0.24) and lowest in Stage 0 (21.52 ± 0.09), with a significant trend across stages ( P < 0.001).
Observed differences were considered statistically significant if p < .05 and highly significant if p < .001.
Projected GLA values showed highly significant Pearson’s correlations ( p < 0.001) with fresh and dry biomass of wheat plants measured at the end of the experiment, r = 1 and r = 0.98, respectively, thus confirming the reliability of image-based shoot biomass assessment.
In addition, a highly significant association (p-value<0.001) is found between education level or previous experience and whether people seek information about MRI safety.
The line/vial random effect was highly significant (LRT: χ 2 2 = 480.89, P < 0.001).
There was no significant difference between Group II and Group V ( P = 0.858) and between Group II and Group VI ( P = 1.000) ( P > 0.05) Mean difference between Group III and Group IV ( P = 0.960) and Group III and Group V ( P = 0.104) is not statistically significant whereas Group III and Group VI shows highly significant mean difference ( P < 0.001) Mean difference between Group IV and Group V ( P = 0.009) and Group IV and Group VI ( P < 0.001) is highly statistically significant ( P < 0.05) Group V and Group VI show no statistically significant mean difference ( P = 0.730).
When testing the differences between the age groups with chi 2 for trend, these are highly significant, both for the total group of infections and for the serious infections, with p-values < 0,001.
In the left thalamus, one-way ANOVA revealed a highly significant group effect (F(2,73) = 30.78, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.457).