The difference between the political meaning scores’ of socialism ( M = 2.52, SD = .94) and conservatism-referent words ( M = 4.95, SD = .99) was highly significant, t (52) = 10.05, p <.001.
← all phrases
“highly significant”
Sighted at
p=0.09
In the literature
Based on the highly significant difference in the coverage index ( p = 0.001), group H had a higher OTU richness than group D.
On the contrary, in the EXP (c) , MCT procedure and CI (95%) simultaneous comparison showed a highly significant difference for overall comparison ( Q = 3.09; p < 0.001) and for pairwise contrasts (results reported in Table 4 and Fig. 2 ).
After treatment, however, highly significant differences emerged ( p < 0.001).
Hub Gene Expression Pattern In the validation population, RFI in the high feed efficiency group ranged from −0.089 to −0.004 g/d (mean: −0.017 g/d), while that in the low feed efficiency group ranged from 0.006 to 0.034 g/d (mean: 0.017 g/d), showing a highly significant difference between the two groups ( p < 0.001).
The residual gender effect remained highly significant for generalized anxiety symptom (adjusted β = 0.18, p < 0.001) and depressive symptom scores (β = 0.09, p < 0.001) but no longer reached statistical significance for emotional/behavioral scores (β = 0.04, p = 0.078).
Results of the Kaplan–Meier survival analysis demonstrated highly significant differences in survival rates among the different challenge groups (log-rank p < 0.001).
No parts of the UKCAT proved to be an independent predictor of clinical course marks, whereas prior attainment was a highly significant predictor (p <0.001).
Nutritional quality indices calculated in SAT revealed highly significant seasonal effects ( p < 0.001).
As shown in Figure 5 , highly significant correlations ( p < 0.001 for all correlations) were obtained regardless of the way of expressing the results.
For family self-concept, a highly significant effect emerged, with F (3, 718) = 66.79, p < 0.001.
Even with a success of 2 in 6 the results remain highly significant, P<0.001 (Table 3 ).
For the P3 component, the effect of trial type was highly significant, with target trials showing much larger amplitudes than non-target trials: F (1,36) = 23.905, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.399.
Results: The mean OHI-S score for case and control group was 3.98 ± 0.70 and 3.11 ± 0.68, respectively, which was statistically highly significant ( P < 0.001).
The result showed a highly significant logistic component, t 58 = 20.19, p > 0.001, that captures a sigmoid-shaped function consistent with a category boundary (Harnad, 1987 ; Figure 3 ).
The exact p -values were categorized as follows: p < 0.05 denoted significant differences, p < 0.01 denoted highly significant differences, and p < 0.001 denoted very highly significant differences. 4.6.
Although there was no significant difference in the animals’ body weight between SML-treated or SML-ANPs-treated animals during the first two weeks, the difference after the third week was highly significant ( p value < 0.001).
Model Validation and Extraction Efficiency The statistical robustness of the experimental design was validated via ANOVA, confirming that the second-order polynomial models for TPC, TFC, FRAP, and DPPH were highly significant ( p < 0.001) across all leaf morphologies and extraction techniques.
Horizontal probing depth of the furcation defects using a newly designed stent In the experimental group, mean reduction in horizontal probing depth of furcation defects using stent from baseline to nine months was 1.56±0.88 which was statistically highly significant ( P <0.001).
In the BH, HUN, and SLO populations, one locus showed significant deviation ( p < 0.05), while in the CRO population, one locus showed highly significant deviation ( p < 0.001).
The discrepancy between data of the TWL obtained from control and CFA treated rats was also highly significant (*** p < 0.001) ( Figure 1B ). 3.3.
Both the initial increase and the subsequent fall in the Plaque index score, as compared to the preoperative score was statistically highly significant ( P <0.001) [ Table 1 ].
The results were statistically highly significant (chi=44.143, P <0.0010).
4.83 [0.41]), and this difference remained highly significant ( p < 0.001), confirming clear exposure contrast between the study groups.
Results: Difference in the mean ALP levels between healthy and gingivitis groups was found to be nonsignificant ( P >0.05) and that between the chronic periodontitis group and healthy as well as gingivitis groups was found to be highly significant ( P <0.001).