Lower HDL levels were detected in the patient group, and a highly significant difference was observed between the OSAS group and control group in terms of triglyceride, waist circumference, and total cholesterol values (p<0.001).
← all phrases
“highly significant”
Sighted at
p=0.09
In the literature
The constant term (intercept) has a coefficient of 226.788, with a standard error of 13.364 and a highly significant t-value of 16.969 ( p < 0.001), indicating that it contributes significantly to the model.
Statistical analysis revealed that the difference was highly significant ( P < 0.001) (Supplementary Fig. 4d ).
Results showed a highly significant main effect of viewing condition for laughs, F (2,34) = 12.93, p < 0.001 with a generalized eta squared, ges = 0.25.
Overall, these results confirmed the highly significant associations between previous PTBs or LBWBs and recurrence of these adverse birth outcomes as revealed in Table 2 (p < 0.001 in all estimated odds ratios).
The modulatory effect of movie viewing on the DMN–DAN connectivity was highly significant different between the two patient groups [ t (15) = 4.23, p = 0.001; Figure 5A ].
P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant, and highly significant at p<0.001.
A highly significant between-group difference was found for miR-21 (F = 6.58, p < 0.001), miR-146a (F = 6.974, p < 0.001), and miR-191 (F = 17.07, p < 0.001).
The analysis yielded an index of 0.84 in concert with a highly significant Bartlett Test of Sphericity (χ 2 = 1039.00, df = 153, p < 0.001).
The most recent efforts to improve the understanding of clinical prognostic factors in PTCL‐NOS were undertaken by the International Peripheral T cell Lymphoma Project (IPTCLP) on a sample of 340 cases diagnosed between 1990 and 2002: both the PIT and the IPI remained highly significant for both OS and progression‐free survival (PFS) ( P < 0·001) (Weisenburger et al , 2011 ).
The mean of anti IgE receptor antibodies in the ASST positive group was more than that of the negative one, (28.72±43.6 ng versus 2.79±1.19 ng) that was highly significant (p<0.001).
The overall model was highly significant ( P < 0.001), explaining 78.1% of the total variance (adjusted R2=0.758).
The paired t -test indicated that there was highly significant difference ( P < 0.001) between pre- and postnutrition education intervention mean Health Belief Model constructs score in intervention group (IG).
The offspring of (♀Q2 × ♂Q1) females backcrossed with Q2 males was 6–6.2 times smaller than the one produced by (♀Q1 × ♂Q2) females backcrossed to males of either parental type, which was a highly significant difference (P < 0.001).
Even after comprehensively controlling for these baseline covariates, the single‐site laparoscopy remained a highly significant, independent predictor of shortened hospital stays ( p < 0.001), lower 24‐h postoperative pain score ( p < 0.001), and superior wound cosmetic outcomes ( p < 0.001).
The difference in the percentages of sand flies entering the two types of treated bednets was highly significant (c 2 = 114.9, p <0.001).
The Bartlett test was highly significant, χ 2 (171) = 2422.13, p < 0.001, indicating that the data were suitable for principal components analysis.
For PFS, the overall comparison among mALBI grades was highly significant (χ 2 = 22.142, P < 0.001) ( Table 4 ).
However, McNemar Chi-square test in the nonsusceptible category between the two tests was 9.38% and 33.03% for imipenem and meropenem, respectively, and they were highly significant ( P < 0.001).
A statistically highly significant difference in color change (ΔE) among the three groups was found ( p ≤ 0.001) at each post-immersion interval ( Fig. 2 ).
The inter-rater reliabilities between rater 1 and 2, rater 2 and 3, and rater 1 and 3 are highly significant (ICC = 0.998 to 0.999, p < 0.001).
The AMH differences were consistently highly significant ( P < 0.001) throughout the study, including at 48 hours.
There was a highly significant correlation between each item related to the dentist and the likelihood of the patient to recommend a certain dentist to others “that is, patient loyalty” ( P < .001).
Their pooled heat map indicated that they preferred to stay in the CS+ arm (Figure 5H ) and the quantitative analysis of the time spent in each arm of the maze revealed a highly significant preference for the CS+ arm (Figure 5I ; U = 148, p < 0.001).
In the multivariate model (ANOVA), there was a highly significant main effect of disease status on logNSE, F = 14.762, p < 0.001.