Barely Significant
← all phrases

“highly significant”

132,143 sentences · 132,143 papers · 160,126 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.09

Listed by Hankins (2013)

In the literature

highly significantP <0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Both the results were statistically highly significant ( P <0.001) [Tables 2 – 7 ] Agni Bala Pariksha In Agnibala Pariksha , 80.76% of the improvement was recorded in the Ruchira-Aharkale , 63.49% in Abhyavarana Shakti and 54.95% improvement in Jarana Shakti after the treatment in group A, while 84.41% of the improvement was recorded in the Ruchira-Aharkale , 65% in Abhyavarana Shakti and 50.43% improvement in Jarana Shakti recorded in group B.
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
On statistical comparison between initial stage and different follow-ups, no significant outcome was seen from first follow-up ( P > 0.05) in intensity and duration of pain but comparison between initial stage and different follow-ups showed highly significant results in the second follow-up ( P < 0.001) with regard to all the symptoms, except diarrhea, backache and pain in vagina.
highly significantp<0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
In the present study, a post hoc Games-Howell multiple comparison test was applied for comparing combinations of groups constituted by benign, FN/SFN, and malignant categories (Table 4 ), which also showed highly significant results (p<0.001) except for a few insignificant results for roundness (p=0.999), heterogeneity (p=0.904) and clumpiness (p=0.704) within comparative group benign-FN/FSN (Table 4 ).
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Across the whole growing season and averaged over all leaves, there were highly significant ( P < 0.001) effects of shade in both seasons on overall rates of photosynthesis, with mean rates for the exposed vines ranging from 5.5 ± 0.2 to 6.4 ± 0.1 μmol (CO 2 ) m −2 s −1 in the two seasons, while comparable rates for the shaded vines were 3.3 ± 0.2 and 4.0 ± 0.1 μmol (CO 2 ) m −2 s −1 .
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Gender distribution showed no significant difference between the two groups ( p = 0.6243), while prognostic status showed highly significant differences between the two groups ( p < 0.001), directly validating the prognostic prediction capability of the risk score model.