The analysis showed a highly significant effect (F = 1378.68, p < 0.001), confirming the model’s reliability in predicting temperature changes over time, with an R2 of 0.92.
← all phrases
“highly significant”
Sighted at
p=0.09
In the literature
The incubation of all BODIPY-labeled AMs with LUVs showed a highly significant increment of r ( p < 0.001, unpaired, two-tailed Student’s t -test, Figure 2 A, Table 1 ), suggesting a lower rotational freedom of the probe in the presence of LUVs.
Model 1 indicated a significant positive coefficient of the network signal (coefficient = 0.3122, p < 0.001), with a highly significant F-test value ( F -test = 988.69, p < 0.001), suggesting a correlation between the network signal and Internet use.
The mean difference between results did not follow a normal distribution and we therefore tested the median difference using the non-parametric one-sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank test (step 3), showing a highly significant (p < 0.001) difference of 824 kg CO 2 -eq.
Statistical analysis of this difference is highly significant for both markers using two-way analysis of variance with region as a factor ( P <0.001).
The PCA (highly significant results p < 0.001, by permutational multivariate analysis of variance, PERMANOVA) showed that control plants grown under conditions of Fe sufficiency and those exposed to volatiles from L264 had similar mass spectra, since treatments were grouped together.
When comparing responder and non-responder values with respect to the sensory and the affective pain ratings, non-parametric tests disclosed a highly significant difference between groups in both pain dimensions ( p < .001).
One-way ANOVA clearly confirmed a highly significant ( p < 0.001) decrease in maximum Q 10 values and activation thresholds of currents through the septuplet mutant and the chimeric triple mutant over the positions 251–254, but not of the currents through the triple mutant over the positions 255–257 ( Figure 4 C–E).
When the coercion condition was entered simultaneously with perceived motives, the relationship between condition and high-level behaviors diminished (β = -.30, p = .05); however, consistent with our motive-matching model, perceived motives remained a highly significant predictor of intentionality (β = .59, p < .001).
A highly significant overexpression of ZEB1 with tumor grade, nodal metastasis, and FIGO stage (p<0.001 for each) was detected ( Table 3 ), ( Figure 4 ).
As to be expected given the very large sample sizes, Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests detected highly significant deviations from normality ( p < 0.001) for all measures.
The unidimensional structure of ESSI displayed a highly significant Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square ( S-B χ2 = 119.15; df = 9 p < 0.001) and a value of RMSEA greater than 0.05 (0.101, 90% CI = 0.850–0.117), although other fit indices (CFI = 0.961, SRMR = 0.026) indicated approximation to adequacy of the model fit.
A nonlinear relationship between NLR and inpatient gout recurrence was identified ( Figures 2E, F ), with P values for nonlinearity being highly significant ( P < 0.001).
The frequency of the difference in GPC3 expression between the two groups was highly Significant (P value <0.001) ( Table 1 ).
Furthermore, we observed a large and highly significant main effect of “ instruction ” ( F (2,80) = 66.78, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.63). “ Instruction ” did not interact with “ sex ” ( F (2,80) = 1.65, p = 0.20, η p 2 = 0.04) or “ sex ” × “ task ” ( F (2,80) = 1.69, p = 0.19, η p 2 = 0.04), indicating that the difference in word generation between the two phonemic and semantic tasks and the different instruction conditions did not depend on sex.
In terms of TGRWT, the main focus of this study, there was a highly significant negative correlation in Ob_09 (−0.36, p<0.0010) and less significant negative correlations (−0.23 to 0.27, p<0.05 threshold) in Va_09, Va_08, and Ob_07.
In contrast, fasting glucose and HbA1c levels demonstrated highly significant differences between groups ( p < 0.001) with the diabetic group exhibited the highest mean fasting glucose (150.3 ± 18.6 mg/dL) and HbA1c levels (8.1 ± 1.2%), followed by the prediabetic group (110.8 ± 7.5 mg/dL; 5.9 ± 0.2%) and the non-diabetic group (90.5 ± 6.2 mg/dL; 5.4 ± 0.2%).
We performed a likelihood ratio test of the full model against the model without property.type and the comparison proved highly significant (χ 2 (1) = 25.985, p < 0.001).
This is illustrated in our study where the proportion of EM T cells within the CD8 + population in the total group of MS patients (32.5%) was the same as in the healthy control group (33.3%) despite the presence of a highly significant reduction in the frequency of CD8 + EM T cells in the PBMCs in the MS group ( p = 0.001; Table 3 ).
The t-value for the comparison between the two groups was 5.53, indicating a highly significant difference between the groups (means of 14.6 (SD=117.2) vs. 33.5 (SD = 235.6), p<0.001).
The two-way ANOVA between sex and microglia state changes showed a highly significant but medium-effect interaction ( p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.59).
Similarly, GI was also lowest in Group I (0.47 ± 0.24) compared to Group II (1.64 ± 0.30) and Group III (2.07 ± 0.32), with the differences being highly significant (p < 0.001, Table 4 ).
Spearman rank correlation was also highly significant between Cx43 and CD21 expression (rho = 0.981, P < 0.001), supporting the colocalization of these proteins.
PCoA and PerMANOVA showed that RBSDV infection had a highly significant effect ( p = 0.001) on the composition of bacterial communities in the rice rhizosphere in all combinations of factors (rhizosphere samples were divided into 12 combinations, i.e., 2 locations × 3 years × 2 developmental stages), and samples were categorized as two clusters in each combination based on the presence or absence of RBSDV infection (Figs. 2 G, H and S3).
The mid-domain effect’s estimate was highly significant (p < 0.001) and positive ( Table 1 ).