Pearson’s correlations were highly significant across three modalities of survey administration: paper and pencil, computer and telephone administration (range: .92 to .97, p < .001 ).
← all phrases
“highly significant”
Sighted at
p=0.09
In the literature
The difference in endpoint mortality between treated and control lice was highly significant at all observation points ( p < 0.001).
Chi-square statistical analysis indicated a highly significant variation in the frequency distribution of COVID-19 deaths across different locations (X 2 =60,266; p<0.001).
In the Chi-square test, the OSCC tissue samples showed a highly significant upregulation of CD96 mRNA expression ( p < 0.001) and protein expression ( p = 0.005) compared to the healthy mucosa.
It decreased significantly between P1 and P2-P4; with GAG content at P1 approximately double that of P2 ( p = 0.004 NRX, p = 0.013 HYP) and highly significant when compared to P3 and P4 (all p < 0.001).
Interestingly, a highly significant difference ( p < 0.001) in response times between test sets 500 Hz_105 dB and 4000 Hz_105 dB was identified.
CS and FS showed highly significant increasing trends ( p < 0.001).
The linear component of the non-linear spline was highly significant in patients with normal CRP concentrations (p<0.001).
All pairwise comparisons of levels within Body were highly significant ( p < 0.001), except for levels torso and legs, which did not significantly differ.
Jonckheere tests specified these results by the determination of highly significant trends between categories of self-ratings and the linked clinical measures ( p ≤ 0.001 to 0.005) indicating that objective measures differed according to categories of self-ratings (see Table 5 ).
All investigated genes showed highly significant sexually dimorphic expression in juvenile zebrafish gonads ( p <0.001).
The KMO value was 0.846 and Bartlett’s test was highly significant (p<0.001).
The bioimpedance parameters R and S showed marked variability, particularly in the case of S (R mean = 15.9, standard deviation [SD] 11.0; S mean = 82.1, SD 108.9) and there was a highly significant correlation between R and S (R = 0.918, P < 0.001), hence the ratio of R/S was used for subsequent analysis.
Similar findings were reported by Elgebaly and Elzayat, who found a highly significant difference in blood loss between the group receiving TXA and the group with no intervention (n = 100, p<001) [ 11 ].
We also observed a highly significant main effect of target–flanker separation , F (2.91, 78.55) = 79.38, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.129.
Results for R2 were different with highly significant values of all datasets (p < 0.001) but highest correlation values of the reanalysis products.
Paired t -tests indicated that, on average, a highly significant decrease could be observed, both for the first warning (mean round 5 = 6.31, SE = 0.37, mean round 6 = 4.78, SE = 0.39, paired t -test: t = 3.66, p < 0.001) and the second warning (mean round 16 = 6.96, SE = 0.34, mean round 17 = 5.14, SE = 0.42, paired t -test: t = 4.83, p < 0.001, see Fig. 1 a).
This increase in the abnormal nuclei fraction (ANF) was highly significant ( p < 0.001, n = 3, χ 2 -test).
The results showed a highly significant relationship between metals in hair and water samples, specifically Cr, Ni, and Cu in Multan, while water As ( p < 0.001) was significantly correlated with urinary As in Multan, suggesting that the exposure source was region-specific ( Table 4 ).
A highly significant ( P < 0.001) depletion of hippocampal and striatal GSH was observed in Li-Pc (SE) group ( Figure 2(b) ).
Locality was a highly significant predictor of abundance in B. truncatus ( χ 2 = 107, df = 18, P < 0.001, Table 3 ).
Selective sweeps and domestication signature characterization Highly significant pairwise F ST (P < 0.001) distribution in sweet watermelon accessions from different geographical areas is illustrated in Figure 9 a and b.
A p -value was considered significant if p < 0.05 (*), very significant if p < 0.01 (**), and highly significant if p < 0.001 (***). 3.
However, a highly significant relationship was found between T max and starch concentrations ( P <0.001, r 2 =0.84), with increased starch in well-watered plants associated with a decrease in T max ( T max =62.51–0.88×[starch]; Fig. 4A ) compared with drought-treated plants.
This difference in likelihood is highly significant assuming a χ 2 distribution ( P < 0.001; Table 1 ).