From the 10th day forward, the group that applied with 10% (w/w) crude extract ointment displayed wound contraction, which was highly significant (P < 0.001) compared to the negative control group (simple ointment).
← all phrases
“highly significant”
Sighted at
p=0.09
In the literature
Table 4 shows that ANOVA revealed a highly significant difference (p = .001*) among the three groups of naswar users.
There was a highly significant correlation (r = 0.99, p<0.001) between the area under the NPF shift curve and the proportion of defocus component in the adapting images (e.g.: 1 for PD and 0.50 for 50S/50D).
Within the tumour centre, comparison of TP zones with varying radii around the tumour revealed the largest number of highly significant associations ( p < 0.001) for the TP25μm zone.
The interaction terms, including pHTemp, pHConc, and TempConc, highlight significant combined effects, with the TempConc interaction being highly significant ( p < 0.001).
Against traditional machine learning methods, C-BL achieves improvements of 19.0–25.9% with highly significant p -values ( p < 0.001), confirming substantial and statistically reliable gains.
Required cluster sizes for multiple comparison correction at these more stringent thresholds were estimated to be at least 197 voxels for significant (p<0.005) and 245 voxels for highly significant results (p<0.001).
The lowest concentration tested on DPPH radical scavenging had a percentage of 6.87 ± 0.56% for HAEGS (3.90625 mg/mL) and 17.96 ± 3.06% for Vitamin C (0.39062 mg/mL), which showed a highly significant difference ( P < 0.001).
A more detailed observation of the components of these communities showing significant differences with respect to the appearance of epitheliocystis symptoms was confirmed by one-way ANOVA, through which we identified 146 OTUs with highly significant difference ( P <0.001), most affiliated to the families Bacillaceae , Rhodobacteraceae and Vibrionaceae ( Table 1 ).
The differences between free mimicry and muscle-control conditions were not significant, F (1, 43)<1, while differences between the free mimicry and blocked mimicry conditions, and between the muscle-control and blocked mimicry conditions were highly significant F (1, 42) = 24.59, p <.001, η 2 = 0.40, and F (1, 41) = 30.40, p <.001, η 2 = 0.43, respectively.
The significance of its predictive power for lymph node metastasis is highly significant ( p <0.001, chi-square) and outlined in Table 4 .
We observed an ICC value of 0.601 (95% CI, 0.431-0.720) between the MA and the CNN; this was highly significant ( P < .001) and indicated moderate reliability.
These impressions were confirmed statistically, with a correlation analysis of the predicted and observed performance yielding highly significant effects both for the first-person perspective condition, r = .95, p<.001, and the third-person perspective condition, r = .94, p<.001.
However, the median motivation score of using SNSs in relation to weight loss/dieting, fitness/exercise, cooking, fashion, and bariatric surgery was highly significant in the DEBs-risk group ( p < 0.001).
Comparing the mean anxiety scores between the components, Friedman Test revealed highly significant (chi sq = 823.5, p < 0.001) difference among the scores of various anxiety components.
Paired-sample analyses confirmed that these orientation differences were highly significant (T IQR : t(287) = 23.11, p < 0.001; T OPR : t(287) = 21.46, p < 0.001; C IQR : t(287) = 14.15, p < 0.001; C OPR : t(287) = 16.96, p < 0.001), indicating a pervasive side-to-side heterogeneity in trunk and canopy thermal regimes ( Figure 3 ).
A repeated measures ANOVA of the wellbeing items (active; alert; excited; enthusiastic; happy; inspired) showed highly significant differences between the items, F(5,1555) = 52.68, p < 0.001; Bonferroni t -tests showed that the item ‘excited’ was significantly lower than the other five items, t(311) = 8.70, p < 0.001 for the smallest difference ( Figure 1 ).
This showed a highly significant, medium-sized correlation r(204) = 0.326, p < 0.001.
The inter-group difference was tested through anosim analysis, and the results indicated that the difference between the groups was highly significant (R = 0.7215, p = 0.0010), implying that the beta diversity of the gut microbiome in diabetic mice was significantly improved by TFs intervention, consistent with the results of alpha diversity analysis. 3.4.
This difference was highly significant (P<0.001).
In all cases, the SPAD correlations were highly significant (p<0.001).
“**” indicates a highly significant ( P <0.001) difference from controls.
However, in the analysis of floret germination during three years by GLZ with multinomial model (three categories; germinated in the 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd year) the effect of site was not significant (Wald Statistics 0.8, p>0.05), while effect of floret position within a spikelet was highly significant (Wald Statistics 138, p<0.001).
Thus, the following simple multiple-linear regression model without interaction effects was calculated: (1) Mean Total System Time for Severely Injured Patients = 335.88 − 0.71 Medical Specialists − 3.34 Medical Assistants − 9.57 Rotation Physicians − 0.17 General Nurses − 2.98 Surgical Assistants − 8.88 Surgical Nurses − 34.61 Radiology Assistants Please note that most of the independent staff category variables had a highly significant ( p -value < 0.001) or high significant ( p -value < 0.01) impact on the dependent variable mean total system time for severely injured patients, while only the independent variable number of general nurses had no significant impact ( p -value = 0.12) as shown in Table 5 and in Figure 4 , the Pareto chart of the standardized effects.
All these improvements were statistically highly significant ( P < 0.001).