Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantP < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
1 X 2 2 − 4.27 X 3 2 − 4.82 X 4 2 − 6.24 X 1 X 2 + 0.8271 X 1 X 3 − 1.51 X 1 X 4 − 2.48 X 2 X 3 − 1.58 X 2 X 4 + 0.0910 X 3 X 4 + 2.15 X 1 + 6.65 X 2 − 2.00 X 3 + 0.7997 X 4 + 80.28 The regression analysis of variance (ANOVA) results (Supplementary Table 2 ) demonstrate that the regression model is highly significant ( P < 0.0001), confirming its reliability.
highly significantP < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The results from the ANOVA table revealed that the model was highly significant (P < 0.0001), while the lack of fit of each model was not significant (P > 0.05) revealing that the model adequately described the relationship between the independent variables (extraction time, solid to solvent ratio, % NADES content and amplitudes) and the dependent variables (TPC and DPPH).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
As expected, the effect of condition (estimated in independent data) was highly significant ( sentences > nonwords , β = 1.897, t = 23.570, p < 0.0001) ( Fig. 2B, C ); in contrast, the main effect of localizer version was not significant ( speeded > standard , β = -0.068, t = -0.851, p = 0.395).
highly significantp ≤ 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
RESULTS: Aqua destillata and 10% glucose showed a highly significant higher (p ≤ 0.0001) specific impedance compared to the standard 0.9% saline (factor 360).
UEG Week 2014 Poster Presentations
United European Gastroenterol J · 2014 · PMC4212306
an increasing trendP < 0.00010.0× alphagold
Facility-Based Hemodialysis Initiations We observed an increasing trend in the rate of initiations receiving facility-based hemodialysis before the pandemic (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.0027; 95% CI, 1.0016 to 1.0038; P < 0.0001), meaning that each month the number of new patients starting facility-based hemodialysis increased by about 0.27%.
highly significantP < 10 −40.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Every comparison reported highly significant differences: absolute initial angles for clockwise trials were smaller in the negative ( t 17 = -4.72, P < 10 −4 ) and positive contexts ( t 17 = -3.6, P = 0.001); for counter-clockwise perturbations the initial angles were also smaller in the negative ( t 17 = 4.03, P < 10 −4 ) and positive contexts ( t 17 = -3.61, P = 0.001, one-sided paired t-tests).