“moderately significant”

P values inside each Figure panel are indicated by the following notations: **P < 0.01 (moderately significant) and *P < 0.05 (significant). 3 Results 3.1 The physicochemical characterization of PEEK implants AFM and SEM were utilized to examine the surface morphology of PEEK implants both before and after surface treatment.

The significance was said to be suggestive if the P value: 0.05 < P < 0.10, moderately significant if P value: 0.01 < P < 0.05, and strongly significant if P value: P < 0.01.

As a considerable number of markers were determined, the level of significance was set at highly significant (p < 0.001) and moderately significant (0.001 < p <0.05).

However, those were small, inconsistent and moderately significant (hereafter “moderately significant” refers to P ≤ 0.05 based on the liberal “naïve” t -test) ( Table 2a ).

There was a moderately significant decrease of 15.5% ( P < 0.05, Cohen's d = 2.33).

On the other hand, when we used the ACh stimulation protocol ( Figure 2 e–h), the average distance between DBH centroids and the nearest α3β4 nAChR centroids (184.0 ± 50.2 nm) was not only significantly lower than the average one when compared with a random simulation for α3β4 nAChR structures (605.7 ± 9.7 nm; p -value < 0.0001, Figure 2 i), but also showed a moderately significant average distance reduction to that obtained for the K + stimulated assays ( p -value < 0.05).

The correlation between tutors’ PBL experiences and their mean ratings was found to be moderately significant ( r = 0.52; p > 0.05).

A lower mean difference score was found for patient-informal caregiver dyads (mean = 0.95) than for patient-nurse dyads (mean = 2.12), implying better alignment between patient and informal caregiver on what type of behaviour the patient thinks that the informal caregiver expects of them and the latter’s ideas on how the patient should act, than between patient and nurse. Correlation analysis of the subjective norms was in line with the difference scores, showing a moderately significant correlation between patient and informal caregiver subjective norm scores ( r = .34, p < 0.05).

The results stipulated non‐significant differences ( p > 0.05) for most of the structural indices, highly significant differences ( p < 0.01) for length index (LI), height index (HI), dactyl thorax index (DTI), index of compaction (IC), transverse index, compact index‐1 and compact index‐2, and moderately significant differences ( p < 0.05) for body index (BI) between the ages in the ewes.

Moreover, the significant p -values have been subdivided into three classes as follows: (i) p < 0.001 (highly significant), (ii) p < 0.01 (moderately significant), (iii) p < 0.05 (mildly significant) 3.

In the control group, a moderately significant positive correlation existed between right ear SDN scores and left ear suppression values ( P < 0.05).

The association between area of residency (urban, semiurban, and rural) of pet owners and ESCCAP infection risk groups (A, B, C, and D) was moderately significant for dogs ( p < 0.05) (Table 3 ) but significant for cats ( p < 0.05) (Table 4 ).

Whereas up to a concentration of 80 μg/mL, the hatching rate was moderately significant (p < 0.05).

We found strong evidence that the consent rates varied across trials within centers, with eight of 12 centers exhibiting at least moderately significant differences ( P < .05) ( Table 1 ).

The Tree1*Grass2 variable was moderately significant ( p = 0.050), indicating that the sidewalk with trees on one side and grass on both sides had a 0.613 °C lower air temperature gap between children and adults, compared to the sidewalk with no tree and no grass.

+ Suggestive significance 0.05< P < 0.10 * Moderately significant 0.01< P ≤ 0.05 ** Strongly significant P ≤0.01 Statistical software: The Statistical software namely SPSS 15.0, Medcalc 9.0.1, Stata 8.0 and Systat 8.0 were used for the analysis of the data and Microsoft word and Excel have been used to generate graphs, tables etc.

Responsiveness The correlations of BBS scores and Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest scores were moderately significant (ρ = 0.57, p < 0.05 and ρ = 0.42, p < 0.05, respectively) ( Figure 2 ). 3.3.

Notably, the Evans index (EI), ventricular volume, and the composite score, derived from both ventricular volume and the EI, demonstrated a moderately significant correlation (p-value < 0.05).

\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\chi^2_{Yates}=\sum\limits^{k}\frac{(| f_0-f_e|-0.5)^2}{f_e}$$\end{document} Significant figures: + Suggestive significance (P value: 0.05 < P < 0.10), *Moderately significant (P value:0.01 < P ≤ 0.05), **Strongly significant (P value: P ≤0.01).

Only mouth width showed a moderately significant positive correlation with the amount of jackscrew activation ( p < 0.05). 4.2.

Based on p-value criteria, the correlation coefficient’s statistical significance is evaluated as follows: not significant at p > 0.10, moderately significant at p < 0.05, and highly significant at p < 0.01.

∗∗∗A highly significant, ∗∗moderately significant, and ∗∗slightly significant difference (P < 0.05) linked to the regulator was considered as examined by one-way ANOVA.

1 b and 3 ) (moderately significant at p value = 0.05).

Significance levels are indicated by asterisks: ns denotes non-significance, ∗∗∗∗ indicates highly significant ( p < 0.0001), ∗∗ indicates significant ( p < 0.01), and ∗ indicates moderately significant ( p < 0.05).

Statistical significance was defined as follows: * moderately significant ( P value: 0.01 < P ≤ 0.05); ** strongly significant ( P value: P ≤ 0.01).