trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

A significant two-tailed test with a higher mean allows the inference that one condition is significantly higher.

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
2 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that a significant two-tailed test with a higher mean allows the inference that one condition is significantly higher?

Yes. Peer-reviewed literature applying two-tailed tests to compare sample means routinely relies on a significant outcome with a higher observed mean to infer a significantly higher condition.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 2 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

Judged against the evidence record for claims of this kind.

Evidence for · 2
Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia: Reticulocyte maturity indices in iron deficiency anemia
2014
Uses a significant two-tailed t-test with a higher mean to infer that an anemic condition is significantly higher.
Get citation
Wollmann, M., Gerzson, B. M. C., Schwert, V., Figuera, R. W., & Ritzel, G. d. O. (2014). Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia: Reticulocyte maturity indices in iron deficiency anemia. Revista Brasileira de Hematologia e Hemoterapia. https://doi.org/10.5581/1516-8484.20140009

See more details
More for · 1
OpenAIRE: Clinical Utility of Recently FDA Approved IntelliSep test (Sepsis biomarker) for early Diagnosis of Sepsis: Comparison with other Biomarkers and von Willebrand Factor/ADAMTS13 Ration
2024
Demonstrates a two-fold higher mean score confirmed by significant two-tailed tests to infer higher sepsis risk.
Get citation
OpenAIRE: Clinical Utility of Recently FDA Approved IntelliSep test (Sepsis biomarker) for early Diagnosis of Sepsis: Comparison with other Biomarkers and von Willebrand Factor/ADAMTS13 Ration. (2024). OpenAIRE. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqae129.350

Related receipts

What does the evidence say?

Judged against the evidence record for claims of this kind.

Receipt History
first checked05 Aug 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 6305 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work