Level of significance P is level of significance P > 0.05: Not significant P < 0.05: Significant P < 0.01: Highly significant P < 0.001: Very highly significant.
Excerpts
Inoculation with MDA-MB-231 (4175) LM2 cells increased the mean number of lung colonies in control animals by approximately 5-fold compared with MDA-MB-435 cells (67.6 ± 27.1 colonies vs 14.1 ± 1.6 colonies, respectively), a finding that was highly significant (Mann–Whitney rank sum test, P < 0.001).
The significance level was defined at p ≤ 0.05, while highly significant was set at p ≤ 0.001.
The Q-statistic for subgroups differences was highly significant for SBP and DBP in both genders (p<0.001 for all).
The time taken for the onset of analgesia recorded in different groups varied and the difference were very highly significant ( P < 0.001).
This analysis revealed a highly significant three-way interaction of stimulation by risk-of-losing by trial-number ( z = 7.68, p < 0.001, OR = 1.47; Fig. 3 A).
Accordingly, the difference between wildtype and mutant rTRPV1 was highly significant (unpaired t -test, p < 0.001).
Interestingly, the addition of 9 μg/mL CsA resulted in a complete and highly significant rescue effect (120%; p < 0.001 with respect to hypoxic treatment).
Coefficients for the PWB and FWB were highly significant (p < 0.001) compared to the EWB (p < 0.05) (Table 4 A, OLS Model 2).
That Linear Model was highly significant (F 10,213 = 5.98, p<0.001, R 2 = 0.18).
Additionally, there was a highly significant difference between the patient and control groups in terms of HOMA values ( p < 0.001, 2.87 ±2.56 vs. 1.63 ±0.65).
Statistical analysis showed that there were highly significant differences of lesions between treatment levels ( P <0.001) and between the two cultivars ( P <0.001), and there was a cultivar by germanium treatment interaction ( P <0.001).
The results showed a highly significant difference, M #1 = 8.04 ( SD = 1.21) versus M #31 = 2.47 ( SD = 1.79), F (1, 161) = 528.80, p < .001, η 2 = .77), allowing us to conclude that the manipulation was successful.
The established regression model was found to be statistically highly significant at a 95% confidence interval (Fmodel = 11.38, p = 0.001).
We found 558 contigs with highly significant correlations (p < 0.001); 206 of these were positively correlated, while the remaining 352 were negatively correlated ( Supplementary Table S3 ).
A linear contrast computed on the rising slope (estimated by linear regression in the 0-50 ms window) in the random dot motion task was highly significant, t (27) = 4.89, p < .001, and so was the quadratic contrast in the numerosity judgment task, t (23) = 3.66, p < .001.
A significant effect of the co-culture conditions revealed that culture of hBM-MSCs in tumour spheroids with MDA-MB-231s and T47Ds had a highly significant effect on the spheroid size of hBM-MSCs across 5 days (hBM-MSCs alone, +MDA-MB-231s or +T47Ds; F (2,6) = 357.792, p = 0.001).
Among the agronomic traits, the plant height, stem diameter, and leaf number exhibited a highly significant positive correlation with fresh herbage yield ( p < 0.001), with the correlation coefficients exceeding 0.8.
And after being put under simulated microgravity for 72 hours, MI shows an extremely significant difference (chi-square test, P <0.001).
This was primarily due to a decreasing trend among virtual behavioral health visits (−0.29 points per week, p < 0.001); virtual visits among medical specialties, primary care, and surgical specialties had stable trend lines over the study period.
The model for metabolic water production was highly significant ( F = 267.316, p < 0.001), with TEE showing a strong positive association with metabolic water production ( β = 1.030, p < 0.001).
Statistic comparison between 2 groups according to MAU status considered highly significant, p < 0.001 (Table 9 ).
The results of the multiple logistic regression analyses indicated a highly significant correlation between extinction and O 2 -carrying capacity ( p < 0.001; Figure 3 A; Tables S3–S9 ).
Generally, a higher percentage of persons were infected by increasing overall COVID-19-JEM score, with a highly significant difference between score group 0 (10.5% infected) and score group 21–24 (16.2% infected), Χ 2 ( 1 )= 601.5, P<0.001.
Of course, the between-group differences in age for the three subgroup comparisons were all highly significant (p < .001).