The model was highly significant by CV-ANOVA ( p <0.001), and hence, clear group separation was achieved ( Figure 1 ).
Excerpts
A highly significant disparity was observed for plasma cell levels across groups ( p < 0.001).
Given the large sample size, these changes were highly significant ( p < 0.001).
This includes study type and analysis type, which are highly significant (p < 0.001) in the univariate analyses shown in Table 5 .
reported a highly significant improvement in the Boston Naming Test (BNT, pre-treatment: 20.75 ± 4.49, post-treatment: 22.75 ± 4.28, p < 0.001) [ 41 ].
There was a highly significant relationship between cross‐sectional values between the two methods ( r = 0.98, P < 0.001).
The difference between the two types of devices was highly significant (P < 0.001), with a catch index of 3.61 for the target on pirogue.
The prognostic model, based on TCGA data, demonstrated a highly significant difference in progression-free survival (P < 0.001), as shown in Fig. 5 K.
For both dry and fresh SLW, a trait that generally tracks well with leaf thickness, the irrigation regime effect was highly significant ( P < 0.001) for the Pima population but nonsignificant ( P > 0.05) for the upland population.
However, the umbilical cord serum to maternal serum 25(OH)D ratio showed a decreasing trend with maternal serum levels ( P < .001).
On the other hand, the 1000 μM of SNP caused a highly significant ( p < 0.001) reduction in viability on days 5, 10, 15, and 21, as compared with the control ( Fig. 1 ).
The value P < 0.05 was considered significant, while P < 0.01, highly significant and P < 0.001, very highly significant.
When participants did not receive a warning that selective repetitions came from speakers with vested interests, the repetition-contrast score was positive and highly significant, M = +28.34, SD = 25.82 [20.76; 35.92], t (46) = 7.60, d = 2.22, p < 0.001.
The survival probability without T1DM at study end was markedly lower in Black patients (73.95%) than in whites (85.93%), with a highly significant difference (log‐rank χ 2 = 40.099, p < 0.001).
1 shows the plots of the predicted and observed body weight at the end of week 4. In the aspartame group, there was a highly significant correlation between the predicted and observed body weight ( r 0·988, P < 0·001).
The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed highly significant differences between time groups for all classes: i. diplococci : H = 368.61, p < 0.001; ii. monococci : H = 148.21, p < 0.001; iii. tetracocci : H = 18.11, p = 0.0004; 3.
Gene pairs showing highly significant ( P < 0.001) correlations between their expression levels in PTG-stimulated biopsies from controls (but not in the GFD group) were selected as the control-specific coexpression signature, whereas gene pairs showing highly significant correlations after PTG challenge of GFD celiac biopsies (but not in the case of controls) formed the GFD-specific coexpression signature.
The statistical analysis showed a highly significant reduction in blood loss in the TxA group with a p-value < 0.001.
Directional consistency of each agonistic behavior All groups showed highly significant directionally consistent behavior for all behaviors (all p < 0.001).
The strong influence of both treatment and time on overall nematode abundance was confirmed by statistical analysis, which revealed highly significant effects of treatment (D; p < 0.001), time (T; p < 0.001), and their interaction (D × T; p < 0.001).
There was however, a highly significant difference in the distribution of diagnosis groups across study years ( p < 0.001).
Paired t -tests comparing individual thresholds between positions confirmed this difference was highly significant ( t (24) = −13.71, p < 0.001) with a large effect size (Cohen’s d = −3.62).
The IBUS‐SAS reached nearly perfect inter‐rater reliability, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95–0.99), which was highly significant ( p < 0.001) [ 11 ].
This analysis revealed a highly significant main effect [ F (1, 140) = 137.23, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.50].
Genotype and Environmental Variance The analysis of variance showed highly significant effects ( p < 0.001) of genotype, environment, and environment by genotype interaction on grain yield, Fe, and Zn under both N conditions across environments ( Supplementary Tables S1 and S2 ). 2.2.