* P < 0.05 denotes statistically significant difference compared to control; ** P < 0.01 denotes highly significant difference compare to control; *** P < 0.001 denotes extremely significant difference compare to control; n.s. denotes no significant difference.
Results Analysis of phenotypic data Statistical analysis of plant architecture variables, obtained on the 266-pea-line collection at 8 and 14 days after sowing in Exp#1 and Exp#2, respectively, revealed highly significant G effects ( p-value < 0.001) for all the variables (Supplementary Table 1 ).
For all genes examined, induction was minimal and less significant in KO1 mice, whereas changes in KO3 and DKO mice were highly significant and of greater importance ( p ≤ 0.001).
The main effect of trial type on MEP amplitude was highly significant (F 1,30 = 12.72, p = 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.30).
Differences between groups were highly significant (χ 2 = 80.94, degrees of freedom (df) = 7, P < 0.001).
At the 20 mm inter-tactor distance, we found a highly significant main effect of motor type on accuracy ( F (2, 32) = 27.99, p < 0.001, η G 2 = 0.24), but no interaction between the main effects of motor type and presentation direction ( F (2, 32) = 0.24, p = 0.788, for more, see results in “Tactile anisotropy”).
Comparing the log 2 fold changes in gene expression upon RA treatment with those upon 5-aza-dC treatment reveals a highly significant ( P < 0.001) positive correlation (R = 0.76, red), which is even retained when comparing those genes significantly regulated in only one of the two conditions (R = 0.72, 5-aza-dC, brown; R = 0.57, RA, green; Figure 1 C, left panel).
The SMART heart package was statistically highly significant for knowledge and practice at P < 0.001 level.
There was a highly significant difference found between study and control groups ( P < 0.001) for taking soy food products in a week.
However, there was a positive trend between QFTGIT and TST positivity (X 2 = 96.76, P < 0.001).
This association was found to be highly significant with a p-value of <0.001.
aureus was highly significant ( p <0.001).
This difference was highly significant (ANOVA; P < 0.001).
Safety comparison The ddTMZ+mEHT regimen did not display any grade II–IV toxicity, whereas the ddTMZ regimens generated such toxicity events at a rate of 45%–92%, the difference was always highly significant (p<0.001) ( table 9 ).
LVEF modifications with and without ablation In order to analyze the impact of CTIA on LVEF, we could show a highly significant impact of CTIA on LVEF in the ablation group ( n = 48) at 1 year (LVEF: 50.00 ± 20.00%; p < 0.001) and at 2 years (LVEF: 50.00 ± 20.00%; p < 0.001), respectively, compared with pre-intervention LVEF levels (LVEF: 35.00 ± 10.00%).
The between-group differences were highly significant ( p < 0.001).
Using the same model as above (Model 1), a highly significant association between smoking status and mean cortical thickness was observed (F (2, 499)=14.7, P <0.001; Figure 2d ).
Assuming that other predictors were constant, the vertical diameter of the largest cyst at 300 μm predicted visual acuity loss with 62% sensitivity and 69% specificity with moderately significant predictive power (AUC=0.692; 95% CI=0.626-0.757; p<0.001, Figure 3b ).
A negative trend of the ratio between quartiles 1 and 4 was observed: 3.36, 1.34, 0.68 and 0.38, respectively (p <0.001, Table 2 ).
The depression of the clay slope compared to the control slope was statistically and highly significant ( p < 0.001).
This bias was highly significant (Rayleigh's test; Z = 6.59, df = 1, P < 0.001; Rao's test; U = 188.38, df = 1, P < 0.001).
This showed that the model was highly significant [χ 2 (4) = 19.22, p = .001; Nagelkerke R 2 = .19].
Multiple comparisons Tuckey tests showed that there was a substantial increase in surface microhardness of the CESP group ( p < 0.05) and a highly significant increase ( p < 0.001) recorded by the UDD group when compared to the -ve CTL group.
Mortality due to congestive heart failure similarly showed a significant trend ( P = 0.001).
The interaction term between fractions and total dose was highly significant and its interpretation is best understood by graphical representation of the model’s predicted outcome ( Fig 2D , p <0.001).