For ANOVA analysis, the results revealed that the four models were highly significant (P < 0.0001).
Excerpts
There was a highly significant difference in long-term graft survival between these two groups (log-rank test p < 0.0001); Figure 3 . 4.
The model for reaction force was highly significant ( F ‐value: 3745.70, p ‐value <0.0001).
The effect of adapting speed was highly significant in ANOVA (F(2,8) = 142.57; p < 0.0001; effect size η 2 p = 0.97).
The high-fat meal produced a decline after 4 weeks of placebo [ - 12.37% ( P = .005)], but no decline after 4 weeks of flavonoid supplement [ - 3.16% ( P = .663)], and the difference between the two responses was highly significant ( P < .0001).
When we look at the accumulation of [ 57 Co]-B12 in the individual fetuses ( Figure 4 H), this trend becomes highly significant (5-week 1C imbalanced, p = 0.0001; 7-week 1C imbalanced fetuses, p = 0.0001) ( Figure 4 ).
The mean differences for all parameters were highly significant ( P < 0.0001) at each interval.
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a highly significant model (F-value = 220.94, p -value < 0.0001), indicating that at least one of the studied factors (incubation time (X 1 ), initial pH level (X 2 ), AgNO 3 concentration (X 3 ), and temperature (X 4 ) significantly affected the rate of AgNPs biosynthesis.
However, purge loss in cured pork sausages was highly significant with the addition of ligands ( p < 0.0001; Table 2 ), with cysteine treatment showing higher purge loss than histidine and nicotinamide treatments ( p < 0.05; Table 3 ).
However, there is a highly significant correlation between the average length of isotigs and percent BLAST hits (e.g. hits against ara , P < 0 . 0001, Table 4 ), and also between the total sequence length of each isotig group with the proportion of BLAST hits (e.g. hits against ara , P = 0 . 003).
A quadratic relationship between signal and concentration was found to be the best fit and highly significant (p<0.0001 for all 3 exposure times).
The correlation with MacBlo is highly significant not only for the mean of the three sites ( r = 0.55, P < 0.0001; Fig. 2B ) but also for each of the individual sites ( r = 0.35, P = 0.0001: Hamma Hamma and MacBlo; r = 0.57, P < 0.0001: Lake Washington and MacBlo; r = 0.39, P = 0.0001, Price Lake and MacBlo).
Moreover, vaccine product and DMT class were highly significant predictors of antibody responses ( p ≤ 0.0001) for both assays and age was a significant predictor on Elecsys ( p = 0.0003) and MBI ( p = 0.026) assays.
Loss to follow-up decreased markedly from 34/260 (13%) in 2020 to 3/166 (2%) in 2024, representing a highly significant reduction ( p < 0.0001).
As shown in TABLE 3 , the model difference was extremely significant ( p ‐value < .0001), and the Lack of Fit was not significant ( p ‐value = .1139 > .05).
A highly significant correlation (r = 0.74, p < 0.0001) between the LAST and the short version of the Token Test indicated good external validity of the scale.
Second, the theta values were modeled as a smooth function using locally weighted regression to remove SNPs showing a significant trend and/or differences between plates (with P < 0.0001) ( Cleveland 1979 ; Hackett et al. 2013 ).
Results Analysis of the interventions indicated a highly significant ( P < 0.0001) mean reduction in attendances.
The MD significantly favoured the 2% CHX group ( Z = 2.43, P = 0.02) and the heterogeneity between the data was substantially to considerably significant ( I 2 = 89%, P = 0.0001) ( Fig. 2 B).
Results Cathodal group Transcranial direct current stimulation produced a very highly significant effect in the cathodal group, as demonstrated by a significant main effect of stimulation condition ( p < 0.0001) (Table 1 ).
Highly significant differences ( p < 0.0001) were seen for TPI, which supports the hypothesis that these breeds have a differentiated morphometry that influences their reproductive ability and environmental adaptation.
The log ‐ rank test showed a highly significant result ( p < 0.0001), as depicted in Figures 2 and S1 .
When restricting analysis to the 73 AD subjects only, MMSE (r=.44) and DRS (r=.54) correlations remain highly significant ( P <.0001), but not with AVLT (r=0.16, P=0.17).
This reward benefit effect on latency was highly significant ( F (2,53) = 35.855, p < 0.0001), amounting 31 ms for young adults ( F (1,17) = 13.95, p < 0.002), 30 ms for healthy elderly ( F (1,17) = 6.428, p < 0.022), and 28 ms for PD patients ( F (1,19) = 15.226, p < 0.001).
Regressions of environmental suitability index versus latitude were highly significant (Fig. 4 ) but with low predictive power (Fig. 4 ) by a low R -value (“black” form: R 2 = 0.0004, P < 0.0001, intercept = 0.54; “red” form: R 2 = 0.002, P < 0.0001, intercept = 0.66).