The mean score was 1.51±0.84 in physiological tissue vs 2.91±1.22 in tumours; this difference was highly significant ( P <0.001) ( Figure 2 ).
Excerpts
The Spearman correlation coefficient revealed a moderately significant negative association between the mean μTBS and the nanoleakage data (ρ = -0.683, p < 0.001).
A highly significant radiosensitising effect was seen in both cell lines ( P <0.001 for MGH-U1 and S40b cell lines).
It can be seen by comparing corresponding cells in Table 4 that, even when the hair stage effect is highly significant (e.g. total pRb – P <0.001 for stage difference), the improvement in intrasubject CV due to the stage adjustment is modest, with a greater impact on intersubject CV, perhaps reflecting a greater variation in the distribution of stages between subjects.
Using the ANOVA test, the difference was statistically highly significant with p < 0.001 (Table 2 ).
The overall survival analysis across the three groups was highly significant ( p < 0.001).
From March 2018 to January 2020, the overall trastuzumab consumption volume showed an increasing trend, with an average monthly growth rate of 2.5% ( P < 0.001).
3B ), a highly significant overlap in the distribution of suitability areas with those of L. candidulus were reported ( r = 0.823, P < 0.001) ( Table 1 , Fig. 3F ).
All the drivers were highly significant ( p < 0.001).
This result shows a highly significant 84% reduction in transmission efficiency compared to the wild-type TNJ4 (23.6 ± 1.7%, P < 0.001).
Highly significant ( p < 0.001) correlations were observed with the AHI (rho s = 0.61), OAHI (rho s = 0.55), ODI 3% (rho s = 0.73), SpO 2 minimum (rho s = −0.70), and T90 (rho s = 0.50).
The highly significant agreement ( p ≤ 0.001) in ring width variations of radius a and b (i.e., a : b ) and radius a and mean of radii c and d (i.e., a : cd ), as well as mean of radii a and b and c and d (i.e., ab : cd ), are striking ( Figure 4 a–c).
The observed distinctions were highly significant, with a P-value < 0.001, except for CAT, which reached statistical significance at P < 0.05.
For ethanol–water mixtures, Δt2 significantly decreases with increasing temperature across most concentrations, with several comparisons showing highly significant p -values ( p < 0.001).
At the therapeutically relevant dose of 50 000 n M , the difference in survival following gemcitabine treatment between NRP-1-overexpressing cells and cells with decreased NRP-1 expression was >50% and highly significant ( P <0.001) ( Figure 6B ).
There was also a highly significant association between a high Cyclin A score and OS from diagnosis ( Figure 1 ), RR 1.05 (95% CI 1.02–1.07), P <0.001 (as continuous variable) and RR 2.49 (95% CI 1.45–4.29), P =0.004 (as discrete variable), but not for survival from start of first- or second-line chemotherapy.
The model also returned highly significant results with a positive correlation ( p < 0.001) for the number of microplastics per kilogram of sediment but there was no significant result for grams of microplastic in kilograms of the same medium ( p = 0.683).
Measurements were deemed significant when * P < 0.05 and ** P < 0.01 and highly significant when *** P < 0.001.
There was a highly significant increase in pH in the TS group (mean pH 6.24 in the RIFA nest compared to 4.72 in the control group ( p < 0.001)).
Furthermore, Language exhibited a highly significant statistical association (χ2 (1) = 25.50, p < 0.001), with the English group demonstrating significantly lower productivity than the Chinese group (β = −1.034, SE = 0.205, p < 0.001).
Total protein concentration also showed a highly significant difference across CVMS groups ( P = 0.001), with the highest concentration in CVMS III.
The F-statistic was highly significant ( p < 0.001), indicating that the overall model was statistically significant in predicting CD4+ count on ART.
We defined P<0.0001 as a highly significant difference (**), P<0.001 as a significant difference (*), and P≥0.001 as not significant (n.s.).
According to the t test, this difference is statistically highly significant ( p ≤ 0.001) for simulations conducted at voltages ( + 100 mV and –100 mV) close to physiological conditions.
In the “Out-of-sample validation” section, the text “we obtained digitised maps of AADT” has been amended to “we obtained digitised maps of AADT (work day averages)”; the text “27 and 87 empirical AADT values” has been amended to “28 and 87 empirical AADT values”; the text “highly significant ( p < 0.001) and positive (0.60 and 0.70, respectively)” has been amended to “highly significant ( p < 0.005) and positive (0.55 and 0.70, respectively)”; the text “The percentage of observations that fell within the 90% prediction interval was 85.2%” has been amended to “The percentage of observations that fell within the 90% prediction interval was 89.3%”; and the text “These percentage dropped to 63.3% and 77.4%” has been amended to “These percentage dropped to 63.6% and 77.4%”.