Excerpts

Statistical difference was considered to be significant at a value of P< 0.05 (*), highly significant at a value of P< 0.01 (**) and extremely significant when P< 0.001(***).

Statistical analysis showed a highly significant difference ( p < 0.001) in bacterial abundance and diversity across year of collection, season, location, and host species.

RD treatment at 10, 20 and 40 mg/kg to FA-injected animals significantly increased the testosterone level as compared to FA treated group, but it was highly significant in RD40 as compared to lower doses ( p < 0.001) ( Figure 1 ).

Mean comparisons of AgNPs (C) alone at 425 and 850 μg/mL were found statistically highly significant ( p -value<0.001).

Four days later, highly significant differences in the DAI scores were observed in the remaining groups (p < 0.001).

We next tested whether participant clusters were distributed differently across the studies, after excluding those non-responses, and found highly significant differences (Chi-squared test; P-value < 0.001) ( Fig 2B ).

The COMP and MMP-13 ELISA test showed that CW-LD and CW-HD were highly significant (p < 0.001) compared to the DC group.

C-index=0.816; 95% CI: 0.685-0.947), and the DeLong test demonstrated a highly significant difference between the area under the curve (AUC) (Z=-4.412; P <0.001) ( Figure 1D ).

Differences are considered as statistically significant if probability ( P -value) is <0.05 and as highly significant if P <0.001, whereas probability of >0.05 is considered as insignificant.

In this best model, the smooth term of the interaction between week of year and latitude was a highly significant predictor ( p < 0.001).

The estimated mean difference from placebo for the 100 mg treatment group (a prespecified endpoint) was −1.7 and was nominally significant ( p = 0.001), although this comparison was not formally included within the prespecified testing algorithm.

The trend test across ALI categories was highly significant ( P < .001).

There was a highly significant correlation between glenoid loosening assessed by plain radiographs and by CT scans (r = 0.77; P < .001).

All populations' pairwise F ST values were moderate–high and were highly significant ( F ST = 0.14 to 1, p < 0.001; see Table 3 ).

There was a significant effect of treatment ( F 2,234 = 4.78, p = 0.139) and an interaction of treatment and time ( F 12,234 = 3.67, p < 0.0001) and Bonferroni post hoc comparison showed a highly significant difference between ME7 + LPS + IL-1RA and ME7 + LPS + veh at 5 h ( p < 0.001).

Furthermore, all the factor loadings are highly significant ( p < 0.001), and both the coefficient alpha values (0.832–0.901) and the composite reliabilities (0.837–0.904) of all the constructs exceed the 0.70 benchmark.

In contrast, the calculated FRL had a positive correlation with postoperative C4 levels in controls and a positive trend in patients with pCCA (0.22, 95% CI [0.09, 0.35], p = 0.001 vs. 0.23, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.455], p = 0.056) (Figure 4 A).

When long-term mortality was assessed at total follow-up of maximum 16 years in the same multivariate Cox regression model, the prognostic impact of IE somehow attenuated, but remained highly significant (HR 1.73, [1.29–2.32], p < 0.001).

The results in Table 3 yielded a highly significant chi-square value with χ 2 [1, N = 1319] = 224.8738, P ≤ 0.001.

Differential component analysis identified 38 compounds with significant differences ( p < 0.05), including 24 compounds that showed highly significant variation ( p < 0.001) (Table S2).

Model fit of the duration of operation was also highly significant ( p < 0.001).

The recruitment was stopped early after a recommendation from the data and safety monitoring committee that was based on a highly significant difference between groups (p<0.001) in the incidence of the primary outcome favoring MV-PCI.

When analysed using a stratified log rank test, the predatory bacteria provided a highly significant (p < 0.001) protective effect from a lethal challenge of Y. pestis CO92 pGEN-luxCDABE.

Patients with heart failure also showed a trend toward higher risk at overall follow-up ( HR = 1.61 p < 0.001).

Bartlett’s test of sphericity also yielded a highly significant result (Approx. = 16,704.881; df = 861; p < 0.001), indicating that the factors were appropriately correlated for factor analysis ( Bartlett, 1950 , 1951 ).