“highly significant”

All F ST were highly significant ( P < 0.001).

In the Brazilian cohort, the combined model (Functions 1 and 2) demonstrated strong discriminatory power, with a Wilks’ Lambda of 0.386 and a highly significant Chi-square value (χ2 = 274.018, df = 20, p < 0.001), with a canonical correlation of 0.752.

This was highly significant and, of all parameters assessed, the presence of TTR amyloid had the highest hazard ratio for death (HR 9.4 [2.4-35.6], p = 0.001, univariable Cox regression analysis).

Table 2 shows Paired ‘t’ test showed significant difference in overall pre and posttest mean scores of knowledge (10.45 ± 2.88 and 23.85 ± 0.44, resulting in amean difference of 13.4, calculated ‘t’ value =50.18 higher than the table value 3.291), highly significant at P < 0.001 level.

CT+ICI treatment caused a highly significant reduction in tumour volume (p<0.001; 33.7% decrease) compared to controls ( Fig. 5 D) and the combination of CT+ICI with anti-Gr1+ produced the most pronounced antitumour effect (p<0.001; 49.4% decrease, Fig. 5 E).

However, hispidulin treatment showed a marked ( P <0.001) reduction in FBG levels starting from the second week, with highly significant differences observed by the end of the trial ( P <0.001).

The comparisons between the scores at the different VAS and the LLS score revealed highly significant correlations (p < .001) for six out of seven items (Table 2 ).

In (4) the effect of self-obese on 6 cat_requests is negative and highly significant ( p value < 0.001).

11 ) showed that 3D CT was more reliable than frontal cephalometry for 11 points, Or (R), Or (L), ANS, UM (L), LM (L), Me (p < 0.001, very highly significant), MO (L), NC (L), Ag (L) (p < 0.01, highly significant), UM (R) and Ag (R) (p < 0.05, significant).

In addition, group (D) results showed highly significant values than other groups with lower mean values except for UC-MSCs and group (C) (p<0.001).

A well-known cardioprotective agent was used as a positive control (bradykinin 100 nM), resulting in a highly significant IS reduction (16.6 ± 2.3, P = 0.001).

Both IBDV infected groups showing Highly significant difference ( p < 0.001) compared to control noninfected group (Fig. 7 ).

The difference between the baseline and 12 months postoperative values was also highly significant with P <0.001 ( Table 2 ).

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant ( p < 0.001), indicating patterned relationships between the variables, making PCA a suitable analysis [ 37 ].

A p-value of ∗p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, ∗∗p < 0.01 was highly significant, ∗∗∗p < 0.001 was very highly significant, and ∗∗∗∗p < 0.0001 was considered extremely significant.

Genome-wide differentially DNA methylation genes profiling in PCOS Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis showed 6936 differentially methylated CpG sites (p<0.005) respectively between control and PCOS-obesity group and 2664 CpG sites exhibited highly significant (P<0.001, Supplementary Dataset 1A ).

Cochran’s Q test confirmed a highly significant overall difference in the proportion of correct shade matches among the three methods (Q = 94.62, df = 2, p < 0.001) (Table 2 ).

Univariate analysis in Table 4 examining sociodemographic associations with personality cluster classifications revealed highly significant age-related stratification (χ 2 =28.111, p<0.001), with Cluster B demonstrating marked predominance among younger adults aged 18-30 years, comprising 78 participants (59.54%) compared to nine participants (6.87%) in Cluster A.

The correlation between the presence of the cTnT dp2 band and ADD is highly significant (Spearman’s ρ = 0.552, p ≤ 0.001).

Results were evaluated for statistical significance by ANOVA using a two-tailed Tukey-Kramer approach for multiple comparisons (highly significant ***p < 0.001; very significant **p < 0.01; significant *p < 0.05; not significant ns, p > 0.05).

The analysis revealed a strong response in the cells to MYO1C over-expression in form of a highly significant ( P < 0.001) decrease in the number of live cells starting at 48 hours post transfection and throughout the experiment time span ( Fig 3D ).

Compared to the positive control group (i.e., treatment with BDNF; 65.38 ± 28.40 cells per well), a highly significant increase of survival was obtained ( p < 0.001).

In the correlation analysis there were highly significant inverse associations between E/e’ mean and parameters of active left atrial emptying (correlation coefficients: ASV: ρ = −0.472; True EF ρ = −0.488, all p < 0.001).

The mean SOFA score was highest in intubated patients (11.96 ± 4.61) and lowest in those without ventilation (4.86 ± 4.01), showing a highly significant difference (H = 30.848, p < 0.001).

This difference was statistically highly significant (U = 81.0; p < 0.001), indicating a substantially faster return to sports following internal brace augmentation ACLR.