“highly significant”

A highly significant association between amblyopia and mothers' BMI was seen (p < 0.001).

The main effect of time was highly significant (F = 254.294, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.861, large effect), with all groups showing medium improvements (20 % VRT: Cohen's d = 0.94, 35 % VRT: Cohen's d = 0.93, CRT: Cohen's d = 0.87). 3.2.

However, the interaction of time by treatment group (Table 1 ) was highly significant ( F = 12.30, p < .001).

Results A highly significant increase in the levels of CHI3L1, MMP-9, and MCP-1 was found in adenomyotic tissues compared to non-adenomyotic tissues ( P <0.001).

Regarding the limitations of our research, we highlight the highly significant interstudy heterogeneity in terms of hepcidin and prohepcidin levels ( I 2 = 97%, p < .001; I 2 = 96%, p < .001, respectively).

The Tukey HSD multiple comparison test shows a highly significant difference between the number of edible mushrooms consumed by Ngando and other ethnic groups ( p value < 0.001).

This elevated NT-proBNP showed a gradual decrease during HD treatment ( Figure 4 ), which was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

As the “F” value calculated for experimental group is 54.84 which is highly significant, that is, greater than the table value at P ≤ 0.001 level of significance at df = 98, the data signifies that the NIP was very effective in reducing anxiety level.

One-way ANOVA also verified highly significant differences among groups at each time point (P < 0.001).

Interobserver variation The intraclass correlation coefficient was highly significant (0.935, p<0.001).

In this case, the Kleibergen–Paap rk LM statistic is highly significant in all models ( p < 0.001), indicating that there are no issues with underidentification.

Overall, a more than 50% reduction in seizure episodes was achieved in 178 (56.3%) patients at day 90, and less than 50% reduction in seizure episodes was achieved by 95 (26.8%) patients on Day 14, with a highly significant association between them (p<0.001).

Aversely, basal serum Se concentrations of SPG were lower than CG; being this diminution highly significant ( p < 0.001).

During the first 12 h of the postoperative course, patients in the QLB group received an average of 4.13 (+/− 3.29) mg of morphine, which is approximately 5.6 mg of morphine (95% CI 3.44; 7.77) less than the control group without the block, who received an average of 9.73 (+/− 4.93) mg (Student’s T-test for independent samples, p < 0.001, the difference between the groups is statistically highly significant) ( Table 2 ).

Also, a highly significant linear relationship was found between root rot severity and biomass reduction especially for F . avenaceum (R 2 = 0.91, P < 0.001).

When tree height (H) was included in the DBH-alone model, the parameters of model M2 were highly significant (p < 0.001) with a percent relative standard error (PRSE) of the coefficients < 25% for both plantation and natural forests.

TBC was highly significant in cases involving mobile phones and mouse when a shield was not applied ( P < 0.001).

There was a highly significant positive correlation between choroidal thickness and retinal thickness throughout the study, that is, before and after treatment initiation ( p < 0.001, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.09, linear mixed model), see Figure 5 .

There was highly significant concordance between the linear or non-linear assumptions (all p < 0.001), though there is a significant bias in PK values when using the linear and non-linear assumption of image signal to Gd concentration.

The differences between root and soil were highly significant in both prokaryotic and fungal communities (PERMANOVA, P < 0.001; Table S5 ).

All predictors in the model were highly significant ( P < 0.001).

In the present study, a highly significant association was also observed (p<0.001), further supporting the utility of p57 IHC in distinguishing CHM from partial mole and non-molar gestations.

Fish exhibited fewer tandem repeats per CR on average (0.52) than tetrapods (1.22), and this difference was highly significant (Kruskal–Wallis, p < 0.001; Dunn’s test, p < 0.0001).

The change in the amount of explained variance between Models 1 and 2 is highly significant (R 2 Change = . 27-.28, p<.001).

After manipulation (T3), the mean cuff pressure was 41.00 ± SD of 6.407 in Group C and 33.30 ± SD of 4.824 in Group T, with a highly significant P value of <0.001.