“highly significant”

Of course, the between-group differences in age for the three subgroup comparisons were all highly significant (p < .001).

The ratio of NF-κB genes up-regulated in ccRCC (58/137) is highly significant, ( p -value < 0.001, one-tailed proportion Z -test), when compared to the percentage of all genes up-regulated in ccRCC (3560/17997; ~20%).

The differences in LAA and LA volumes between the stroke/TIA patients and control subjects remained highly significant ( P <0.001) when adjusted for BMI and hypertension, together or separately ( Table 2 ).

Crucially, there was also a highly significant interaction of Interference and Target Dimension [Dutch: F (1) = 16.53, p = 0.001, r 2 = 0.09; Brazilian: F (1) = 8.69, p = 0.003, r 2 = 0.05], indicating that the effect of cross-dimensional interference was much greater for duration judgments than for distance judgments (Figure 1 ).

Retinopathy was present in 0.3% patients in group I while 31.4% patients in group II and again results were statistically highly significant (p<0.001).

ROC curve had a highly significant area under curve (AUC) (0.964, P<0.001).

There was a highly significant association of AMACR overexpression with p16 positivity in HPs (p < 0.001; Table 5 ).

The result was highly significant ( P << 0.001), i.e. the variances could not be considered as statistically identical.

This was confirmed by Analysis of Similarity (ANOSIM), where there was no significant difference between cecal versus rectal samples (R = −0.043, P = 0.89), but a highly significant difference between sampling techniques (R = 0.47, P = 0.001) [41] .

EAT behavior Regression analysis with TUT Variance , TUT Mean , Stickiness Variance , and Stickiness Mean , group status, and error awareness as predictors explained 53.5% of stop accuracy variance [ F (6, 38) = 6.15, p < 0.001]; mean TUT was a highly significant predictor, β = −0.78, p = 0.001.

There was significant post-treatment reduction in pain intensity in LG compared to the pretreatment mean value, (p=0.01), and a highly significant post-treatment reduction in pain intensity in MG when compared to pretreatment mean value (p=0.001) ( Table 3 ).

The full network and these two subnetworks show a clustering coefficient that is highly significant ( p -value<0.001) compared with randomly generated networks with the same number of nodes.

Relief in all the symptoms found statistically highly significant ( P < 0.001) [ Table 1 ].

Its statistical correlation was highly significant ( P < 0.001).

This was statistically highly significant ( P < 0.001).

The analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) result (Φ pt = 0.522) further revealed that a large proportion of genetic differentiation was partitioned among populations, and the differences among populations were highly significant ( p = 0.001) ( Table 2 ) [ 16 ].

We found that the main effect of grade was nonsignificant but the main effect of numerosity was highly significant ( F (3.49, 164.16) = 395.02, p<.001, power= .99).

Using this median number as the cut-off point, 27 patients with FZD3 ICC score > 321.5 and 8 patients with FZD3 ICC score ≤ 321.5 had recurrent or metastatic CRC after follow-up for 42 months and the association between FZD3 ICC scores and recurrent or metastatic CRC was highly significant (Chi-square test: χ 2 = 13.34; P < 0.001).

The intra-group difference (PDR versus NDPR) was also highly significant ( P < 0.001).

After 3 months, patients who had abnormal cholesterol levels had a significantly greater reduction in dietary fat intake than patients with normal cholesterol results (F(2,388)=3.6, p=0.03); correlational analysis showed a highly significant link between reduction in fat intake and reduction in blood cholesterol (the researchers report an R 2 of 0.5, p=0.001, but confirmed by email that a Pearson's correlation was intended).

Conclusions: HA mediated by type 1 fimbriae plays an important role in CAUTI ( P < 0.001 highly significant), whereas, in chronic conditions like urolithiasis, biofilm plays an important role in persistence of infection and the role of hemagglutinins is less.

Differences in utilities between the two instruments became highly significant in less severe levels (1 and 2) (p-value < 0.001) (Table 2 ).

There was a highly significant difference between groups as determined by one-way ANOVA (F(14,54) = 22.477, p < 0.001).

Pearson correlation coefficients comparing NexCO with TDCO ( R 2 0.68) and NexCO with CCO ( R 2 0.71) were comparable and showed a highly significant (both P values <0.001) correlation between all obtained CO measurements.

Regarding P3 averaged amplitude, a multiple ANOVA revealed a highly significant main effect of stimulus type [ F (3, 57) = 7.29, P <0.001].