“highly significant”

Specifically, four nutrients (DM, CP, NDF, ADF) demonstrated a highly significant positive correlation with β-GC and EG (r > 0.82, p < 0.001) and a significant correlation with CBH (r > 0.50, p < 0.05).

However, the difference in microtumor volume in experiment 2 was highly significant, 0.010 ± 0.003 mm 3 versus 3.79 ± 1.24 mm 3 (treated versus controls, respectively), i.e., a 99.7% reduction ( p < 0.001).

The results were found to be highly significant ( P <.001).

The correlation coefficients of either IT or rAUDPC for all possible pairwise environment comparisons were highly significant ( p < 0.001), but the values ranged from 0.29 to 0.79 ( Table 3 ).

Of the individual index components using score-specific cut-offs, the KPS was the most highly significant, showing the best discrimination amongst component levels ( p < 0.001) (Additional file 4 : Figure S2).

(2) In case of highly significant correlation of p < 0.001 between a pair of variables, only one of the two concerned variables was selected based on clinical rationale.

Differences between the groups with and without pravastatin (about 1 mmol/l) were highly significant throughout the treatment period (P<0.001).

Results The results were subjected for appropriate statistical analysis; Kruskal–Wallis test revealed that intergroup comparison of the mean percentage of tubule occlusion was statistically highly significant ( P value < 0.001) [ Table 1 ] and Mann–Whitney U test showed that the tubule occlusion potential was statistically significant among all groups except for Group B and D which was not significant [ Table 2 and Figure 1 ].

Bartlett's test of sphericity was highly significant ( χ 2 = 379.8, df = 105, p < 0.001), indicating that all correlations tested simultaneously were significantly different from zero.

CAL was highly significant ( P = 0.001) among group I (5.82 ± 0.52) and group II (3.62 ± 0.63) around implants.

On comparison of hs-CRP levels in grade 2 and grade 3, the difference was highly significant with P < 0.001.

There was a highly significant association found between enduring pain as it is perceived as a weakness and avoiding dentists due to dignity, with a P value < 0.001.

CRP, haemoglobin, EQ‐5D‐5 L self‐assessment, MNA, 6MWT, and mean HGS on the right hand were highly significant (all P < 0.001).

Twenty-two genetic correlations were highly significant ( P < 0.001).

The results showed that the main effect of “group” was highly significant, F (2, 139) = 9.075, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.115 (90% CI [0.039, 0.194]), with clear increases in CG and EG2 cont as well as decreases in EG1 disc .

The results were considered: non-significant when the probability of error is more than 5% ( p > 0.05), significant when the probability of error is less than 5% ( p < 0.05), highly significant when the probability of error is less than 0.1% ( p < 0.001).

This apical shift was highly significant ( P < 0.001) for MB and B sites, significant for lingual sites ( P < 0.05) and not significant for DB ( P = 0.09) and ML ( P = 0.11) sites [ Table 1 ].

The difference between two mean values was analyzed by Student's; t -test and was considered to be statistically significant in case of P < 0.05 and highly significant with P < 0.001.

Groups C and D, which underwent sleep-related interventions, showed highly significant differences ( p < 0.001) across all frequencies.

This is in contrast to changes in post-mortem muscle pH over time ( Fig 2 , right panel), where the fitted GAMM indicated highly significant differences between the crowded and control groups ( F = 23.0, df = 1, p < 0.001).

When compared with a simple correlation of the transformed percentages, the correlation was highly significant ( Fig 8B ; F = 95.4, P < 0.001, R 2 = 0.68).

p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant (*), p < 0.01 was deemed highly significant (**), and p < 0.001 was regarded as extremely significant (***). 3.

Differences were considered statistically significant at *indicates a significant difference (p < 0.05), **indicates a highly significant difference (p < 0.01), ***indicates an extremely significant difference (p < 0.001).

On assessment of the unadjusted associations we selected 35 which were highly significant (P<0.001).

For example, for 614 isolated spinal vertebrae, correlation was highly significant (p<0.001; r = .704).