“highly significant”

The rate of patients censored for ERPI-good was 96.9% and 79.6% for ERPI-poor, with a highly significant difference ( χ 2 = 40.037, P < 0.001) (Figure 1 B, supplementary Table S4, available at Annals of Oncology online ).

A mixed-effects model confirmed a highly significant correlation between the Creatinine ratio relative to baseline Cr and the cIAPe ( P < 0.001), as illustrated in Fig. 4 .

The results revealed highly significant differences in the scores for PF knowledge, exercise enjoyment, and teamwork competencies ( P < 0.001).Additionally,a significant difference was observed in the scores for health-related fitness indicators level scores ( P < 0.05).

Precipitation seasonality was highly significant ( P <0.001) while the other variables were significant ( P <0.05) in predicting CWB distribution.

Furthermore, initial erosions in the US7 score (excluding and including wrist examination) were highly significant predictors for erosions in conventional radiography after one year ( P < 0.001).

Regarding Scenario Five logistic regression analysis revealed a highly significant model, R 2 = 0.21, χ 2 (4, N = 192) = 30.52, p < 0.001.

This difference is highly significant (p<0.001, 2-sided Mann-Whitney).

A chi-square test for trend showed a highly significant increase in PPH rates across the four risk strata ( p <0.001 for trend).

Results: Both groups showed highly significant intragroup improvements in PPD, CAL, intrabony defect depth, crestal level, and bone fill over six months (p < 0.001).

Assessment was found to be highly significant (c2 = 25.337, p < 0.001).

In Figure 3C (Cardiac rehospitalization), the HR increases for higher IC levels, with a highly significant overall association ( P < 0.001), although the non-linear association is not significant ( P = 0.694).

Highly significant p-values (p < 0.001) for the Likelihood Ratio, Wald, and Score (Log-rank) tests confirmed the robust fit of the model. 3.5.

A highly significant third‐order interaction was observed between velocity × SC × time‐of‐day in the isovelocity force data ( p < 0.001; Figure 2b ); however, this was not observed in the power data (Figure 2d ).

Global PERMANOVA revealed that the experimental groups collectively explained a highly significant proportion of ionomic variance (R2 = 0.490, P = 0.001), with homogeneous within-group dispersions confirmed prior to interpretation (Beta-dispersion test, P = 0.753).

A highly significant association was found between ovarian ultrasound examination and PCOS diagnosis ( p < 0.001).

In contrast, for nymph jassids, site effects were not significant before spraying and during early observations (24 and 72 h after the first spray; P > 0.05) but became significant at 48 h after the first spray (P ≤ 0.01) and remained highly significant throughout the second and third spray rounds (P ≤ 0.001) ( Table 3c ).

This difference was highly significant ( Z = −5.39, P < 0.001).

Among the covariates included in the fully adjusted model, TTP demonstrated a highly significant independent association with LAP (β = 0.46, P < 0.001).

Kruskal–Wallis analysis revealed highly significant differences among the three groups for all immune mediators ( p < 0.001), and pairwise comparisons confirmed significant differences between each group (HC vs.

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 ).

6A , using two cell lines, the reduction in 6FGA transport when the buffer lacks sodium was large, 56 % and 48 %, in LLC-PK1 and HEK293 cell, respectively and this effect was highly significant ( P = 0.001 and P = 0.000007, respectively).

Non-parametric ANOVA on NEF-based shape variables revealed highly significant differences among species ( F (3,114) = 118.19, P < 0.001).

Both are highly significant ( F = 12.929, p < 0.001), indicating that the rubric produces stable group quality judgments suitable for Bloom’s “create”-level evaluation.

In the multivariable model, age remained a highly significant independent predictor (OR 1.09, 95% CI: 1.04–1.14, P < 0.001), while type 1 diabetes status showed a trend toward significance (OR 1.78, 95% CI: 0.94–3.39, P = 0.078).

The log‐rank test indicated a highly significant difference ( P < 0.001).