“highly significant”

After 30 h of culture ( Figure S1 ), the growth assayed by optical density analysis, which showed a highly significant difference between the Kruskal–Wallis test of H (4) = 45.203 ( p = 0.001) and the Bonferroni correction.

A highly significant ( p ≤ 0.001) positive correlation (R 2 = 0.97, 0.95, 0.93) was observed between EC and the nutrient parameters K, P, and N.

Model comparison demonstrated that the RCS model provided a superior fit to the data compared to the linear Cox specification ( Supplementary Table S5 ), as evidenced by a highly significant likelihood ratio test ( P < 0.001) and lower Akaike and Bayesian information criteria (ΔAIC and ΔBIC both < 0).

Comparing the accuracies of the four participants to the combined accuracies of their permuted data yielded a highly significant difference at the group level ( t = −5.0, p < 0.001).

Thirty-eight of the 46 samples (83%) that expressed CXCR4 also expressed HIF-1α ( Figure 4B ), and this association was highly significant (p<0.001, Spearman's rank correlation).

The Survey Day variable was highly significant ( p <0.001, edf values of 8.20 and 7.59 for MARU 1 and MARU 2, respectively) for both MARUs, with multi-modal seasonal distributions; there was also significant diel variation ( p <0.01, edf values of 3.15 and 3.64 for MARU 1 and MARU 2, respectively) for both MARUs, with peak singing activity during the night (see Figure S3 , for estimated smoothers for Survey Day and Hour).

Subsequent application of robust variance estimation (RVE) showed that after CR2 small-sample correction, the pooled effect size remained highly significant (g = 0.92, 95% CI [0.61, 1.24], p < 0.001).

The interaction was highly significant with F (22,4609) = 3.638, p < 0.001, for digits and with F (22,4268) = 3.627, p < 0.001, for letters, respectively, which demonstrates that the age-related trajectory differed across colors.

Anodization color main effect The main effect of anodization color was statistically highly significant (F(1, 44) = 696.276; p < 0.001; η2 = 0.941).

In the later time window (700–900 ms), grammaticality yielded a highly significant main effect, F (1, 68) = 57.68, p <.001, η p 2 = .459, and interacted with electrode, F (24, 1632) = 30.14, p <.001, η p 2 = .307, ε = .196.

ANOVA results in Table 4 show a highly significant effect (F = 129.658, p -value < 0.001), and OLS estimates in Table 5 indicate that vertical scanning angles are associated with higher recall (coefficient = 0.1302).

Further analysis through Dunn’s multiple comparisons test revealed highly significant differences between all paired amplitude groups ( p < 0.001).

Statistical evaluation by one-way ANOVA demonstrated highly significant differences among groups (F = 98.96, p < 0.001).

Through RSM optimization (highly significant ( p < 0.001)), the optimal SAEW cleaning parameters were determined as follows: cleaning time of 35 s, cleaning temperature of 78 °C, and available chlorine concentration (ACC) of 108 mg/L.

Both Zucker groups had reduced concentrations compared with Wistar rats, with fa/fa rats showing highly significant reductions ( p < 0.001).

The ANOVA analysis showed extremely high F-value (395.54) and p < 0.001, which shows that the model accurately identifies the highly significant main effects ( p < 0.001) of all three variables, as well as the significant two-way interaction between glycerol concentration and sonication time ( p < 0.001) ( Table S1 ).

Interannual Variation in Mean SCL A one-way ANOVA revealed highly significant differences in mean SCL among years ( F (5, 185) = 18.85, p < 0.001).

ANOSIM results for both distance matrices were highly significant ( p = 0.001), suggesting statistically significant inter-group differences; however, the relatively small R values suggested limited separation among groups.

The decrease in conidia production in the Δ Fgac1 mutant is highly significant according to t -test (p<0.001).

Overall Analysis of ΔE 00 The three-way repeated measures ANOVA ( Table 2 ) revealed highly significant main effects for Material (F = 184.15, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.672), Beverage (F = 472.31, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.955), and Immersion time (F = 1165.49, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.928).

A highly significant association was found between professional categories and avoidance of smoking in hypertensive patients (AOR, 7.98; p = 0.001) and diabetics (AOR, 14.78; p<0.001) (Tables 1 and 2 ).

As the left panel of Figure 4B suggests, the significant interaction is due to a highly significant quadratic trend in the Double condition (F(1,9) = 26.26, p = .001), and not in the Single condition (F(1,9) = .007, p = .937).

Clinical evidence demonstrates a highly significant positive correlation between the LF HRV component (a marker of sympathetic tone) and both IPSS (r = 0.9558, p < 0.001) and prostate volume (r = 0.9421, p < 0.001).

Highly significant negative and moderate correlations ( p < 0.001) were identified between paired right-sided facial asymmetries in the horizontal plane and paired left-sided facial asymmetries in the horizontal plane (ρ = −0.538), and a weak to moderate correlation between global right-sided and global left-sided facial asymmetries (ρ = −0.431) ( Table 15 ).

Additionally, a highly significant association between the country of practice and the specific type of AI tool utilized by healthcare professionals was observed ( p < 0.001).