“highly significant”

Highly significant differences with P <.001 in variables were found in BMI, hip circumference, waist circumference, and body weight among the anthropomorphic variables, all symptom variables, AMH, number of antral follicles in the left ovary and number of antral follicles in the right ovary among the test result variables, and age and fast food consumption among the given variables.

Comparing WID‐qEC levels in all 22 cancer cases that had WID‐qEC test results available with either all cancer‐free women or all women without a cancer diagnosis (i.e., cancer‐free and women without adequate histology combined) showed highly significant differences ( p <.001) (Figure 2B ).

Furthermore, the individual change in TL was inversely correlated with initial TL at a highly significant level after controlling for age and sex (r = −0.962, p<0.001; Figure 2 ), indicating that the lengthening rate was most pronounced in individuals with shorter telomeres at baseline.

The quadratic models explaining the relationship between temperature and cumulative germination were highly significant ( P < 0.001) and displayed very high R 2 -values (mean = 0.82 ± 0.08; ESM, Table A1) for each population.

A Chi-square test confirmed a highly significant alteration in disease severity distribution following AJ treatment (χ 2 = 24.56, p < 0.001).

The results were interpreted as significant ( P < 0.01), highly significant ( P < 0.001) and insignificant ( P > 0.05).

The differences in periventricular patterns and Dawson's finger detection between NMOsd and MS were highly significant ( P < 0.001).

Among associated factors, misconceptions in HIV knowledge are highly significant (p < 0.001) and those with a higher score of incorrect HIV knowledge had higher levels of stigma.

However, the fecundity rate showed a highly significant difference among the experimental groups ( Figure 2 ; One-way ANOVA; p = 0.001.

P < 0.05 was considered significant, P < 0.01 was considered highly significant, and P < 0.001 was considered extremely significant.

The observed relationship ( R 2: 0.59) had a highly significant slope ( β = 1.34, SE = 0.058), t = 22.883, p < .001) on the log‐log scale (Figure 4 ).

A 3-dimensional scatter plot of the symptoms distribution over the time after SM surgery with the display of the associated regression plane shows a highly significant decreased of all symptoms over the time (p<0.001) ( Fig. 2 ).

The result was highly significant in this study ( P <0.001); It was statistically significant that Urban residence (79.3%) were in the IPT Uptake group compared to 28.8% of those from Rural settings ( P <0.001).

A Mann–Whitney U test comparing baseline VAS values provided for the 10 days before intervention with VAS values provided for the 10 days after intervention was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

The differences between the pre-shaped and straight electrode types are highly significant ( p < 0.001).

The mean difference of 1.39 was found to be highly significant (t(59) = 16.68, p < 0.001, 95% CI [1.22–1.55]).

All pairwise comparisons of the groups are highly significant for both the manual and automated scores ( p < 0.001, pairwise post hoc Dunn’s test), indicating that the pipeline is accurate in quantifying morphology.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sample adequacy of 0.94 and the highly significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p<0.001) supported the data’s factorability.

After DW D1, there was a minimal and insignificant drop observed in the FS of PCR, VCP, CT, and BC; a significant, minor decrease was observed for Gr ( p = 0.029), and a highly significant reduction for HC ( p < 0.001).

The three loci pairs had highly significant (P<0.001) LD values.

Furthermore, all DODAB concentration eluates showed highly significant reductions in DNA damage when contrasted with the eluate of 2 wt% CTAB group ( p < 0.001 for all comparisons).

Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the average CO count per population and their recombination rates was with 0.52 highly significant ( P < 0.001).

A two-way ANOVA of the histamine concentrations resulted in a statistically highly significant difference between mice with impaired and normal kidney function ( F (4, 44) = 23.2, p < 0.001) (Fig. 4 b).

According to the glm model, highly significant differences (p < 0.001) between the three groups were found in the frequency of selection of the options, except for the option 'Others' (p = 0.20).

An independent t -test showed that this effect was highly significant [ t (78) = 3.906, p < 0.001].