“highly significant”

and 24–48 h.p.i., was highly significant by both Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann–Whitney U test, ( p < 0.001, Supplementary Data 5 ).

The differences were deemed statistically significant at P < 0.05, highly significant at P < 0.01, and extremely significant at P < 0.001.

However, when the Candida were quantified, we could not detect any significant difference in cell numbers within the treatment group pre- and post-denture cleansing, despite highly significant differences between the treatment arm and control group from days 3–7 (p < 0.001).

There was a highly significant interaction between race of observer and race of face, F 9 , 270 = 5.45, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.15 ( Figure 2 ).

Seedling morphometrics In 2005, distance had a highly significant effect on number of leaves per seedling, with more leaves per seedling away (7.6±0.3 leaves) than close (6.2±0.2; F 1, 97 = 12.54, P <0.001).

Additionally, probing depth, furcation, and mobility each displayed highly significant likelihood ratio test values of 42.21, 135.2, and 159.8 ( P -value < 0.001), respectively.

As listed in Table 3 , the analysis yielded highly significant effects of latencies after a task, β = 0.51, t (1, 205) = 8.68, p < .001, and order, β = −0.25, t (1, 205) = −4.19, p < .001.

The study also identified a highly significant difference in complex canal anatomy, comparing both MIs on either side and the presence of DLR in MFMs ( p < 0.001).

Highly significant input variables ( p < .001) for estimating fine root biomass were mean annual precipitation, sampling depth and the dummy variables for dominant tree species type and species mixing.

One way ANOVA test revealed a significant difference in the mean peak failure load values of 4 different groups with an F value of 61.389 was found to be highly significant (P < 0.001).

Statistical analysis revealed a highly significant effect of genotype ( F (1,109) = 194.727, p < 0.001), as well as a significant interaction between genotype, housing condition and age ( F (2,109) = 3.146, p = 0.047) on escape latency.

To assess whether the length distribution of common inversions differs from that of RCIs, we compared the distributions observed for the 67 RCIs and the six common inversions on 2R, and found a highly significant difference (Kolmogorov-Smirnov two-sample test, P < 0.001).

This model was highly significant [ F (4,28) = 15.44, p < 0.001], and explained 72% of the total variance in Python learning rate.

However, compared with issue 3, which showed a highly significant difference in the group means ( P < 0.001 ) ( SI Appendix , Table S2 ), the group means for issue 4 had no statistically significant difference ( P = 0.067 ) ( SI Appendix , Table S2 ).

Overall, between-method correlation was highly significant for aldosterone concentrations ( R = 0.945, p < 0.001) and less strong but significant for DRC/PRA ( R = 0.422, p < 0.001).

The pre-test performance covariate was highly significant, F (1,37) = 2695.3, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.754 (zero-order correlation between the pre-test and the post-test performance were comparable between the tDCS conditions: Pearson r = 0.89 and r = 0.83, for the sham and the active stimulation, respectively).

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) was 0.72 and 0.84 for attitude and practice domain respectively and Bartlett’s test of Sphericity for both domains were highly significant ( P < 0.001).

The cluster effect was highly significant, according to PERMANOVA analysis ( p value < 0.001) (cluster_analysis.xlsx), and explained 72% percent of sample variation.

Differential treatment of cancer organoids over 2 passages clearly showed that addition of these Wnt agonists to OCM resulted in a highly significant ( P < 0.001) inhibition of organoid growth, an effect confirmed for all five OC organoid lines tested (Fig 5 C).

Indeed, separate age group analyses confirmed that the phrasal planning effect was highly significant for both young (40 ms, 4.6% benefit, p < 0.001) and older (41 ms, 4.0% benefit, p < 0.001) adults.

Physical Condition Improvement As shown in Table 1 , there was a highly significant decrease of the Ruffier index between V1 and V3 ( p < 0.001), observed both in the treated and in the placebo group, following intragroup analysis.

Differences were considered to be highly significant, significant, or nonsignificant for P ≤ 0.001, P ≤ 0.05, or P > 0.05, respectively.

Both the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure value (0.96) and highly significant Bartlett’s test ( p < 0.001) indicated excellent sampling adequacy.

The differences between POTS patients and the two other groups were highly significant both at the 1st and 10th minute of tilt (all P < .001).

In the medial TH, one-way ANOVA indicated a highly significant effect of circadian time on neuronal activation (F 6,23 = 8.47, p < 0.001).