“highly significant”

Statistical Analysis Statistical significance is depicted as follows: NS = not significant ( p > 0.05), * significant (0.05 ≥ p > 0.01), ** highly significant (0.01 ≥ p > 0.001), and *** very highly significant ( p ≤ 0.001).

It shows that there was a highly significant reduction in all three groups with significant differences between them (P<0.001).

The criterion for statistical significance was as follows: p < 0.05 was considered significant (*), p < 0.01 as highly significant (**), and p < 0.001 as very highly significant (***).

Among these, length and SA showed a highly significant positive correlation (r = 0.94, p < 0.001) with each other.

A p < 0.05 indicated significant (*), p < 0.01 indicated highly significant (**), and p < 0.001 indicated extremely highly significant (***) difference. 3.

The natural logarithm of response ratios (LRR) exhibited highly significant heterogeneity among studies (I 2 = between 96.46 and 99.98%; Cochrane’s Q test = between 309.87 and 57,818.46; P < 0.001; SI Appendix , Table S1 ), with no evidence of publication bias (Rosenthal fail-safe, n = between 324 and 83,692, P < 0.001; SI Appendix , Table S2 ).

The Pearson correlation analysis was conducted for phenotypic values of the RHD-NIL in each environment ( Table 4 ), and highly significant correlations existed between seed oil and seed protein content between environments ( P < 0.001).

On burn wound models, the CEO showed highly significant (p < 0.001) from the 6th post wounding days onwards.

In Penno et al.’s study, subjects with eGDR < 4.14 had a hypertension prevalence of 99.5%, subjects with eGDR value between 4.15 and 5.34 also had a hypertension prevalence of 98.7%, and subjects with eGDR ≥ 5.34 had a hypertension prevalence of 52.8% [ 11 ]; In their work, they also used euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp test to exam the correlation between eGDR and the level of measured glucose disposal rate, the results demonstrated that the correlation of eGDR with measured glucose disposal rate was highly significant (r = 0.624, P < 0.001).

However, saroglitazar treatment (2 mg/kg/day, PO) could significantly reduce TGs ( P <0.01), and saroglitazar (4 mg/kg/day, PO) produced highly significant ( P <0.001) reduction in MSG rats.

A P -value of the 1-way ANOVA test or Kruskal-Wallis test was considered statistically significant at P < 0.05, very significant at P < 0.01, and highly significant at P < 0.001.

As shown in Table 10 , the simple effect of the number of measurements in the experimental group was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

With a mean point score of 17.5 ± 7.0 (range: 0-32), the painDETECT was in linear regression with the NRS, which was highly significant ( P < 0.001).

Comparisons of the OR between the experimental and reference categories were considered significant at p < 0.05 and highly significant at p ≤ 0.001.

There was a highly significant (p < 0.001) combined effect of R25C and UASMS2 on the variability of back-fat thickness.

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.

Moreover, the results remained highly significant when accounting for guarantee-time bias ( P < 0.001; HR = 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01–0.06; Supplementary Table S3).

Based on the regression analyses and in relation to the first hypothesis ( Table 2 ), we find that the frequency of aesthetic experiences in scientific work has a highly significant and large association with flourishing ( B = 0.25, p < 0.001) while holding the other control variables constant.

Changes in maximal arm muscle strength after suggestion Version A to gain informed consent after risk information, taken from every day clinical practice and suspected to be negative, resulted in a highly significant reduction of maximal arm muscle strength at both time points, namely by 16.9% at T1 and by 15.7% at T2 compared to baseline, respectively ( p < 0.001).

COVID stress was a highly significant predictor of anxiety ( p < .001) and depression ( p < .001) providing support for Hypothesis 1 , Hypothesis 2 .

However, the differences in the INR, aPTT and PT between the control group and test group were highly significant, i.e., p < 0.001.

The moderate positive correlation of r = 0.51 is highly significant with p < 0.001 .

Probability values were all calculated to be highly significant (p < 0.001).

flavus There was highly significant ( p < 0.001) variation in incidence of the three peanut genotypes (ICGV–03401, L027B, and Manipinta) inoculated with aflatoxigenic and non-aflatoxigenic A. flavus.

However, this only occurred when aphids were absent, leading to a highly significant interaction term between inductions and aphids (F 3,298 = 11.67, p < 0.001).