“highly significant”

In the analyses of individual traits, the largest SLA differences were due to species identity (with a variance of 0.539 log units), but highly significant responses could be attributed to both sampling year (χ 2 = 82.8, df = 3, p < 0.001; Appendix S1 : Table S1 ) and nutrient treatment (χ 2 = 24.4, df = 1, p < 0.001).

3.5 Crop yield The interaction between grain yield and site was highly significant ( p < 0.001) (Figure 4 ).

The difference between the Tr4 and Tr5 groups was highly significant ( P < 0.001), while the Tr4 and Tr1–3 groups were similar.

Variations in landings were highly significant ( R 2 = 0.30, p < 0.001).

There was a highly significant interaction between microalgae dose and measurement time (p < 0.001).

Results were interpreted as highly significant (***) at p < 0.001 and (*) p < 0.01 and significant at (**) p < 0.05.

There was a highly significant correlation between each item related to the dentist and the likelihood of the patient to recommend a certain dentist to others “that is, patient loyalty” ( P < .001).

In the subgroup analysis of age ranges, the age of 0–30 days is highly significant for risk of death ( p < .001) when compared to older age groups.

A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant; P values were indicated as follows: ns, not significant; *, P < 0.05, significant; **, P < 0.01, highly significant; ***, P < 0.001 and ****, P < 0.0001, extremely significant.

The location versus group comparison also showed a highly significant ( P < .001) effect on all EEG activities except TBR ( Table 3 ).

The association between comorbidity and CKD stages were highly significant ( p =<0.001) with a Kendall’s tau value of 0.1517, which indicates moderate monotonicity between the two variables.

There was a highly significant correlation between pressure and secretory response (p < 0.001, Pearson r = 0.99).

Peak airway pressures gradually increased with escalating balloon inflation, and this positive correlation was highly significant (Spearman's rho = 0.99, p < 0.001).

Kaplan–Meier curves showed that survival differences across the three clusters were highly significant (log rank p < 0.001) ( Figure 4(A) ).

Moreover, the effect of the factor group was not significant, while those of the factors room, time point, and their interaction were highly significant ( p < 0.001).

There was a highly significant difference between the 3 groups ( p < 0.001).

A comparison of the expression patterns of the microRNAs with the respective results in FISH (microRNA 34a and 200a—chromosome 1p; microRNA 409—chromosome 14) was highly significant (p ≤ 0.001).

Although all regression models were highly significant ( P < 0.001), effect sizes for these models were small ( R 2 adjusted = 0.021–0.095).

The farm characteristics of farm size, herd size, total, per cow and per hectare milk production each had positive effects on all excreted nutrient loads, with highly significant ( p < 0.001) effects observed for farm size, herd size, and total milk production ( Table 3 ).

However, this peak is proportionally much smaller than that of progesterone, which reaches its distinctive peak in the mid-luteal subphase, with the difference between the early and mid-luteal subphase highly significant ( p ≤ 0.001) as shown in Table S3 .

The Genetic Differentiation among Clam Populations The overall genetic differentiation among these populations was moderate but highly significant (global F st = 0.066, p < 0.001),indicating the existence of the genetic heterogeneity among populations.

Nevertheless, the interaction context X phases presents highly significant differences (F (4, 88) = 11.361, p < 0.001).

Chi-square analysis revealed a highly significant difference ( p < 0.001) between the Ozosan and placebo treatments regarding the occurrence of DS ( Table 2 ).

For mitochondrial SNPs, all three levels of variance partitioning were highly significant ( p < 0.001), with most of the variation occurring between locations (South America and Antarctica, 89.6%) and a minor proportion occurring between mitotypes within locations (7.8%) and among individuals (2.6%).

Regarding patients with T1 and T4 stage, a highly significant difference was observed in low grade patients with (P=0.001) while those with T2, T3 stage, positive urine cytology and positive lymph node, the statistical significant difference was observed in high grade patients with the same (P= 0.001).