“highly significant”

Six studies on vision impairment reported a pooled OR of 1.60 (95% CI 0.95–2·70; p = 0.08, I 2 = 69.9%); leave-one-out meta-analysis found removal of a single outlying study left a highly significant OR (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.65–2.19; p < 0.001).

This trend became more pronounced at day 7, where highly significant differences (*** p < 0.001) were observed between all groups, with HMTs–CHS showing the highest proliferation rate, followed by CHS, and the Blank group showing the lowest rate.

Late MRI findings showed a highly significant decrease in antral frequency for both water (2.66 ± 0.40 vs 2.48 ± 0.39, p < 0.001) and juice (2.72 ± 0.38 vs 2.40 ± 0.37, p < 0.001), while there was a highly significant increase in antral velocity, sleeve transit time, and contraction height for both water and juice ( p < 0.001) (Table 3 ).

By age groups, the prevalence in younger than or equal to 1 year (13.1 %, 95 % CI: 9.1–17.2; 35/266) was markedly higher than those in old than 1 year (0.9 %, 95 % CI: 0.2–1.6; 7/745), and the difference was highly significant (p < 0.001).

Development and Validation of a Prognostic PCD Signature in PDAC From the TCGA-PDAC cohort, we identified 97 highly significant DEPRGs ( p < 0.001).

Differences were regarded as statistically significant at P < 0.05, more significant at *P < 0.01, and highly significant at **P < 0.001.

The age difference did not reach statistical significance for r within-maze (W = 219; p = .423; δ = 0.15) and for r within-frame (W = 154; p = .341; δ = 0.20), but it was highly significant for r between-frames (W = 101; p < .001; δ = − 0.60).

The log‐rank test indicated a highly significant difference between the two cohorts ( p < 0.001), with a chi‐square (χ 2 ) value of 56.737.

However, a small but highly significant reduction was observed in arc− neurons (8.0 ± 0.7 before KN93 to 7.4 ± 10.7 pA after KN93 [ n = 6], P = 0.001; n = 4 mice).

The result showed a highly significant interaction between eye and session ( F (1,14) = 18.33, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.567), which strongly supports an eye-specific deprivation effect in the LGN.

However, inoculation remained highly significant ( p < 0.001), with increases of 40.8%, 77.3%, 108.6%, and 171.8% at 5–12.5 g, respectively.

The regression results show highly significant coefficients for both variables (β = 0.267, p < 0.001; β = 0.253, p < 0.001), indicating that birth cohort exerts a substantial influence on the returns to higher education.

For ambition in play, there was a highly significant increase in the odds for “high” (OR = 13.45, 95% CI: 5.41–33.42, p < 0.001), while “very high” showed no difference from the reference (OR = 0.98, p = 0.952).

All predictors in both models were highly significant ( p < 0.001).

This is confirmed by their “P-value for effect,” which is less than 0.05 for both markers and is particularly low for CK, indicating a highly significant effect ( p < 0.001).

Although all time points demonstrated highly significant statistical differences between classes ( p < 0.001), the gap between Class 1 and Class 2 narrowed over time, with their difference decreasing from 1.25 points at T1 to 0.43 points by T4, while Class 3 remained distinctly lower throughout all time points (Fig. 3 ).

At 3 weeks, the effect of the group was not significant (F 2,69 = 0.50, p = 0.61), whereas the number of littermates had a highly significant effect (F 1,69 = 21.6, p < 0.001).

In relation to BWG, many of the study factors had a highly significant ( p < 0.001) impact including location (Africa and Asia), breed/strain (Arbor Acres, Ross 308 and Vencobb ( p < 0.05)), age of birds and study duration ( Table 7 ).

PNI and LVI occurred more frequently in poorly differentiated tumors, with highly significant intergroup differences ( p < 0.001 for both).

Statistical analysis consistently demonstrated a highly significant increase in apoptosis in neuroblastoma cells compared with hDFs ( p < 0.001), though replicate data are not displayed.

At PR60, the control group exhibited a marked and highly significant upregulation ( p < 0.001), while expression in the lidocaine group remained low and was not significantly different from sham.

For the change in excess mortality from the second to the third pandemic year, the analysis showed that vaccination rate (third pandemic year) remained a highly significant positive predictor of the increase in excess mortality ( β = 0.68 ; s . e . = 0.08 ; 95% CI [ 0.20 , 0.56 ] ; t ( 13 ) = 4.57 ; p < 0.001 ), after adjusting for prior-year excess mortality, which was itself a marginally significant covariate ( β = − 0.31 ; s . e . = 0.20 ; p = 0.055 ).

After 40 days of gavage, there was a highly significant difference in weight gain among the groups (ANOVA: F = 5.643, p = 0.001), with an η 2 value of 0.540, indicating a large effect size.

In the M habitat, pH showed a highly significant positive correlation with Marinimicrobia ( p < 0.001).

The highly significant results ( p < 0.001) for the baseline, +T1, and +T2 confirm that the superior performance of +T1+T2 over these models is not due to random chance.