“highly significant”

The significance level for the calculations was set as follows: significant, p < 0.05; very significant, p < 0.01; highly significant, p < 0.001; and extremely significant p < 0.0001 using letters from a to d. 3.

The effect of hydrogen peroxide on the “fraction of fluorescence signal outside of the pyrenoid” was highly significant (P<.001), and we thank the reviewer for their suggestion.

These three percentages were highly significantly different (χ 2 = 19.7; P < 0.001), with a highly significant linear trend ( P < 0.001).

CKO mice also exhibited a lower VO 2 ( p = 0.04) but without a significant difference in VCO 2 ( p = 0.348), yet with a highly significant increase in RER ( p < 0.001).

Moreover heterogeneity across the studies was found to be highly significant (p<0.001, I 2 = 95%).

As seen in Figure-3 oncological outcome differed highly significant between cN0 organ-confined, cN0 locally advanced, low-risk and high-risk group (p <0.001).

These changes represented about 20% and 40% rises relative to the pre-dialysis and pre-reinfusion PAP values, respectively, and were highly significant relative to baseline ( p < 0.001) ( Table 2 ).

Seven microRNAs (miR-16, miR-19a, miR-27a, miR-29b, miR-101, miR-130a, and miR-191) had a highly significant correlation ( p < 0.001) with INR, bilirubin and MELD score.

This improvement was found to be highly significant (t(24) = −9.798, p < 0.001).

MHco3/18.F 1 observed heterozygote frequency of 15 (13.6 expected according to HWE) at codon 167 was not significant but at codon 200 was highly significant (χ 2 = 66.47, p < 0.001) with 77 observed heterozygotes (40 expected).

There was a highly significant correlation between HbA1c and FPG, as shown in Figure 1 (r 2 =0.86; P <0.001).

Even after controlling for the state fixed effects, the positive effect of the peer score—the average transparency score of all other hospitals in the same HRR—remained highly significant (0.42; P < 0.001).

In addition, a distinction was made between different significance levels: in the Results Section (see Section 3 ), a p -value of p ≥ 0.05 corresponded to “non-significant” (n.s.), p < 0.05 to “significant” (*), p < 0.01 to “highly significant” (**) and p < 0.001 to “very highly significant” (***).

RM-ANOVA revealed a highly significant effect of session, F (19, 285) = 37.18, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.71, which reflected a significant linear increase, F (1, 15) = 81.01, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.84, and a significant quadratic pattern, F (1, 15) = 11.30, p = .004, η p 2 = 0.43. 3.2 Transfer task performance Table 2 shows the score on each of the outcome measures, separately for each group and assessment session.

The interaction term of ANI scores and CFS scores was highly significant, b = 0.048, 95% CI [0.028, 0.067], t = 4.897, p < .001 The results showed that CFS scores were not significantly related to PTSS scores when ANI scores were low, b = -0.360, 95% CI [-0.866, 0.145], t = -1.413, p = .161; when ANI scores were high, there was a significant relationship of CFS scores to PTSS scores, b = 0.792, 95% CI [0.399, 1.185], t = 3.998, p < .001.

The absence of any patients over 40 in the non-CIA group, coupled with a highly significant p -value of <0.001, indicates a clear age-related trend.

DMRs in SAS fish were twice as frequently hypo-methylated relative to wild fish than hyper-methylated and this difference was highly significant (68%: 193/284 hypo-DMRs; 32%: 91/284 hyper-DMRs; binomial P -value < 0.001).

The model is as follows: Survival ~ sex + ( 1 | patRIL ) + ( 1 | RIL : vial ) + ( 1 | RIL : sex ) + ( 1 | group ) + ( 1 | set : group ) The fixed effect of sex was highly significant ( z = −8.0, P < 0.001).

It is worth noting that the contents of CAF, laccasein, and galangin reached highly significant increases ( p < 0.001) at 2 h, 4 h, and 6 h of high-temperature treatment compared with those before high-temperature treatment, and showed an overall increasing trend with the lengthening of the high-temperature treatment ( Figure 4 ).

Thus, we observed weak enrichment of strain-specific variants at sex-biased CREs when considering the full eQTL regions, but found a highly significant, 2.5-fold enrichment within intra-TAD intervals (p<0.001 for intra-TAD interval variants vs p = 0.278 genome-wide).

The CD4 depletion remained highly significant in the duodenum of virally suppressed participants ( P < 0.001), but it was less pronounced in the colon and no longer reached statistical significance ( P = 0.1).

For all METTLs, d S was significantly greater than d N and all Z -tests for selection (i.e., HA: d N < d S ) were highly significant ( P value < 0.001) ( table 3 ).

A repeated measures ANOVA of the wellbeing items (active; alert; excited; enthusiastic; happy; inspired) showed highly significant differences between the items, F(5,1555) = 52.68, p < 0.001; Bonferroni t -tests showed that the item ‘excited’ was significantly lower than the other five items, t(311) = 8.70, p < 0.001 for the smallest difference ( Figure 1 ).

The inter-group difference was tested through anosim analysis, and the results indicated that the difference between the groups was highly significant (R = 0.7215, p = 0.0010), implying that the beta diversity of the gut microbiome in diabetic mice was significantly improved by TFs intervention, consistent with the results of alpha diversity analysis. 3.4.

Thus, the following simple multiple-linear regression model without interaction effects was calculated: (1) Mean Total System Time for Severely Injured Patients = 335.88 − 0.71 Medical Specialists − 3.34 Medical Assistants − 9.57 Rotation Physicians − 0.17 General Nurses − 2.98 Surgical Assistants − 8.88 Surgical Nurses − 34.61 Radiology Assistants Please note that most of the independent staff category variables had a highly significant ( p -value < 0.001) or high significant ( p -value < 0.01) impact on the dependent variable mean total system time for severely injured patients, while only the independent variable number of general nurses had no significant impact ( p -value = 0.12) as shown in Table 5 and in Figure 4 , the Pareto chart of the standardized effects.