“highly significant”

All results were highly significant ( p < 0.001).

Differences between the extracts were highly significant (p < 0.001).

There was a highly significant decrease in the mean value of serum adiponectin level in liver fibrosis-induced groups II and IV compared to normal groups I and III, respectively ( P < 0.001), as shown in (Table 1 ) .

All values were considered significant at P <0.05, and highly significant at P <0.001.

P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, P < 0.01 was highly significant, and P < 0.001 was extremely significant.

The mean change was highly significant between NSO and placebo ( P < .001).

There was a highly significant association between anti-RgpA and anti-PPAD antibodies (using the quantitative data of dilution 1:400) and RA diagnosis ( p < 0.001) ( Figure 2 ).

Adjusting for maximum tumour diameter, lymph node and resection margin involvement, degree of differentiation, and whether there was presence of perineural infiltration, the histologic type of differentiation remained highly significant (p < 0.001; HR 2.7; 95% CI 1.5–4.9).

Across the groups, an overall highly significant difference among treatments was detectable ( F = 61.600, P <0.001), mostly due to the fact that the patients receiving drugs alone had more symptoms than the two SLIT groups (Post Hoc Sidak correction: drugs vs. sSLIT, mean difference 142.3, P < 0.001; drugs vs. aSLIT, mean difference 147.4, P < 0.001).

In addition, Bartlett’s test was highly significant ( p < 0.001), confirming that the correlation matrix was suitable for this analysis.

The difference of effect observed was significant ( p < 0.05) for germination percentage while it was very highly significant ( p < 0.001) for all other parameters.

On the other hand, STD group revealed the highest spatial learning and memory as compared to all the groups, which also depicts the highly significant variation ( P < 0.001) as compared to the AlCl 3 treated group.

On 42 d, the incorporation of XLE in the diet induced a highly significant increase in the serum CAT ( P < 0.001) and T-AOC ( P = 0.003) levels, along with a highly significant decrease in the MDA content in broilers ( P < 0.001). 3.6 Effects of XLE supplementation on the liver antioxidant capacity and immunoglobulin levels in broilers As shown in Table 10 , the addition of XLE to the diets significantly increased the contents of superoxide dismutase (SOD; P < 0.001) and the contents of T-AOC ( P < 0.001) in broiler livers, while also decreasing MDA content compared to the control group ( P = 0.035).

By designating the distinct generic clades as foreground branches, we unequivocally identified a highly significant signal of positive selection ( p < 0.001) acting exclusively on the ycf1 gene within the Pinalia lineage.

YPP expressed positive highly significant correlation with HSW (r = 0.85, p < 0.001), while it showed negligible negative correlation with DF and PM.

The Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was highly significant (χ 2 = 764, p < 0.001), supporting the suitability of the data for principal components analysis [ 24 ].

This result holds true when analyzing microbial community composition from only 2018 samples, again, the geographic distance matrix has a moderate, but highly significant relationship with the species Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix (Mantel statistic R = 0.27, p -value < 0.001).

All other comparisons yielded highly significant ( P < 0.001) differences in cell counts of resistant bacteria.

The difference in the correlation coefficients was highly significant ( p < 0.001): the statistical significance was confirmed and validated with Fisher’s z transformation test ( p < 0.001). 4.

In contrast, methylated breast cancer specimens exhibited a highly significant (P < 0.001) loss of ID4 expression (median fold change = 12.3).

It appears that ML increased from about 0.42% in 1997 to 0.70% in 2001 largely due to cases of NHL (2.0–3.7%) and HD (0.6–1.3%) whereas the incidence of BL remained constant, which differences were statistically highly significant (p-value = 0.001) [Figure 2 ].

The difference between the three lines became highly significant after 15 min of restraint ( F 2,53 = 140.272, p < 0.001, post hoc tests: all p < 0.001), when, in addition, there was also an interaction of line and condition ( F 2,53 = 3.468, p = 0.038).

Highly significant changes were found at all the follow-ups (p < 0.001).

It was associated with a 16.3% higher rate of elective inpatient admissions, compared with the matched control group (p=0.048, 95% CI 0.1% to 35.1%; 887 admissions in the integrated care group vs 661 in the control group) and a 10.7% higher rate of GP contacts, which was highly significant (p<0.001, 95% CI 6.2% to 15.4%; 25 585 contacts vs 22 654 contacts).

This decrease was highly significant (t = 4.089; df = 65; p < 0.001) and was equal to a moderate standardized effect (Cohen’s d = 0.50; 95% CI 0.25–0.76; Hedges’ g = 0.49; 95% CI 0.24–0.75), which means that the people in the study lost weight. 3.4.