“highly significant”

Repeated measures ANOVA revealed no significant differences between experienced and new hearing aid users (F(1,76) = 0.967, p = 0.329), but highly significant differences between intervention and control groups (F(1,76) = 93.46, p < 0.001), indicating substantial training effects on processing speed regardless of hearing aid experience.

IB cells had lower input resistance than RS cells (IB cells 167 ± 7.5 MΩ versus RS cells 208 ± 6.7 MΩ) ( Table 1 ), and the difference was highly significant (t (210) = 4.0, p < 0.001).

The proof of concept analysis and the main variability factors for LSM and FT were highly significant at a P value (P<0.001) lower than the scheduled P value of 0.01 and obtained with at least three different methods.

However, the sucrose level in the lines of overexpressed LpSUT2 gene highly significant (P value<0.001) decreased from initial values of 5.02 to 2.61 mg/g during the development from young to mature fronds ( Figure 6 ).

Differences were considered significant when * P < 0.05, very significant when ** P < 0.01, and highly significant when *** P < 0.001 and **** P ≤ 0.0001.

Although no significant difference of CCD counts between the acupuncture and control groups was found ( P = 0.325), a highly significant positive effect of acupuncture was detected in center B ( P < 0.001).

Priming treatments showed highly significant effects ( p < 0.001) across all germination and emergence traits, indicating their dominant role in determining seed performance.

In contrast, a highly significant (P < 0.001) approximately threefold difference was found in the percentage of total cytokine-secreting Ad5-specific CD8 T cells stimulated with Ad5 IC–treated DCs compared with Ad5 vector–treated DCs ( Fig. 4 a ).

Interaction analyses In the logistic regression modelling, we found highly significant ( p <0.001) additive gene effects for the LOC387715 and CFH loci, both having approximately the same effect size ( Table 3 ).

For example, 110 genes showed a highly significant change at p < 0.001 (see Additional file 1 ).

The effects of both breed and demonstration were highly significant (Breed: Wald χ 2 = 13.9, P < 0.001; Demonstration: Wald χ 2 = 19.6, P < 0.001), and there was no significant interaction between breed and demonstration (Wald χ 2 = 0.18, P = 0.67).

Nonetheless, chimeras Du-He3 and Du-He4, but not Du-He2, were poorly infectious for PDH; these in vitro data, performed on the same batch of PDH for the different viruses and reproduced several times, are statistically highly significant (P<0.001, Student's t-test).

Statistical significance was defined as follows: p>0.05, not significant (ns); p<0.05, significant; p<0.01, highly significant; and p<0.001, extremely significant.

The effect was highly significant under a binomial test at the group level ( p < 0.001 for all spatial frequency combinations) as well as at the individual level ( p < 0.001 for all observers).

There was a highly significant decrease in the final body weights of rats in the T2DM ( p < 0.001), TRF 30 ( p < 0.001), TRF 60 ( p < 0.01), TRF 120 ( p < 0.01) and DON ( p < 0.001) groups compared to the CON group.

For the TNC‐pre model (Table 6 ), the intercept estimate was 6.544 (SE = 0.265), representing the mean TNC count in the BTC twin group and was highly significant ( t = 24.696, p < 0.001).

Even though the difference between the mean inhibition zone diameter for the optimized CLT-MVG formulation and the mean inhibition zone diameter for the CLT solution was highly significant ( p < 0.001—Student’s paired t -test), a mean difference of only 5.55 mm is not relevant in practice, as long as all diameters are situated above 45 mm (min diameter = 47 mm, max diameter = 61 mm).

The interaction between AF and the Deep-minus-Surface score was highly significant, F(1, 1626) = 64.29, p < 0.001, indicating that the relationship between relative learning orientation and marks differed clearly by AF.

The complete resection rate increased with increasing peripheral surgical margins, and the differences between the expansion cuts at 0 mm, 4 mm, and 8 mm were highly significant in both groups of patients (p < 0.001).

In all genotypes, the linear regression between both water indicators was highly significant ( p < 0.001), but not very strong (r 2 ranging from 0.61 to 0.80) ( Supplementary Table S2 ).

In accordance, our study demonstrated a highly significant ( p < 0.001) increase in the technique’s performance by using a red instead of a brown chromogen in primary melanomas.

A highly significant decrease in gamma power was evident after training ( F 1,4369 = 86.3, p < 0.001).

The difference of 1.2 standard deviations between liberals and conservatives is highly significant (p < 0.001, Wald test).

In patients, who had adjuvant therapy (n = 5) the increase in ADC values between pre- and post-EBRT did not reach statistical significance using two of the measurement methods (L-ROI mean , P = 0.084; S-ROI min, P = 0.105), while in patients with no adjuvant therapy (n = 47) the increase was highly significant with all ROI measurement methods ( P = 0.001) ( Table 3 ).

The difference in response to permethrin exposure between blood-fed and unfed cohorts from the Fumoz-R strain was highly significant (p < 0.001) with the blood-fed cohorts showing a mean percentage mortality approximately five times lower than that of the unfed cohorts (Table 1 ).