“highly significant”

However, when compared to the erythritol and group the difference is more visible, as there was a highly significant difference ( p < 0.001).

Using the Student's t -test, the difference in mandibular right canine dimension between males and females was found to be highly significant ( P < 0.001), and the degree of freedom was found to be 398 and confidence interval was 0.48–0.59.

Except BLCV, sexual differences can be noticed in all odontometric measurements and these differences were highly significant for the variables: BL, MD, and MDCV ( P < 001).

The interaction term for frailty and the diaphragm was highly significant (OR = 4.23, 95% CI: 2.37–7.54, p < 0.001), which further demonstrated supra‐additive synergy confirmed by additive interaction metrics (RERI = 1.94, AP = 0.46, SI = 2.31; all p < 0.05).

The results indicated a highly significant positive association for the neocortex (R 2 = 0.75, p = 0.001; Figure 5 D), and a significant positive association for the whole cerebral cortex (R 2 = 0.57, p = 0.011; Figure S3 ).

After exclusion, this effect became highly significant ( F (1,7) = 38.155, p < 0.001) and the estimated coefficient increased in magnitude ( β = −6.510, 95% CI = −9.003 to −4.018), indicating a greater difference between the two groups after the removal of influential studies.

2 ), the association between SPEED score and resident burnout remained both relevant and statistically highly significant (aOR 0.54 for each point higher on the SPEED, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.62, p < 0.001).

A likelihood-ratio test comparing the model to ordinary logistic regression is highly significant for these data ( p < 0.001).

This gait dependent shift between left and right hindlimb use at walk and trot was documented as statistically highly significant differences in MML (p < 0.001) in all electrode positions.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that ammonia nitrogen concentration had a highly significant effect on the ventilation frequency of rainbow trout ( F = 24.63, p < 0.001).

Similarly, a highly significant association was observed with bla NDM-5 , where 80.8% of bla NDM-5 positive isolates were class 1 integron positive (χ 2 = 29.07, p < 0.001).

At six MAP, highly significant differences ( p ≤ 0.001) among genotypes for stem incidence and foliar incidence was observed ( Table 2 ).

The results were considered significant at p < 0.05 and highly significant at p < 0.001.

Apoptosis analysis ( Figure 1 B) showed that compared with the Con group, the TP group displayed a highly significant increase in apoptosis rate ( p < 0.001).

This G i/o protein-mediated recovery was highly significant compared to both the preceding forskolin plateau (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p < 0.001; black asterisks) and the time-matched forskolin control group at 24–26 min (Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.001; grey asterisks).

This analysis confirmed the highly significant difference in the frequency of K65R among subtype C patients compared with subtype B patients (adjusted OR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.55–2.62, P < 0.001).

The moderate‐high heritability obtained (h 2 = 0.579 ± 0.180), highly significant despite the error associated with the wild scenario inspected ( p < 0.001), supports a genetic component underlying resistance/tolerance to P. olseni i .

Relative expression peaked at day 2, exhibiting a highly significant upregulation ( p < 0.001).

The results showed that in all three performances, the correlation, ρ (rho) value, between the audience participants was greater and significant ( p < 0.05) or highly significant ( p < 0.001) during scene 4 of part 2 “You/We” when also their attention was increased (Table 4 ).

twins) on BWT, WWT, PWDG, and WA was highly significant (p<0.001).

The PERMANOVA test indicated a highly significant separation among the three groups (R 2 = 0.4015, p = 0.001).

For the Asian-parent condition, the simple main effect of Age group was highly significant, F (4, 121) = 13.023, p < .001, indicating an overall improvement with age for the own-race condition.

The chi-square result shows that the likelihood ratio statistics are highly significant ( p < 0.001), suggesting that the regression model has a strong explanatory power.

WGCNA of gene counts of all studies revealed a single highly significant module across treatments (Figure S1 – Additional file 2; p < 0.001).

The difference in the location of the identification boundary between the two groups was again highly significant (F(1,22) = 32.8, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.599).