“highly significant”

There was a highly significant interaction ( p = 0.001) between EQ-5D change score and mental health status at baseline, and also between EQ-5D change score, time to commencement of treatment, and mental health status.

The model predictions for drug combination approval likelihood showed a slightly lower, yet highly significant correlation (r pb = 0.56, P < 0.001) than for individual drugs ( Figure 4c ).

Highly significant associations were found with the reaction time (ID: 404, ‘Duration to first press of snap-button in each round’) W = 5.5641, p < 0.001 and with the Trail Making Test (ID: 6771, ‘Errors before selecting correct item in alphanumeric path (trail #2)’) W = 8.3105, p < 0.001.

There was a statistically highly significant difference between PBS at the coronal and the apical level ( P < 0.001) [Tables 2 and 3 ].

However, when analyzed on cluster level, principal component analysis (PCA) revealed highly significant segregation of the immune profiles before and after hookworm infection (Fig. 2B , PERMANOVA P < 0.001).

Results of the ANOVA test indicated highly significant variations (F = 12.45, p = 0.001) between categories of IUCN.

However, three variables were found to have highly significant correlations (p < 0.001) with TCL at every scale and region assessed—FDI (positively correlated at each scale/region), percent of rural population (negatively correlated at each scale/region with a slightly weaker correlation in Africa [p < 0.01]), and GDP per capita (positively correlated across scales/regions except for Africa, which was negatively correlated at the p < 0.01 level) (Supplementary Figs.

Highly significant differences were observed in viral load among fly genotypes (test of the intercept: χ 2 = 146.734, 8 d.f., p < 0.001) that were of very large magnitude ( η P 2 = 84.85 % ) , thus confirming that DCV load strongly varies among host genotypes.

All correlations were highly significant ( p < .001), with high to moderate amplitude.

Fisher’s exact test values were highly significant, with p -values of <0.001 for all of the 1,000 contingency tables of inferred transmission, suggesting that the observed patterns did not occur by chance mixing of species.

Human Cytokine Array Human cytokine array assessment showed intensity of anti-inflammatory cytokines TGF-β1, and IL-4 were highly significant among the analyzed groups (F = 64.456, p = 0.001) and (F = 20.426, p = 0.007), respectively ( Figure 7 and Figure 8 ).

Knockdown of SF3A2 resulted in a much more dramatic upregulation of basal CRE-GFP (~2.5-7-fold increase relative to controls, highly significant for one of the two sgRNAs, p < 1.0x10 -3 by one-way ANOVA test) ( S5A Fig ).

N retention ( P > 0.25) was not influenced by treatment but highly significant responses ( P < 0.001) were observed for the 3 parameters of energy utilization.

The ANOVA of the regression model demonstrates that the model is highly significant ( p < 0.001).

The association between mother/mother’s substitute and malnutrition was statistically highly significant ( P < 0.001).

Exploratory factor analysis Using principal axis factoring, all 67 subjective definition of contact items showed their overall suitability for an EFA (with a good KMO of .96) and a highly significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (χ 2 (2,211, N = 498) = 23,605.33, p < .001).

However, a highly significant difference (P< 0.001) was found between RelyX TM Unicem and G-CEM TM cements.

Results: Salivary ferritin levels were higher in children with severe ECC (159.53 ± 18.65 μg/dl) compared to children with no caries (92.16 ± 12.91 μg/dl) and a highly significant statistical difference was seen ( P < 0.001).

Group differences in neurocognitive function The MANOVA on group differences in neurocognitive function was highly significant for Group (F(16,176) = 3.78, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.256).

However, the main effect of image category was highly significant ( F [1, 76] = 158.38, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.67), and the interaction of age group and image category was also significant ( F [3, 76] = 3.19, p = 0.028, η 2 = 0.11).

Significance levels were denoted as follows: P < 0.05 indicates significant differences, P < 0.01 denotes highly significant differences, while P < 0.001 signifies extremely significant differences, and P > 0.05 suggests a lack of significant differences.

Thus, the QOL consistently improved over the period of the study, and this improvement was found to be statistically highly significant ( P < 0.001).

Hypothesis driven analyses In the early time window (200−400 ms) – assigned to the MMR – analysis showed a highly significant effect of the local rule violation (F(1, 46.08) = 12.84, p < 0.001; Fig. 2 ).

Five of the patients had previous diagnosis of heart failure, and all these patients ultimately developed AKI, leading to a highly significant difference in prevalence of heart failure between the groups ( P = 0.001).

In this sense, differences were considered as non-significant (NS) when p > 0.05, significant (*) when p < 0.05, very significant (**) when p < 0.01, and highly significant (***) when p < 0.001.