“highly significant”

This difference was highly significant (p-value <0.001, Wilcoxon test).

At end-expiration, the correlation was weaker but still highly significant (p <0.001).

We next analyzed CSF CXCL13 levels in the RRMS patients given that most of the included studies recruited this subtype of patient, and the meta-analysis showed a highly significant association between elevated CXCL13 levels and RRMS (SMD 0.760; 95%CI, 0.603–1.917; P < 0.001), and no significant association between-study heterogeneity was observed (Q 12 = 12.025; P = 0.444; I 2 = 0.212) in this subgroup.

The correlation between 3D‐cultured and cryopreserved samples is highly significant ( R > .8 and P < .001) for each of the four tested responders (Figure 5 B), indicating that this 272 gene signature is most likely specific for drug response.

In Model 2B of Table 2 , controlling for all covariates, age group, sex, and income quintiles lost significance, while rurality remained highly significant (OR = 12.96; p < 0.001).

There was a highly significant increase in PDL1 expression and decrease in Ki-67 (each p < 0.001) in microinvasive cancer compared to CIS, whereas p16 and E6/E7 remained stable.

This analysis revealed that, in marked contrast to the preresponse epoch, it was possible to classify see again choices reliably across the entire epoch from the initial task response to the subsequent see again choice: There was a highly significant cluster that began just before primary response execution ( Fig. 5 C ; p < 0.001, cluster level) and peaked just before the decision of whether or not to sample more information ( Fig. 5 D ; p < 0.001, cluster level).

A probability ( p ) value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant [* p < 0.05 (significant), ** p < 0.01 (highly significant), and *** p < 0.001 (very highly significant)]. 3.

For the HALF‐MIS group, the difference for HDRS‐17 from start to end was 5.55 (highly significant with p = .001) and for the control group the difference was 1.60 (also significant with p = .019).

Irradiation was also associated with urethral erosion to a highly significant degree (HR, 3.6; CI, 1.92–6.7; P<0.001).

The between-group difference was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

The overall results showed a highly significant interaction between the distances (gap) and the surgical procedures ( p < 0.001), indicating that the difference in force needed to be applied between the different surgical methods varied significantly to reach the same distances.

There was a highly significant association of sarcopenia and osteoporosis in the whole study group ( p < 0.001) and in female participants ( p < 0.001) and a significant association in men ( p = 0.02) (Fig. 2 ).

All these differences were highly significant (P < 0.001).

In all the cases, the LRTs were highly significant ( p -values < 0.001).

However, the difference was highly significant when related to distal roots of 1 st and 2 nd molars (P< 0.001).

Both the results for V V and N V show statistically highly significant differences as confirmed by two-sample T tests (both p < 0.001).

That the responses of the varieties to different light conditions were influenced by both genotype and light quality was confirmed by two-way ANOVA, showing a highly significant interaction (p ≤ 0.001) between the factors analyzed (see results in Table 6 ).

the left in LC 3, and the right in LC 4, determining a highly significant hand x loading condition effect: F (3, 57)=14.94; p < 0.001.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .76, and the Bartlett test of sphericity was highly significant (X 2 28 = 4241.7, p <. 001), indicating acceptability to perform the PCA.

Our Pearson correlation analysis revealed a highly significant positive correlation for root length, perimeter and volume of the SR, R 2 = 0.95 ( p < 0.001), R 2 = 0.97 ( p < 0.001) and R 2 = 0.87 ( p < 0.001), respectively (Fig. 6 a–c).

The correlations in male individuals was strongly negative regarding the carapace length measure (Table 3 ) and remained highly significant even after Bonferroni correction ( r MLH 2 = 0.352, p < 0.001; r IR 2 = 0.352, p < 0.05; r HL 2 = 0.306, p < 0.001).

Although there is no correlation between the mRNA levels of the two aforementioned genes in the overall glioblastoma samples, there is a highly significant positive correlation ( r = 0.6; p < 0.001) in the microvascular proliferation sample subgroup ( Figure 2A ).

Effect of coating was not significant ( p > 0.05) on shoot N and C content but highly significant for shoot δ 13 C ( p < 0.001), and less significant for shoot δ 15 N ( p < 0.05).

Group membership was highly significant (F(2, 146) = 12.22, p < 0.001) and also remained so after the Benjaini and Yekutieli test ( p < 0.001).