“highly significant”

In group B, out of 15 patients, 12 patients had attained normal skin color, which was statistically highly significant at the level of P < 0.001, also one patient had mild improvement and two patients have moderate improvement.

There was a highly significant correlation between the extent of CAD and low HDL-C ( P < 0.001), [ Table 2 ], old age ( P = 0.003) and male sex ( P = 0.02) [ Table 3 ]. 21 (7.1%) patients were asymptomatic, 110 (37.3%) had stable angina, 127 (43.1%) had NSTE-ACS, 20 (6.8%) STEMI and 17 (5.7%) had HF.

Nevertheless, the highly significant main effects ( p = .001) and the robustness of LMMs to moderate assumption violations support the validity of our primary findings regarding temporal declines in muscle performance 4.4 Practical implications The gradual decline in leg strength throughout the race highlights the importance of strategies to manage neuromuscular fatigue.

There was a difference between performance on the first 5 s of the SSB recordings and the last 5 s that was highly significant ( t = 8.186, p < 0.001).

Post-Intervention Trend Change ( β 3 ): Following the intervention, there was a highly significant downward deflection in the slope ( β 3 = −2.7, P < 0.001).

Similarly, pooling 13 studies on male athletes yielded a medium-to-large, highly significant effect (ES = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.37, 1.20; p < 0.001).

The repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a highly significant main effect of Time (F(2.43, 58.34) = 100.26, p < 0.001, Table S2 ), demonstrating that Alamar Blue fluorescence and, thus, cell viability changed during incubation.

ANOVA showed that sample type had a highly significant effect on CUPRAC ( p < 0.001), and post hoc comparisons indicated that spray samples differed significantly from the lowest categories ( p < 0.05).

Analysis of variance ( Table 2 ) indicated a highly significant effect of horizontal distance from the trunk on female soil entry density (χ 2 = 2532.67, p < 0.001), whereas the azimuth × distance interaction was not significant (χ 2 = 12.13, p = 0.6).

Across the five years the association between sex and disease occurrence was highly significant for the major comparisons (all overall p < 0.001).

By providing the beetles with larvae of different ages (and sizes), we revealed a highly significant effect of larval age on the number of larvae killed by the beetles (3-way ANOVA, F = 234.8, P < 0.001), with a steep decrease in this number for larvae older than about 90 ADD ( Figure 8A ).

All t values were highly significant ( P <.001).

Most importantly, there was a highly significant positive correlation between COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and ratings towards “object present” for trials in which there was no object ( r = .21, p < .001).

This relationship is statistically highly significant (p < 0.001) and is shown in Figure 2 and Table 10 .

Results demonstrated a highly significant influence of day after parturition on the non-volatile polar metabolite profiles (P < 0.001) of samples.

Critically, the Group × Time interaction was highly significant (F(10, 640.15) = 419.46, p < 0.001), demonstrating distinct temporal trajectories between groups.

Multiple regression analysis for “Reference Angle α” by instrument position shows highly significant differences between violin position A1 and all other instrument positions ( N = 90, p < 0.001, r 2 = 0.353).

The findings show a highly significant correlation between perceived usefulness and purchase intention ( β = 0.306, t = 8.041, p < 0.001), implying that H1 is accepted.

Because both variables (responses to Love and responses to Amor ) followed a normal distribution, we conducted a t -test, which revealed highly significant differences in favor of responses in Spanish L1 (t = −8.866, p < 0.001 ( p = 3.95 × 10 −10 )).

In fact at 5 min, the difference in mean TER (% of control value) between butaprost and AH6809 treated group (85% vs 116%) was highly significant (p<0.001).

An analysis of these prediction plots and the MLR coefficients in Table 9 reveals the following insights about the principal components: PC1 (Process Intensity Factor) had the largest, and highly significant ( p < 0.001) positive regression coefficient in all three models ( β PC1 : F x = 0.267, F y = 0.266, and F z = 0.218).

Differences among SE profiles The results of the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA between the clusters according to levels of SE showed that there were highly significant differences ( p ≤ 0.001) in all the variables studied (family, teachers and peer support, as well as in academic performance in mathematics and language), although with different effect sizes: family support factor [χ 2 (2) = 155.8, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.296]; teacher’s support factor [χ 2 (2) = 228.5, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.434]; peers [χ 2 (2) = 98.8, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.188]; academic performance in language [χ 2 (2) = 53.2, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.101]; and in mathematics [χ 2 (2) = 48.1, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.091].

The difference in percentage of elastic fibres between superficial and deep fasciae in same region for all four was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

Results with p < 0.01 were considered highly significant, and those with p < 0.001 were very highly significant.

A one-sided t-test to determine whether the difference between the predicted and actual chronological age was less than 2.0 years was statistically highly significant ( p < 0.001).