“highly significant”

The expression of these genes in the susceptible Shaw was much lower, even after challenge by the pathogen, showing a highly significant negative correlation ( p < 0.002) (Fig. 9 , Additional file 3 A).

This difference was highly significant (not one of 500 random character deletion replicates had lower node recovery than the simulated fossilization aggregate, giving P = 0.002).

In this comparison, age remained highly significant ( P =0.002, GLM), but smoking (as PY or by category) or case status did not show any effect ( Table 2 ).

Postoperative radiochemotherapy was highly significant associated with development of LEL ( p = 0.002).

This difference was highly significant (P = 0.002).

However, when associated with host order, which itself had highly significant influence ( p = 0.002; R 2 = 0.2072), it strengthened the host order effect ( Figure 3 A).

However, there was a highly significant statistical difference in the type of plasma expander used between them ( P = 0.002).

Correlations for both the Melanoma_gws and Melanoma_ews datasets remained highly significant (P<0.002; P(α) 0.05 0.920–1.000) when the f i values for the NGAN (or NGA) sequences were excluded from the analyses, thereby confirming a role for charge transfer.

Our results were consistent with previous studies and highly significant (RR = 7.7, p = 0.002). b.

Highly significant differences emerged, however, between the median values of healthcare professionals’ perceptions of overcrowding ( p = 0.002).

However, between McGrath MAC and Macintosh and Truview and Macintosh groups, the difference was highly significant ( P = 0.002 for each).

The gender check indicated a highly significant difference in wound infection in the male patients following fistulotomy with marsupialization procedure (10.1%) and conventional fistulectomy (24.1%) (p=0.002).

Critically, the interaction between these two effects—which controls for the nonspecific factors that are not well matched between the first and the second trainings—was highly significant as reported above ( F (1,23) = 11.52, P = 0.002, η 2 = 0.334).

Nevertheless, the difference in decrease between the LSTAs showing ON and OFF polarity is highly significant ( p = 2 × 10 −3 , Fisher exact test).

Furthermore, difference in positive grading (1-2-3) between the most and least favored lips volumes [pictures 1(2)-1(3) and pictures 1(5)-1(6)] is highly significant ( P value = 0.002) (Table 3 ).

Highly significant difference in muscle-epithelial distance was seen between controls as compared to early ( p -value =0.002), moderately advanced ( p -value = 0.001) and advanced OSF ( p -value = 0.001.

In contrast, indices I3 and I4 showed highly significant differences between the BM group and all other groups ( p ≤ 0.002), indicating reduced mineral content and altered mineral–matrix balance associated with this processing pathway.

The two interactions were indeed highly significant in both LTMs (alpha: χ 2 (4) = 17.30, P = 0.002; theta: χ 2 (4) = 17.71, P = 0.001) and CTLs (alpha: χ 2 (4) = 22.04, P < 0.001; theta: χ 2 (4) = 18.76, P < 0.001).

The difference in the occurrence of systemic amyloidosis between the two groups was highly significant (25% of HP variants patients versus 0% of LP variants patients, p = 0.002).

The statistical analysis of error rates revealed no significant main effect of Set [ F (1,22) = 1.10, p = 0.307, η p 2 = 0.047], but a highly significant main effect of Target [F(1,22) = 12.11, p = 0.002, η p 2 = 0.355] with lower error rates for target repetitions.

These differences are highly significant (Fig. 5 , P = 0.002).

The difference between the irradiated and non-irradiated group was highly significant ( P = 0.002).

The decrease in the serum creatinine level at visit 2 was highly significant in mCRC patients (visit 2, 73±17 μmol/l; baseline, 78±18 μmol/l; P=0.002).

Conversely, there was a lower abundance of long-chain ACs in both NPDR groups, this difference being highly significant in the mild NPDR group ( P = 0.002; Figure 2A ).

These differences between the slower versus faster speeds were highly significant (P < 0.002 for On- and P < 0.001 for Off-responses, paired t test).