“highly significant”

LVEF ≤ 0.45 was the single independent and highly significant predictor of early CHF among other clinical and echocardiographic variables (odds ratio 17.0; [95% CI 4.1 - 70.8]; p < 0.0001).

The meta‐analysis further supports this finding, showing a highly significant increase in FC levels in infants with infant colic ( p < 0.0001).

A Kruskal-Wallis test indicated that the difference in NPRA expression among the seven diagnostic groups was highly significant (p < 0.0001).

After accounting for differences due to strategy, mean age and mean PSA in the meta-regression analysis, the amount of residual heterogeneity between studies was calculated to be 76.0, which is highly significant at the 5% level (QE = 176.8, p<0.0001).

These group differences were highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

Additionally, the relation between serum IgG SRID and serum TP Refractometry was highly significant ( p < 0.0001, R 2 = 0.82).

When he is excluded, the mean response remains highly significant (dz = 2.35, p < 0.0001).

The correlation between both subsamples was highly significant ( r = 0.85, P < 0.0001), which indicates that storage in ethanol gives reliable results.

Spearman’s rank correlation of DE scores revealed a modest but highly significant positive correlation (ρ = 0.199, p < 0.0001), indicating a degree of cross-species correspondence in transcriptional changes (Fig. 5 a, Table S2-3).

Specifically, post-hoc comparisons revealed that the difference found when analysing samples at 24 and 48 hpi was highly significant (P<0.0001 for both N1 and N2 gene sequences, Fig.

The difference between the groups for all parameters was statistically highly significant (P<.0001, for all parameters).

The results indicated that there was a highly significant association between PD-L2 and PD-L1 in these tumors ( p < 0.0001) [ 107 ].

The difference in the two-sample test was highly significant ( P = 0.0001).

We found that the differences in variability between LSD and PCB were highly significant ( p < 0.0001) in all three scanning conditions, with higher response variability under the influence of LSD than for PCB.

(TIFF) S1 Table The results of the one-way ANOVA for each figure panel are summarized as follows. In Fig 1B , a highly significant treatment effect was observed (F = 265.6, P < 0.0001), indicating substantial differences between the treatment groups.

Nevertheless, subgroup analysis revealed highly significant sex-related differences between good, moderate, and unfavorable HRQoL outcomes ( p < 0.0001) (Fig. 2 ), as 68.6% of males reported good, 15.7% moderate, and 15.7% unfavorable HRQoL, while only 51.5% females stated good, 33.3% moderate, and 15.2% unfavorable HRQoL up to 10 years after TBI (Fig. 3 ).

IHC H‐scores (Figure 4D ) revealed a highly significant difference between WT and Vasn −/− mice ( p < 0.0001).

After induction of general anesthesia and creation of pneumoperitoneum, a progressive increase in modified LUS score was seen after intubation, after deflation of pneumoperitoneum, 30 min after extubation and 24 h post-extubation compared to the baseline Preoperatively; the difference is statistically highly significant, P < 0.0001 ( Fig. 3 ).

The quadratic model for TS was found to be highly significant (F-value = 31.08; p < 0.0001), with a coefficient of determination R 2 of 0.9756.

Although these associations are highly significant ( P < 0.0001), the effect sizes are extremely small (ORs very close to 1.00).

The difference in SARS-CoV-2 prevalence as shown in high- and low- or middle-income countries was highly significant (5.1% [1634/32,053] vs 21.6% [11,521/53,221], P<.0001).

54.65%), but the existence of the genetic structure was still highly significant (φST = 0.453; p < 0.0001; analysis C).

A highly significant association ( p < 0.0001) was observed between overweight/obesity, central obesity, and hypertension.

NOSE Scale score The overall visit effect was highly significant in the analysis model ( F = 53.4, p < 0.0001).

A paired t-test was applied and with considering a significance threshold of 0.05, the difference in forecasting accuracy between the models showed to be highly significant with p ≤ 0.0001 across subjects.