“highly significant”

Likewise, there was a highly significant difference in dry biomass at all tested separation distances (p-value<0.0001) ( Figure 5C ).

A linear mixed effect model analysis on maximum CC coefficients confirmed these impressions, finding a highly significant effect of partner, F (1,130) = 91.30, p < 0.0001.

The difference in the number and distribution of lesions in rAAV2/2[MAX]smCBA-Eylea and PBS control groups was highly significant ( p < 0.0001, Chi Square test), strongly indicating that rAAV-mediated over-expression of an anti-VEGF agent is able to prevent disease pathology in AMD (Fig. 5H ).

RSPM performance (M = 62%, SD = 21%) was highly varied across participants, and linear modeling indicated a highly significant relationship between RSPM accuracy and both D’ sensitivity for texts (b = 0.81, p = .0001) and overall judgment accuracy for comments (b = 0.29, p = .0001).

This effect is tested statistically by the interaction of Year by Group, which is highly significant ( F 3 . 15 , 588 . 97 = 25.24, P < .0001), indicating divergent longitudinal trajectories of auditory function between groups.

Through statistical analysis using Student’s t-test, we observed highly significant differences in anti-Xa assay results between bleeding and non-bleeding groups ( p < 0.0001) at both peak and trough times.

Among all the sites where a positive drug–diet interaction was found, the CeA was most highly significant (* p < 0.0001).

However, terms for IL2 in addition to IL2×CSF2 produced highly significant models with coefficient p-values<1e-4.

ln ( R S S n ) + 2 k R S S = ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − y i ^ ) 2 = r e s i d u a l s u m o f s q u a r e s n = n u m b e r o f o b s e r v a t i o n s k = n u m b e r o f e s t i m a t e d p a r a m e t e r s i n t h e m o d e l ( i n c l u d i n g t h e i n t e r c e p t ) Result and discussion Dietary Lys levels produced a highly significant effect on plasma UA ( F (4, 31) = 103.45, P < 0.0001).

ANOVA results showed that among the models of linear, two-factor interaction (2FI), and quadratic, the quadratic model was highly significant and best fit the experimental data (F = 42.36; p < 0.0001) (Table S4).

Kaplan–Meier analysis yielded a highly significant difference in the survival curves between the dichotomized groups (log-rank chi-square = 29.4, P < 0.0001) ( Figure 3 ).

The difference in CCNE1 expression between TU samples and NL samples was statistically highly significant in both datasets ( p < 0.0001).

As shown in Figure 6B , a highly significant difference in OS was detected between the high- and low-risk groups ( P < 0.0001).

An analysis of variance showed that the reactivity of samples from Turkish survivors and from the vaccinated group relative to the control group was highly significant (F(2,74) = 68, P<0.0001).

The likelihood of having both STIs and BV was highly significant compared to having only one infection (chi-square 72.03; p<0.0001).

The difference was highly significant ( p < 0.0001), exceeding the trial’s efficacy threshold.

3.2 Size diversity of cattle between assemblages The LSI values with over 10 observations revealed a highly significant difference in size between the cattle populations divided by assemblages and periods ( χ 2 = 82.7, p < .0001).

In addition, the quadratic term X 3 2 (LOR2) was highly significant ( p < 0.0001), along with a large negative coefficient (−272.987), confirming the strong nonlinear suppressive effect of higher LOR concentrations on the nanoparticle size.

The difference between the two rates was statistically highly significant ( P <0.0001).

The results from GLMMs model showed a highly significant relationship ( p < 0.0001) of both water temperature and light attenuation coefficient to Chl a concentration ( Figure 5 ).

In diabetes, both mortality trends were highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

There was a highly significant positive correlation between the rate of pigment production and of (−)-botryodiplodin production ( r = 0.96, p ≤ 0.0001, regression analysis) for the selected M. phaseolina isolates. 2.8.

These contextual modulations are statistically highly significant (Wilcoxon ranksum test, p < 10 −4 ) and are consistent across the three monkeys and across all four trial types (Supplementary Table S1).

Although not entirely valid, given the informality of the study, it is nevertheless interesting to note that this difference was highly significant (Chi square p < 0.0001).

The t -tests approached significance for the N1 AEP ( p = 0.06) and was highly significant for the P2 AEP ( p = 0.0001).