“highly significant”

In patients with moderate head injury (GCS = 9–12), there was a significant improvement in GCS at the time of discharge in all the three groups ( P < 0.05), though changes at 24 h and at the time of discharge were highly significant in group HS 2 ( P = 0.00).

This difference in CES-D scores between men who reported non-fatal suicidal behaviour and those who did not was highly significant ( p < .000).

By the second interview at 32 weeks, a significant difference was detected ( p = 0.004), and by the third interview at 37 weeks, the tele-nursing group demonstrated a highly significant improvement in mean HPLP scores compared to the traditional group ( p = 0.000).

ANXA1 expression showed a highly significant association with pathological type (p =0.00), and triple negative receptor status ( p =0.03).

The third palatal rugae were evidently shorter in class II div 1 patients than in class I patients by 4.24 mm and this difference was statistically highly significant as evident by a P value = 0.000 [ Table 4 ].

Both tests yielded highly significant p-values (p = 0.000).

The time taken for complete sensory recovery in Group D 5 -319.83 ± 61.41, Group D 10 -336.13 ± 61.38, and Group D 15 -415.20 ± 96.6, which is statistically highly significant ( P = 0.000).

On follow up, raised mean MVD was seen in those cases with relapse/deceased as compared to disease-free patients, which was highly significant (p = 0.000).

The F-statistic of the model is highly significant ( p < 0.000 with 18; 5501 degrees of freedom), meaning there is a significant relationship between expected household consumption and the explanatory variables.

The equation that predicts hip BMD from the independent variables was found to be: Hip BMD= -.221 +.026(dairy) +0.006(weight) -0.001(OPG) +.18(K) -0.003(CTX) The value of R 2 (for Hip BMD) was 0.39 (adjusted R 2 was 0.36) a value that was highly significant (p<0.00).

When attitude toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived control were regressed against behavioral intention, the model was highly significant ( P = 0.000) and explained a good proportion of the variance (R 2 = 0.675).

In this study, the biomass regression model ( Table 5 ) was highly significant ( F =35.12; P =0.000) with an adjusted R 2 of 94.29%, indicating that only 5.71% of the variability in the response is not explainable by the model.

This difference was again highly significant (two‐sample KS test, P ~ 0).

The mean ALT level was lower in responders (31.92 ± 2.68 U/L) compared to non-responders (51.95 ± 2.91 U/L), with a highly significant difference (P = 0.000; HS) (Tables 3 and Fig. 2 ).

The experimental group demonstrated a significant decrease in the mean score for the five times sit-to-stand test from 17.78 s (±2.54) at T1 to 13.85 s (±2.74) at T2, with a t-value of 10.213 and a highly significant p -value ( p = 0.000 **).

The positive correlation between DNMT1 and Survivin was highly significant in both tumors ( r = 0.919, P = 0.000) and normal tissues ( r = 0.983, P = 0.000) (Figure 10E ).

For the Root ZX device, ANOVA indicated a highly significant difference among conditions ( p = 0.000).

Accordingly, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for further investigating trauma-specific differences showed highly significant group differences at two hours, two and three weeks after trauma ( p = 0.000, 0.001 and 0.005).

The overall model was highly significant ( p = 00; r-squared = 0.58).

The differences were statistically highly significant ( P = 0.000 for both).

Nonparametric statistics suggests a z value of −3.774 with a highly significant P = 0.000.

Similarly, a highly significant (p=0.00) association was found between community self-efforts and practices for control.

This analysis identified a highly significant subnetwork ( P = 0) with dense connectivity among genes involved in ECM organization, collagen biosynthesis, and chondrocyte development ( Fig. 2E ).

The relation of varying complications with different location of supernumerary was found to be highly significant ( P = 0.000).

Highly significant differences in favor of MEBO group were observed in the case of medical visits (€4.28 versus €5.67, p = 0.00) hospitalization costs (418.48 versus 496.25, p = 0.01) and costs of analgesics (€0.10 versus €0.18 p = 0.00).