“highly significant”

We have also investigated the correlation between AD and early signs of age-related macular degeneration in a subset of participants of the AIBL cohort, and found a highly significant association with AD diagnosis ( p < 0.0001); the reason for this association is unclear [ 151 ] and warrants further investigation.

The bacterial load difference mentioned above was highly significant (**** p < 0.0001) in all these groups.

Discussion Highly significant differences ( p ≤ 0.0001) were observed between the accessions for all of the studied traits (Table 1 ).

Subrahmanyam, who found that the recovery time in Group B was 5.86 ± 1.3 min and in Group F was 3.33 ± 0.8 min, which was statistically highly significant ( P < 0.0001).[ 20 ] In our study, although sedation scores were higher in butorphanol group as compared to fentanyl group, the majority of the patients of butorphanol group were responding to verbal commands at 1⁄2 h postoperatively.

The IL-6 levels for SC, IM and IP routes also revealed a highly significant inter-route difference ( P < 0.0001) (Figure 5 F).

3 a): A one-way ANOVA showed a highly significant between-groups difference ( F (4,55) = 10.32; p = 0.0001).

coli also remains highly significant (OR = 1.79, p < 0.0001), underscoring persistent concerns regarding microbial contamination in drinking water.

When comparing the correlations among mutational impacts defined by our MD metrics (i.e., dCORR and dFLUX), we find a highly significant correlation between dCORR values for DNA and RNA ( r = 0.58, p < 0.0001) and between dCORR values in DNA and dFLUX values in RNA ( r = 0.55, p < 0.0001).

Between visits 1 and 5, the fall in systolic BP was highly significant ( p < 0.0001) so that values of 132.5 ± 7.22 mmHg were attained, although no significant inter-group differences were evident.

This 27.9% relative difference was highly significant (P<0.0001).

We found highly significant correlations between HRQOL and the activities of daily living measured by the Barthel Index ( p < 0.0001; r = −0.6946; r 2 = 0.4825; Figure 1 A), the MDS-UPDRS part II ( p < 0.0001; r = 0.6586; r 2 = 0.4338; Figure 1 B), and motor impairment evaluated by MDS-UPDRS part III ( p < 0.0001; r = 0.4562; r 2 = 0.2081; Figure 1 C).

Biochemical analysis has showed that ALB was highly significant in HCC than control group (P =0.0001).

With respect to X 0 , all variables were highly significant (P < 0.0001) and were therefore included in the final model (detailed in Supplementary information: model outputs).

Statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that, while there was a highly significant effect for sex ( F (1, 131) = 873.4, P < 0.0001), there was none for Wolbachia ( F (1, 131) = 0.03728, P = 0.8472).

The ANOVAs for both size and shape reveal that the main effect of ‘tooth germ’ is highly significant ( P < 0.0001) compared to digitizing error, meaning that digitizing error in placing landmarks on tooth germs is highly negligible ( S1 Table ).

The mesh count raw data (Figure 2 C) show that 40 nM Ov -GRN-1 increased the mesh count from the medium only control of 9.7–15.7 meshes—a highly significant ( P < 0.0001) relative increase over the blank control of 62% (Figure 3 A).

As an example, the dependence of the exercise-induced change in the activity of Catalase on its initial activity was highly significant ( P < 0.0001) and strong ( R 2 = 0.43).

However, the overall regression model was highly significant ( P < 0.0001), indicating that disease classification is a key determinant of PET signal variability.

Applying the aforementioned post hoc ANCOVA sensitivity analysis, the treatment effect defined by the primary outcome measure remained highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

The difference between the groups was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

hyodysenteriae WC antigen in the 20 pigs on the uninfected farm A did not show a significant change during the course of experiment, while there was a highly significant ( P < 0.0001) increase with time in the cohort on infected farm C (Figure 2 , panel A).

Two-way ANOVA showed a highly significant treatment effect ( F (1,20) = 47, p < 0.0001), time effect ( F (4,20) = 91, p < 0.0001), and interaction effect ( F (4,20) = 11, p < 0.0001), indicating a time-dependent pharmacological inhibition of DAT functions.

The variance (ANOVA) analysis of the significance of the quadratic polynomial models 4 of the content of TTSs showed that the coefficients of linear ( X 1 , X 2 , X 3 and X 4 ) and quadratic coefficients ( X 3 2 ) were highly significant ( P ≤ 0.0001) with regard to the content of TTSs.

An analysis of variance on the values of BSS for the locations and factors in the GxExM factorial combination showed that the factor ‘Location’ had a highly significant (p < 0.0001) effect on the BSS (Table 3 , and S1 ).

Statistical findings reinforced this approach: A one-way ANOVA on mean percent change in Cp showed a strong group effect [F(2,36) = 50.42, p < 0.0001)], with post hoc Tukey HSD tests revealing no significant difference between Non-Responders and Placebo (mean difference = 0.25%, p = 0.998), but large, highly significant differences between Responders and Placebo (mean difference = 35.74%, p < 0.0001) and Responders and Non-Responders (mean difference = 35.49%, p < 0.0001).