“highly significant”

The difference between group I (wt/wt, R/Q211) and group II (I/M142, Q/K222) was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

The quadratic regression model selected by the test is highly significant ( P < 0.0001), indicating that there is a significant linear relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variable of the regression equation.

Then, we confirmed this highly significant correlation between carriage and ESBL-Ec FUTI when analysing combinations of virulence genes (rho = 0.90, P < 0.0001), MLST (rho = 0.99, P = 0.0003), and serotypes (rho = 0.97, P = 0.005 respectively, Figure 1b–d ).

In patients with locally advanced disease or node positivity (pN1–3) proven by RC, AC (compared with SC) provided no OS benefit, despite a highly significant improvement in 5-year progression-free survival (47.6% with AC vs. 31.8% with SC, P < 0.0001).

Modelling of PAS 1 and PAS 2 effects on MEP amplitudes Computational modelling of the PAS 1 and PAS 2 effects on the absolute MEP amplitude raw data as a function of time revealed highly significant differences between PAS 1 and PAS 2 MEP functions ( P < 0.0001) ( Fig 5 ).

Considering the set of GO terms that are highly significant in snRNA-seq (adjusted p -value < 0.0001), 42 out of 47 GO terms identified that were also significant in proteomics (adjusted p -value < 0.05) had the same direction of up/down-regulation.

As the tumor sets were very large, statistical differences between the ERG positive and negative groups were still highly significant ( p < 0.0001; Figure 2 ).

This behavior for the 31-mm balloon is illustrated by the highly significant negative correlation between intraluminal pressure and ovality index observed in both 24-mm and 30-mm PV models (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001, respectively), indicating reduced occlusion efficacy in increasingly elliptical anatomies.

The difference across the five main classes (CRC, APL, non-advanced adenoma, non-neoplastic and no pathology) was significant ( P < 0.0001; Kruskal–Wallis) and remained highly significant comparing all classes excluding CRC (P < 0.0001; Kruskal–Wallis).

The median score in the P − group was 20.7 [14.2–28.1] compared to 47.9 [39.1–56.8] in the P + group, a difference that was highly significant (Mann–Whitney U test, p < .0001).

Compared to the manual approach of biometric data export and intraocular lens calculation (76.7 ± 12.3 s) as well as the manual export of the reference image to a portable external storage device (26.8 ± 5.5 s), a highly significant saving of time was achieved ( p < 0.0001).

Statistical analysis using Student’s t-test showed highly significant differences in potency (EC 50 ) between taurine, GABA and HT with p -values: GABA vs. taurine p = 0.0001, GABA vs.

Results The statistical association between predicted TKV at the time of a 30% decline of eGFR and that at the time of end-stage renal disease were both highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

−2.1 ± 5.5; p < 0.005), the relationship between change in cg05575921 and change was present and highly significant for both those who managed to fully quit smoking ( p < 0.0001; adjusted R 2 = 0.62) as well as those who attempted to quit smoking ( p < 0.0001; adjusted R 2 = 0.70). 4.

The result was highly significant when compared to cells transfected with an empty vector, which served as a baseline transfection control (**** p < 0.0001).

Post-op:30.66) showed highly significant improvement (p<0.0001).

A pair-comparison analysis (Mann–Whitney) of normal tissue (n = 47) and tumors (n = 573) revealed moderate but highly significant overexpression of LSD1 in tumor specimens ( p < 0.0001; Figure 2 A, left panel).

An unpaired t-test between PPG-based (mean = 140 ms, SD = 10 ms, n = 116) and our measurement (mean = 98.3 ms, SD = 16.9 ms, n = 18) confirms a highly significant difference between the distributions; t(132) = 16.75, p < 0.0001.

In contrast, native jugular veins showed a clear, dose-dependent relaxation, reaching highly significant differences at the maximal concentration ( p < 0.0001 vs. all graft groups; Fig. 2 A).

At this stage, IQ was a highly significant positive predictor (B = 0.350, β = 0.497, t = 4.56, p < 0.0001), while sex was not significant ( p = 0.614).

Evaluation by the Fischer’s exact test revealed that only the affected (n = 12) and not the unaffected twins (n = 0) had autoantibodies against the systemic autoantigen targets, and this difference was highly significant (P < 0.0001).

Second, all the model statistics were highly significant ( p < .0001), excepted for the inferior lateral ventricle model for AD which was only significant ( p < .05). 3.3 Classification based on multiple lifespan models To evaluate the classification performance of HAVAs on testing datasets, we performed a comparison with the three most discriminant structures.

In adulthood, animals were weighed at PN90, and while the main effect of sex was highly significant ( F (1,73) = 260.5, p < 0.0001), the ELS treatment groups exhibited no differences in body weight (Table 1 ).

The analytical concordance between Axsym and Architect assays was highly significant (p<0.0001, r = 0.7737, 95%Cl0.7482–0.7969).

Cells expressing the control CYC1 3′UTR reporter showed little difference in the population mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) when Ssd1 was absent (0.87-fold change in expression in ssd1Δ compared to SSD1 ), while cells containing the test CTS1 3′UTR construct exhibited a nearly three-fold, highly significant increase (p<0.0001) in MFI in ssd1Δ cells compared to SSD1 cells ( Figure S1A ).