“highly significant”

This highly significant difference ( p < 0.0001) highlights the ability of Cp@CS/BME NPs to sequester cells in the G2 phase ( Figure 7 A–C).

The correlation between model predicted and empirical results was highly significant (P<0.0001), with an R 2 of 0.53 ( Figure 4B ).

The model also showed significant correlations with clinical markers, including faecal calprotectin ( r s = 0.50), C-reactive protein (CRP; r s = 0.45) and Physician Global Assessment ( r s = 0.45), all of which were highly significant ( p < 0.0001), supporting the clinical validity of UC-SCALE. 23 Aside of CNNs, other computational methods have been employed to detect mucosal inflammation.

This result of zero overlapping genes given these two groups is highly significant ( p value < 0.0001) indicating that this result was not due to chance.

These differences were highly significant ( P < 0.0001) (Fig. 5 ).

All T 2 values are highly significant ( p < 0.0001), indicating a strong, consistent influence of factors (time from surgery, speed of walking) on the electromyographic profile.

The model was highly significant ( p < 0.0001), while the lack-of-fit term was not significant ( p > 0.05), indicating a good fit and significant main effects.

Except for MTV ( p = 0.06), there were highly significant correlations between SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, TLC and myelosuppression degree results ( p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001, and p = 0.0016, respectively).

The results were highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

These differences were highly significant ( P < 0.0001, Fisher’s Exact test).

The increase in the student performance was found to be very highly significant in group I after the lecture (p-value < 0.0001) (Figure 2 ) (Table 1 ).

Whole leaves on intact branches were cropped on <1% of occasions, but 47% of bites cropped from despined branches removed entire leaves; this was a highly significant difference (Chi‐squared test: X 1 2 = 283.13, p < 0.0001).

We found a highly significant difference (p<0.0001) in the knowledge of rabies among education levels, indicating that education is a primary determinant of knowledge on this disease.

Echocardiography The difference in Group I and Group II was highly significant in terms of both the baseline GLS (-13.37 ± 2.21 vs -19.11 ± 3.4; p < 0.0001) and GLS at 1-year follow-up (-11.23 ± 2.19 vs -13.47 ± 1.84; p < 0.0001).

This is supported by their highly significant levels observed in both A549 cells ( P adjust < 0.0001 for both FAM83A and GPR37 genes in Table 4 ) and LUAD patients ( P < 0.0001 for both FAM83A and GPR37 genes in Fig. 5 a).

Linear contrast tests were all highly significant ( p < 0.0001 ) for all of the MUF values, suggesting a linear increase over time.

The Egger’s test result was highly significant (t = 6.60, p < 0.0001), indicating potential asymmetry and suggesting the likelihood of publication bias ( Supplementary File S26 ). - Similarly, in the OS multivariate analysis, the funnel plot showed some studies lying outside the triangular area, consistent with significant heterogeneity.

The robustness of the model was further supported by multivariate test statistics, including Pillai’s trace, Hotelling–Lawley trace, Roy’s greatest root, and Wilks’ Lambda, all of which were highly significant (p < 0.0001), confirming the presence of a statistically meaningful association between the two variable sets.

A Chi-square test revealed a highly significant association between the experimental group and the likelihood of committing a commission error ( χ 2 (2) = 469.76, p < 0.0001), indicating a large effect (Cramer’s V = 0.411).

The pooled analysis demonstrated a highly significant overall RR of 4.51 (95% CI, 2.95-6.90, P < .0001) for adverse outcomes in the high-risk TGF-β1 group compared with the low-risk group.

Among them, all DVH (V 5 -V 30 , MLD) and volume (ITV, PTV, TV, LPR) parameters exhibited highly significant between-group differences ( p < 0.0001) and large effect sizes (absolute Cohen’s d > 1).

The difference in postoperative trismus was highly significant on 1 st and 2 nd postoperative days ( P < 0.0001).

The two approaches showed very strong agreement, with a highly significant correlation ( p < 0.0001, r = 0.99).

PBMC p/t-S6RP inhibition was highly significant at Day 8 and was maintained through Day 15 (n = 8, Figure 4B . , p<0.0001).

6.65 X 2 X 3 − 35.03 X 1 2 − 47.97 X 2 2 − 29.11 X 3 2 Y 2 (TFC) = 58.85 + 5.13 X 1 + 0.27 X 2 − 1.13 X 3 − 0.43 X 1 X 2 + 0.80 X 1 X 3 − 0.39 X 2 X 3 − 4.51 X 1 2 − 2.53 X 2 2 − 1.71 X 3 2 The results of the analysis of variance in Table 2 suggest that the fitted models for TPC and TFC were both highly significant ( p < 0.0001), while the lack of fit was not significant ( p -values: 0.2161 and 0.3343, respectively), indicating a good fitness for the models.