“highly significant”

This improvement was highly significant (p < 10–4).

In Tvedestrandsfjord, which included five replicate egg samples but no adults, there was a highly significant heterogeneity among temporal samples in proportions of the two types ( p < 0.0001: Table 1 ).

Consequently, comparing cases with the G/G genotype to controls with the G/G genotype, there was a highly significant difference between the two groups in terms of the mean TAS value: 0.049 (p<0.0001).

In contrast, both TCEP- and saline-treated animals showed a highly significant increase in nasal airspace ( Figures 4B, C ; p < 0.0001; n = 29).

All correlations were highly significant (P<0.0001).

The difference in OS between patients with the molecularly highly similar tumors A_IDH and A_IDH_HG tumors was highly significant (A_IDH_HG vs A_IDH: HR 2.43, 95% CI 1.73-3.40; P < .0001).

However, all other comparisons of smoke capture efficiency showed highly significant differences ( P < 0.0001 in each case).

Statistical analysis confirmed that this reduction is highly significant ( p < 0.0001), indicating a pronounced structural distinction between both fiber populations.

The reduction in AF burden was highly significant ( P < 0.0001) ( Table 2 ).

However, increasing arsenate concentration had a highly significant effect on normalized growth rate ( p < 0.0001; Figure 3 A).

Furthermore, both IgG1 rK39 RDTs (n = 38) and ELISAs showed a highly significant difference in test outcomes between cured patients and those who relapsed (n = 23; P < .0001).

A highly significant correlation was observed between DFA and MAGE (r = 0.68, p < 0.0001): high variability correlated with high DFA (and thus, low complexity) ( Figure 3 ).

Thus, following the body weight development until one year of age (d21, d180, d360), the reduced body mass in the C-HP group was highly significant ( P <0.0001) whereby the difference became less prominent with aging.

Highly significant genotypic variation ( p < 0.0001) was observed for all the phenotypic traits collected in Experiment 2 with heritabilities ranging from 0.67 to 0.86 ( Table 1 ).

Differences were highly significant compared with baseline ( P < 0.0001) and significant for the difference between systolic blood pressure values ( P = 0.011).

The omnibus test for heterogeneity was highly significant (Q [42] = 424.22, p < .0001), and the residual heterogeneity was substantial ( I 2 = 82.3%), justifying the need to explore potential moderators that could account for this variation. 3.4.1.

Inferential statistical evaluation of the data set through two-way ANOVA indicated a highly significant main effect of treatment ( p < 0.0001), thereby confirming that the specific compound administered substantially influences the observed cytotoxicity.

General linear model analysis showed this difference to be highly significant (P < 0.0001).

They observed highly significant association of seven COMT marker haplotypes with schizophrenia (CLUMP T4 P -value = 0.0001).

This difference was highly significant ( P <0.0001, Mann–Whitney U -test).

This was confirmed by the p values of the chi-square for the log-rank test that was not significant for the MAI (p = 0.3042), close to significance for MED (p = 0.0651), and highly significant for FA2 and PC2 (both, p < 0.0001).

This highly significant bootstrap P -value ( P < 0.0001) suggests that right-hemisphere dominance is a robust and consistent feature of the neural response to DAF.

Haematological Parameters Comparing infected and non-infected tilapias, the infected tilapias show a highly significant increase in white blood cells count compared to non-infected ones ( p < 0.0001).

Adhesion Protocol Comparisons In comparisons of different adhesion protocol groups for each RBC, there were highly significant differences between and among groups for all RBCs: FOBF ( F =266.87, P <0.0001), TNCBF ( F =173.16, P <0.0001), and Z350XT ( F =103.64, P <0.0001).

Glycated hemoglobin was highly correlated with UAE ( r 2 = 0.6166, p < 0.0001; Figure 3B ), whereas the correlation was comparatively weaker for kidney/body weight ratio, though still highly significant ( r 2 = 0.4280; p < 0.0001; Figure 3C ).