“highly significant”

We found a highly significant relationship to IgM RF ( r = 0.45, P < 0.0001) (Figure 1 B), with a much weaker relationship to IgG ACPA ( r = 0.17, P = 0.03) (Figure 1 D).

In contrast, hTf addition, previously used to create a siderophore-dependent growth condition ( 27 ), led to a marked, highly significant UTI89 ΔentBΔybtS growth defect relative to UTI89 ( P < 0.0001 after 9 hours) (Fig.

The type of test used was highly significant (p<0.0001) for milk production, probably because the data used in the meta-analysis included one-day tests as well as 305-day tests.

Conversely, when false negatives were regarded as more critical, the standardized examination again yielded a substantially higher average kappa (0.59, SE = 0.023) relative to the non-standardized method (0.45, SE = 0.027), with this difference being highly significant ( p < 0.0001) and a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.07 to 0.21.

Taking all values together and adjusting them for period, this resulted in a negative and highly significant correlation between BWG in TN and LossBWG in the subsequent HS period ( r = −0.70, P < 0.0001).

The results of quantitation show ( Fig 2D ) a highly significant difference in deviation of the α7 G lung bronchiole surface from smoothness following CS exposure from that of the control (P<0.0001).

The differences in gene-expression ratios corresponding to 1-, 1.5- and 3-fold dose changes on chromosome 2L are highly significant ( p << 10 -4 by ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD, Hodges-Lehmann, and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests; see Materials and methods).

Potassium and BP changes in the entire population Spironolactone caused a highly significant increase in the potassium level of 0.5 +/-0.5 mmol/L (p <0.0001) in the entire study population ( Table 2 ).

This ratio at baseline was highly significant ( p < 0.0001) and was excellent to discriminate between responders (and prolonged PFS) and nonresponders (AUC = 1.0).

While the patterns of coverage seem to indicate a notable bias in the per-site distribution of the coverage depth across coding genes for the SOLiD data, a moderate, but highly significant ( r = 0.25, P < 0.0001) correlation was observed between per base coverage by SOLiD and Solexa/Illumina sequencing for individual positions in the coding sequences of the 37 genes of mitochondrial ancestry—possibly due to a known dependence of recovery of fragmented cDNA (by gel elution) on GC content ( 35 ).

Specifically, the Na, Tb, Alb, age, and Cr showed highly significant associations with survival (p < 0.0001 for Na, p = 0.0055 for Tb, p = 0.00016 for Alb, p < 0.0001 for age, and p = 0.036 for Cr).

Highly significant positive associations were observed between the severity or category of ultrasound and sialendoscopy findings for first and last examinations for PGs (both p = 0.0001) and SMGs ( p = 0.002; p = 0.037).

The effect of the two process factors on the size distribution of the MPSM1–15 can be accurately described by a statistically highly significant model ( p < 0.0001) ( Table 3 ).

Both of the main effects, sample and clone, are highly significant (both P < 0.0001).

When treated with EAE-AS, the comparison of Caspase 3 expression between neurospheres and N2a is highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

This difference in maximum lodscores was highly significant (p < 0.0001), implying that the effect of this chromosome may vary with age.

A marked and significant increase in cell viability was observed at 100 and 250 μg mL −1 (117.4% and 114%), showing a highly significant enhancement compared with control ( p < 0.0001) and ( p < 0.001) respectively.

A two‐way ANOVA showed highly significant effects of treatment [F(1,59) = 126.4, p < 0.0001], gene [F(5,59) = 75.40, p < 0.0001], and their interaction [F(5,59) = 74.37, p < 0.0001].

Specifically, for thermal pain measurements, both the MA and AR manipulations showed highly significant increases in AAT compared to AII (both P < 0.0001).

While there was no difference in baseline compliance among the two groups (14.58% compared to 12.43%), there was a significant difference when measured at follow-up (32.03% compared to 23.05%) and the magnitude of improvement (17.45% versus 10.62%) was also highly significant ( P <0.0001).

3 C) and a lower, but still highly significant, decrease in CSF sCD21 levels (maximum decrease with median of −28.02% at Mo 3, P < 0.0001).

Statistical analysis using the Student’s t -test for related samples showed a highly significant difference between pre- and post-test scores ( p < 0.0001), indicating a strong effect of the intervention on stress reduction.

While the improvement within the SOD group was highly significant (p < 0.0001), the between-group difference (~11%) did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.089), possibly due to limited power and smaller-than-anticipated effect size [ 7 ].

In this group, the probability of concealment was 0.647; in the remainder it was 0.353, which was a highly significant difference ( P <0.0001).

The chi-square test revealed a highly significant association between receiving health education and overall satisfaction (χ2 = 148.84, p < 0.0001).