“highly significant”

Due to the high number of terms compared for each category (see Materials and Methods), this difference is highly significant (P<0.0001).

A non-parametric permutation-based 2-sample t-test revealed that the difference in correlation between the DT-FODs and QSI-FODs were not significant in ROI-1 (p≫0.05), but highly significant in ROI-2 (p<0.0001).

There was a highly significant correlation between our designed assay and the commercial ELISA kit (p < 0.0001, r = 0.957).

As the results demonstrated, the fitness of the model was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

Additionally, the MANOVAs were highly significant for both sexes (females: F 2,11 = 61.4, p < 0.0001; males: F 2,13 = 67.4, p < 0.0001).

In Table 1 , the linear effect of BMI in the Cox model for men is insignificant ( p = 0.876), but the test of PH assumption is highly significant ( p = 0.0001).

The Kruskal–Wallis test indicated a highly significant difference in plasma PlGF concentrations (P < 0.0001; Figure 2 ) between groups.

Comparison of survival curves of the two cohorts of mice revealed a highly significant prolonged survival for TRAMP mice (p<0.0001).

Indeed, the genetic differentiation between the American and European continents that was detected by cpSSRs was high ( F ST = 0.369), and highly significant (P <0.0001).

The Kruskal-Wallis test indicates a highly significant statistical difference between IUCN conservation statuses across the different local status classes (p-value < 0.0001).

These differences in spatial distributions are highly significant (p < 0.0001, two-tailed one-sample t test, n = 24, see Experimental Procedures ).

While there was a highly significant main effect of dose (F[2,153] = 30.2; P <0.0001; Figure 2F ), there was no main effect of genotype (F[2,153] = 0.045; P = 0.96), nor was there an interaction between genotype and dose (F[2,153] = 0.085; P = 0.99).

However, as expected, CST was a highly significant predictor of community composition (R 2 = 0.81, p < 0.0001).

There was a small (median differences = 0.01-0.04) but highly significant increase of DNA methylation in females compared to males in FBXL5 and CACYBP (p < 1.00E-04) and a trend towards significance for SCMH1 (p = 0.07), in the diabetes study where samples of both sexes were included [ 27 ] (Figure 6 ).

Consumption of 15 g alcohol or more per day was associated with a relative risk of 1.6 (95% CI, 1.3 to 2.0) and there was evidence of a highly significant increase in risk with increasing reported alcohol consumption (Mantel extension χ for linear trend = 4.2, P <0.0001).

There were highly significant positive correlations between TEM and CTX (r = 0.98, p -value < 0.0001), pai (r = 0.96, p -value < 0.0001) and hly (r = 0.94, p -value < 0.0001), and also between CTX, and pai (r = 0.96, p -value < 0.0001) and hly (r = 0.95, p -value < 0.0001).

Data were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05 (* p < 0.05, significant; ** p < 0.01, very significant; *** p < 0.001, highly significant; **** p < 0.0001, extremely significant). 3.

The survival difference between ST-positive and ST-negative is highly significant ( P < 0.0001, log rank test).

This performance is further strengthened by highly significant global p -values in 2LOmb results from all three interaction problems ( p < 0.0001) and the presence of a SNP in common among some or all pairs of two-SNP units in the three- and four-locus interaction problems.

When comparing the choice frequency in the two geometrically correct (C, R) versus the two geometrically incorrect corners (N, F) a highly significant difference was apparent (F(1,9) = 61.714 p<0.0001), revealing more choices for the two geometrically correct corners (C,R).

While it highly increased in poorly differentiated type (GIII) with significant statistically, P < 0.0001, and the difference in expression between moderately and poorly differentiated type highly significant, P < 0.0001 [ Table 1 ].

Statistical analysis using two‐way repeated‐measures ANOVA of PVs revealed highly significant Treatment × Time interactions for both the ipsilateral ( F (25, 270) = 22.73, p < 0.0001) and contralateral ( F (25, 270) = 2.41, p < 0.0001) paws.

Note that all regional changes in WM volume in Figure 2a,b are highly significant ( p < .0001) except for the frontal pole (no change at p < .05 from 9 to 11 years; decrease at p = .0058 from 11 to 13 years).

ANOVA on the proportion of nymphs that settled and presumably fed on each site (midrib or secondary veins, on upper or lower sides of the leaf) indicated that differences between healthy and LAS-infected leaves were not significant ( F = 0.02, df = 1248, P = 0.88), whereas those among various sites were highly significant ( F = 25.7, df = 3248, P <0.0001).

The within‐design heterogeneity is highly significant ( Q = 75.37, p < 0.0001).