“highly significant”

Bartlett’s test was highly significant (p<0.0001), further indicating that the sample was adequate for factor analysis.

Effects of Bacterial Isolates on Sugar Beet Growth in Controlled Conditions The inoculation of the 18 bacterial isolates had a highly significant impact on sugar beet root length ( F = 23.653; p < 0.0001) and root dry weight ( F = 35.258; p < 0.0001).

A highly significant and sustained 3–fold increase in p-AVP was measured during treatment with tolvaptan compared to placebo (Placebo: 0.20 ± 0.15 vs. 0.70 ± 0.45 pg/ml, p <0.0001).

Our χ 2 analysis indicated that these group differences were highly significant ( Figure 7 ; χ 2 =36.7; df=1, p=0.0001), suggesting that the HIP14 knockout disrupts behavior-related correlated firing in striatum.

Pain: thumb-to-finger opposition We found a highly significant main effect of the factor Session [ F (1,855) = 55.37, p < 0.0001]: the feeling of pain was greater after immobilization in both trained and untrained patients.

The correlation was statistically highly significant (the p -value being p = 0.0001***).

1 ), being the difference with the WT variability highly significant (Wilcoxon signed rank test V = 12246, P < 0.0001).

Within group follow-up comparisons revealed that the LPC was highly significant in the CN group [ t (33) = 5.2, p < 0.0001], but of borderline significance in the a-MCI patients [ t (23) = 2.1, p = 0.05].

This difference was highly significant (p-value < 0.0001).

In both groups the most frequent alleles were Ala-14 and Ala-16 ( Supplementary Table 2 ), but the Ala-14/14 homozygous genotype was predominant in CH patients, either in absolute numbers and in percentages ( Supplementary Table 2 , Figure 3A ), with a highly significant X 2 test for trends (p<0.0001).

RML-inoculated transgenic mice reached terminal disease after 400 ± 56 dpi (n = 10), whereas WTPrP C mice became terminally sick at 155 ± 1.6 dpi (n = 8), thus also showing a highly significant delay for PrP C GPIThy-1-expressing mice (Log Rank (Mantel-Cox)**** p <0.0001; S6A Fig ).

Results A systematic retrospective analysis of the mapping performance comparing the operator with simulated search processes by the algorithm within 17 electroanatomic maps of focal spreading arrhythmias revealed a highly significant reduction of necessary LAT measurements from 55 ± 8.8 to 10 ± 0.51 (n = 17; P < .0001).

For MM, sex was found to be a highly significant (p<0.0001) main effect with males showing an overall larger MM than females.

Age was highly significant in predicting T2DM with those 50 years and older being 3.31 times more likely to have T2DM ( p < 0.0001).

Notably, LGALS9 and SIRPA showed highly significant differences between the high- and low-risk groups (P<0.0001) ( Figure 6B ).

The test for trend across the time points showed that this increase was highly significant (p < 0.0001).

The difference in survival between the two groups was highly significant (HR: 7.8, 95% CI: 4.0–15.2; p<0.0001) ( Fig. 2 ).

Each term in the model (coverage, month, and region) was highly significant ( P < 0.0001) and provided significant explanatory power [ 16 ].

Overall there was a highly significant difference between the two groups of donors as determined by two‐way ANOVA ( p < 0.0001) (Fig. 3 ).

This difference was highly significant, t(70.14) = 4.04, p = .0001 (degrees of freedom using Satterthwaite’s correction for unequal variance).

The t -test applied for ABIM versus NIM and ABMA versus NMA yielded highly significant result with P < 0.0001*.

Statistically, there is a significant difference ( p < 0.05) in the length of bradyzoites and a highly significant difference ( p < 0.0001) in the width of bradyzoites ( Figures 2G , H ) between sheep and goats.

Evaluation of Confidence Levels On comparing the confidence levels of participants before and after the training with the t-test, there was a highly significant improvement with p-value < 0.0001 across all nine aspects as depicted in Figure 2 .

The genotype×time interaction (GEN.T) was highly significant in both experiments for SCC (GEN.T: TPE I, P <0.0001 and TPE II, P =0.0088) and for RF (GEN.T: TPE I, P <0.0001 and TPE II, P <0.0001).

Similarly, the comparison between 2020 and 2023 showed highly significant differences ( p < 0.0001).