“highly significant”

In the Kruskal–Wallis analysis, the Ma QTL was supported with a highly significant (P < 0.0001) value of the K statistic, 15.9 for malic acid content.

Blood elevation of GST-π, DJ-1, NT-proBNP, NDKA and IL6 in stroke patients were highly significant ( p<.0001 ).

As shown in Table 1 , one-way ANOVA indicated a highly significant main effect of the immunization regimen on antibody titers ( F (3, 36) = 24.68, p < 0.0001).

The P for trend remained highly significant across all models ( p < 0.0001).

The overall model for time, treatment and route was highly significant (R 2 = 0.5055; p < 0.0001).

Results: A highly significant difference in mean times exists amongst the four planning methods ( P < 0.0001).

The analysis of the FSAT results showed that the correlation between the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers and disease incidence reports (both surveillance systems) of the same year was highly significant. “High risk HC 2010” villages had on average six times more asymptomatic carriers than “low risk HC 2010” villages (1.57% vs. 0.24%, P <10 −4 ).

These differences were confirmed by ANOVA, in which F values for genotypic differences were highly significant ( P = 0.0001; Table 2 ) and coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 16.5 to 28.6% for parental genotypes and from 40.0 to 83.7% for the RILs.

When asked about their education level, summarised in Figure 4 , data showed a highly significant difference between the countries ( p < 0.0001). 3.2.

Differences comparing MT/MT with WT/WT and WT/WT with Het are highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

In the MIX mode, GR × GN × SNG proportion was a non-significant factor compared to being highly significant to the COMP mode ( p < 0.0001), once again suggesting a direct competition among the individual glucosinolates at the level of myrosinase.

Pearson correlations between both foliar N and foliar P sampled in 1992 and 2024 were both highly significant (foliar N: r = 0.42, df = 78, p = 0.0001; foliar P: r = 0.57, df = 78, p < 0.0001).

Correlation of intermediate and extensive TILs groups -combined- also showed a highly significant positive correlation with survival (p < 0.0001).

There was a highly significant difference in the conspicuity between malignant and benign lesions ( P < 0.0001).

After exposure to 10% [6]-Gingerol, the results indicated a highly significant difference between groups (F(3, 8) = 1.01 × 1031, p < 0.0001), indicating that the microbial response to [6]-Gingerol varied significantly by species.

albicans , there is a highly significant difference between the S. gordonii (biofilm 4), the biofilm containing S. mutans and S. gordonii (biofilm 7), and the eight‐species biofilm (biofilm 8; p < 0.0001, each; Figure 5c ). 3.1.5.

Variance between the two years was highly significant ( p < 0.0001), contributing 39.4% to the total phenotypic variance of As accumulation ( Supplementary Table S2 ).

Based on the great difference in respective number of each sex that I sighted in prebasic molt and/or fresh basic plumage, there was a highly significant difference ( p < .0001, Fisher's exact test, Table 2a ) between the sexes in terms of late breeding season plumage and prebasic molt at my study site. 3.2.

The readiness score was 83.7 ± 14.4 among the trained respondents versus 48.4 ± 18.9 among the untrained respondents, representing a highly significant difference by the Kruskal–Wallis test ( p < 0.0001).

These differences were highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

H-FABP showed 76.92% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and a highly significant P < 0.0001 within the 3-h window, while Trop-T’s sensitivity improved over time from 35.90% at presentation to 84.60% at 6–12 h.

We also found a positive and highly significant correlation between fT3 and estradiol ( R = 0.53: p value < 0.0001) (Fig. 4 , Panel E).

The comparison of mean GR values between baseline and 9 months shows a reduction of 3.650 mm which is statistically highly significant ( t = 17.49, P = 0.0001).

Results In terms of detection, participants successfully detected 95±6% (average±STD) of the Duck-under obstacles in the test trials while using the EyeCane, in a highly significant manner over the control while using the white-cane alone 13±30% ( p < 0.0001) (see Fig. 3A ).

However, a highly significant difference was found among participants with different education levels (p < 0.0001).