“highly significant”

RM-ANOVA revealed a highly significant effect of session, F (19, 285) = 37.18, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.71, which reflected a significant linear increase, F (1, 15) = 81.01, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.84, and a significant quadratic pattern, F (1, 15) = 11.30, p = .004, η p 2 = 0.43. 3.2 Transfer task performance Table 2 shows the score on each of the outcome measures, separately for each group and assessment session.

Also, there is a highly significant reduction ( p < 0.001) of pain thresholds within the CP/CPPS rats in all measurements taken upon intraprostatic injection in comparison to their basal pain threshold values ( Figure 2 ). 3.2.

The effect of F1 cross on diapause response was highly significant for both the larval and pupal decisions (cross; larval decision: χ 2 (2) = 36.24, p < 0.001, pupal decision: χ 2 (2) = 40.01, p < 0.001) and cross uniquely explained approximately 20% of the total variation in diapause decisions (larval decision: semi-partial R 2 = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.03−0.39; pupal decision: semi-partial R 2 = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.07−0.38).

On the other hand, a subgroup analysis including those patients who had available determinations of hs-TnI and NT-proBNP during the study period, showed a moderate but highly significant positive correlation between both biomarker concentrations (correlation coefficient 0.591, p < 0.001, supplementary Fig. 2 ).

Considering the three groups, these differences were highly significant ( p < 10 -3 ) but they did not significant when considering only the two groups fAD versus bvFTD.

In this group, repeated measures ANOVA revealed a highly significant and robust main effect of time on the outcome measure (F (3, 15) = 198.98, p < 0.001), with a very large effect size (partial η 2 = 0.975).

There was also a highly significant difference between different income classification of countries ( P < 0.001), with a longer median length of excretion for high-income countries (2.5 years, 95% CI: 1.3–3.7) than upper-middle income countries (1.0 year, 95% CI: 0.9–1.3), lower-middle income countries (1.0 years, 95% CI: 0.8–1.5), and low-income countries (0.8 years) (Figure 3 C).

A 3-way (Session: pre-test, post-test X Eye: amblyopic, fellow X Group: Neutral, Attention) mixed ANOVA of all observers' logMar visual acuity ( Figure S10 for individual scatterplots; higher values are worse) revealed highly significant main effects of Session ( F (1, 17) = 22, p < .001, η 2 G = .10; pre-test M = 0.27 ± 0.05, post-test M = 0.15 ± 0.04), Eye ( F (1, 17) = 42, p < .001, η 2 G = .57; amblyopic eye M = 0.43 ± 0.04, fellow eye M = −0.01 ± 0.02), and a marginal 2-way interaction of Session and Eye ( F (1, 17) = 4.3, p = .06, η 2 G = .03), indicating that training on a contrast sensitivity task also improved acuity ( Figure 4 A).

Also, when correlating the initial level of vitamin D 3 on admission with the level of the inflammatory cytokine storm markers on admission, on fifth day from admission and on the tenth day, it shows a strong inverse correlation between vitamin D 3 level on admission and ferritin level on fifth day ρ–0.739 p value < 0.001 also on the tenth day ρ–0.885, P value < 0.001, in comparing also with D-dimer on fifth day ρ–0.858, p value < 0.001 also showing a strong inverse correlation with a highly significant p value this also evident on the D-dimer level on the tenth day ρ–0.889 with p value < 0.001, CRP at fifth and tenth day ρ–0.868, P value < 0.001, ρ–0.891, P value < 0.001 respectively also in correlating the LDH level on the fifth and tenth day with the initial level of vitamin D 3 it shows a strong inverse correlation with a highly significant p value. ρ–0.887, P value < 0.001, ρ–0.878, p value < 0.001 respectively, in the fifth and tenth day.

The difference was highly significant (P<0.001).

The degree of correlation between the two assessors was highly significant ( ρ = 0.54, n = 88, p < 0.001).

Statistical values were considered significant when P < 0.05 and highly significant when P < 0.001.

The differences in cortisol suppression between fosdagrocorat doses and both placebo and prednisone 5 mg were highly significant at both weeks 1 and 2 (all P < 0.001).

The PAP fibers showed a highly significant increase in virucidal activity (*** P < 0.001), while the commercial masks also exhibited a notable increase (* P < 0.05) compared to the control and other groups.

The three remaining predictors were highly significant (p < 0.001 for each parameter) and had regression coefficients comparable to those in the main model (surgical complications: 1.574 vs. 1.694; immediate urine production: −2.049 vs. −2.408; rate of change in serum creatinine: 0.233 vs. 0.233).

The difference between the two longest viewed works and the other paintings is highly significant (p< 0.001, d=0.9).

The comparison shows a highly significant association ( P < 0.001) between the cluster solution and the engaged well-being categories.

There was a highly significant increase in the values of CK-MB level (P < 0.001) and troponin I level (P < 0.001) in the no-reflow group, compared to normal flow group.

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) index of sampling adequacy was .93 ( very good ) in the whole sample, and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was highly significant (69565.9, degrees of freedom = 1,770, p < .001).

In the complete feedback condition ( M = 854.12 milliseconds, SEM = 42.55), participants looked at the non‐chosen lottery twice as long as in the partial feedback condition ( M = 402.22 milliseconds, SEM = 47.11), and this difference was highly significant ( t (19) = 8.84, p < .001, d = 1.49).

The difference between spironolactone and control was, not surprisingly, highly significant (p<0.001).

This test of association is highly significant with P = 0.001.

Global spatial clustering of positive holdings was highly significant (nearest-neighbour ratio = 0.39, z = –8.26, p < 0.001), with elevated density along coastal agricultural corridors.

For fixation duration, there was a highly significant effect of AOI type (F(1,29)=54.23, p <.001) and painting group (F(2,58)=15.16, p <.001).

Random intercept variances for participants and scenarios were both highly significant, with LR χ 2 (1) = 2848.503, p < .001, and LR χ 2 (1) = 1939.140, p < .001, respectively.