“highly significant”

Pairwise comparisons ( Table 5 ) showed highly significant (p<0.001) differences between elasmobranchs and teleosts and crustaceans.

Specifically, the sampling period exerted a highly significant ( p < 0.001) main effect on the extracts, density, and refractive index ( Table 2 ).

who reported a higher prevalence in boys compared to girls, with highly significant results (p < 0.001) [ 17 - 18 ].

However, reviewing procedure recordings revealed that CVS was misreported in 50.0% of Group A but in none of Group B, with a highly significant difference (p=0.001).

When considering multi-locus genotypes jointly for all feral populations, they had higher levels of genetic diversity than commercial varieties ( Table 3 ) which were statistically highly significant ( p < 0.001) except for observed heterozygosity ( p = 0.108 and p = 0.124 for the complete and the reduced data set, respectively); this pattern stayed the same when only considering populations (varieties) with at least four individuals (data not shown).

Using a paired t -test, the difference between starting and ending dosage was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

The highly significant association was predominantly observed in the subgroup of patients who underwent valve surgery (β = 6.243, 95% CI [3.631, 8.856], P < 0.001) and in those with a CCI score > 5 (β = 6.852, 95% CI [3.870, 9.834], P < 0.001).

Both wavelength ( P < .001, η 2 p = 0.89) and temperature ( P < .001, η 2 p = 0.93) have significant main effects on growth rate, with a highly significant interaction ( P < .001, η 2 p = 0.87).

A significance level (α) of 0.05 was used in all tests, hence P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant, p < 0.01 highly significant and p < 0.001 extremely significant.

Differences were considered to be significant if P <.05 and highly significant if P <.001.

Additionally, we found a highly significant correlation between the number of children of the woman and the severity of incontinence symptoms expressed by the QUID score (ρ = 0.195, P = 0.001) (Fig. 3 ).

Every experiment was conducted at least thrice, and differences were considered significant when p < 0.05 or highly significant when p < 0.001.

Comparisons between exposed populations and controls were highly significant ( p < 0.001) for Sedayu and Kemejing, significant for Kembaran ( p = 0.001), and Wadas showed no significant difference ( p = 0.297), indicating limited exposure (Table 4 ; Fig. 5 ).

The difference in the increase in fluorescence intensity was statistically highly significant ( p -value < 0.001).

Gender Differences in Body Appreciation In support of the initial hypothesis, Chinese college women reported a significantly less BA, on average, than Chinese college men did; the difference was highly significant though the associated effect size was small (Cohen's d = 0.193; P < 0.001).

Table 2 revealed highly significant differences in all 11 traits analyzed through ANOVA at the p < 0.001 level, with h 2 exceeding 0.7.

Analysis of the intrinsic reactivity of the MWCNT preparations by EPR showed a highly significant generation of free radicals by all of the materials ( P < 0.001 vs. vehicle control) which was significantly reduced by freeze granulation although still remained very high.

Highly significant differences ( P < 0.001) were observed for reaction to both pathogens in both years.

The APL, FNPL, and surface DSC at 0 mm remained highly significant correlates with correction time in every T stage, overall stage, and thoracic volume quartile subgroup ( p values < 0.001) except the stage IIIA subgroup, in which only the APL and FNPL (but not the surface DSC) were significant correlates.

That is, the corrected model was also highly significant for the ALHB sum score ( F = 209.456, df = 1, p < 0.001).

While this confirms a minor confoundment, the effect of MA on PU only decreased slightly and remained highly significant ( β = 0.205, p < 0.001).

In dogs, the indwelling time expanded across increasing values of VIP scores with a highly significant association (Wilcoxon: p < 0.001) ( Figure 2 ).

A Kruskal–Wallis test indicated that these differences were highly significant, H (3) = 821.94, p < .001, Cohen's d = 1.37.

The ANOVA results revealed highly significant differences between FW and SMD at the GKVK location ( P < 0.001, F = 31.71; Supplementary Table S7) and at ICRISAT ( P < 0.001, F = 505.20; Supplementary Table S7), indicating that the two diseases exhibited markedly different patterns of incidence at both sites.

Notably, most correlations were highly significant, including correlations with M2 macrophages (CD163, VSIG4, and MS4A4A, cor: 0.47–0.51, P < 0.001) and Tregs (CCR8, TGFB1, STAT5B, and FOXP3, cor: 0.37–0.48, P < 0.001).