“highly significant”

The main effects are all highly significant: dose (F = 704.450), time (F = 602.805), and extracts (F = 109.872) strongly influence the biological response ( p < 0.001).

Differences in maximum length distributions were highly significant among matrices (KW, H = 163.5, p < 0.001).

This correlation (Kendall's T=0.192), although highly significant ( P <0.001), was rather weak; just for a comparison, the correlation between depth of tumour invasion and positive nodes presented a Kendall's T of 0.525.

Differential expression of the same three genes in these groups was illustrated in a comparison figure ( Figure 7B ), indicating a highly significant variation in IDO1 expression between high- and low-risk groups ( p < 0.001), with CA2 and TNF also showing significant differences ( p < 0.05).

Both treatments showed highly significant effects ( p < 0.001), along with large effect sizes (η2 = 0.659 for AgNPs and η2 = 0.952 for ZnONPs).

A consistent drop in performance in the UKCAT scores occurred with each fall in A level band, and this was highly significant in all cases (P<0.001, Kruskal-Wallis test).

These findings, along with the observation that presence of multiple illnesses was significantly more common among the depressives, could support the contention that depressive illness in the elderly might have some relation to generalised degenerative changes that occur with advancing age in various body systems (Jacoby, 1982). Among the specific illnesses, the difference in prevalence between the patient and control groups was highly significant for hypertension (p < 0.001).

The heatmap reveals that the majority of pairwise feature comparisons yielded highly significant differences ( p < 0.001), emphasizing that each feature combination introduces distinctive acoustic information rather than redundant patterns.

Instrument type had a highly significant effect on dentin removal ( p < 0.001), which increased by ~ 105% with 25/0.05 (β = 0.72, p = 0.003), ~ 252% with 25/0.06 (β = 1.26, p < 0.001), and ~ 350% with 25/.08v (β = 1.50, p < 0.001) relative to 25/0.03 (Fig. 2 a; Table 1 ).

Bartlett’s test of sphericity resulted in a highly significant p value of <0.001, providing evidence for the interrelatedness of the variables and justifying the utilization of factor analysis.

Detection of capsular serotypes and virulence genes in ST15 and ST11 CRKP Regarding the distribution of capsular serotypes, ST15 CRKP was predominantly of the K5 type (83.7%), whereas ST11 CRKP was primarily of the K2 type (43.8%), showing a highly significant difference ( p < 0.001).

In both experiments, running it this way resulted in highly significant negative effects of ΔCue and ΔTarget (both p < 0.001), but positive effects of ΔCue*ΔTarget ( p < 0.001), presumably because after accounting for the negative independent predictions of both ΔCue and ΔTarget, ΔCue*ΔTarget values actually were better than expected.

This pattern was supported by the global Wald test of the Time × Group interaction, which was highly significant ( p < 0.001), indicating consistently superior food tolerance in the SG group across the entire follow-up period.

3 b) were 64.6% and 37.1% for L-CR, whereas non-L-CR was 0% at both time points, with a highly significant difference ( P < 0.001).

Similar patterns were observed at Donka Hospital, where education emerged as the most influential factor positively associated with health literacy, with a correlation coefficient of 0.924 and a highly significant P value of <.001.

MVC, analyzed as a dichotomous variable (using the median value of 59 microvessels as the cut-off point), was a highly significant predictor of both overall survival ( Table 1 ; P =0.001) and of disease-free survival (data not shown).

A paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test (testing whether pre-exercise scores exceeded post-exercise scores) was highly significant (W = 10 585, P < 0.001; Table 2 ).

Tumor stage exerted the largest effect sizes: relative to Stage I, Stage II carried an HR of 2.31 (1.88–2.83) and Stage III an HR of 4.71 (3.74–5.92), with both associations highly significant ( p < 0.001).

A highly significant relationship was found with the perpetrator of the incident ( P <0.001), with patients more commonly involved in verbal and physical violence, while staff members were more frequently reported in bullying and racial harassment cases.

These differences are highly significant (Mann-Whitney U test, two-tailed, p < 0.001).

The corrected p ‐values are visualized in the heatmap of Figure 3 , where red illustrates a highly significant p ‐value ( p < 0.001), orange a significant p ‐value ( p < 0.05), and blue a nonsignificant p ‐value for each class pair (row) and feature (columns).

Values with p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant; when p < 0.01, they were deemed highly significant; and those with p < 0.001 were deemed extremely highly significant. 3.

The ANCOVA also revealed a highly significant effect of the covariate ( p < 0.001), i.e., leaf size, with respect to disease severity, sporulation severity, sporangia produced per leaf, and Pv DNA concentration in the DM lesions.

Centiloid scale again showed a highly significant negative association ( p < 0.001), scan interval showed a negative association ( p = 0.03), and age remained a significant positive predictor ( p = 0.01).

Clinical T stage, grade, presenting PSA, and pre-radiation PSA were all highly significant ( P <0.001) predictors of PSA failure on univariate analysis ( Table 2 ).