“highly significant”

Items in the VSI with Highly Significant Group Differences Responses to the following questions differed significantly between affected participants and those in the control group ( p < 0.001): (1) I feel overburdened by normal vision; (2) I can badly estimate distances and spaces; (3) I avoid bright sunlight; (4) one cannot do it right f

A highly significant association was found between PA1-6 and PA-pre ( p = 0.001).

There was a highly significant correlation ( r 2 0·87; P < 0·001) between the experimentally determined faecal Ca excretion and the faecal Ca excretion predicted by the equation of Kienzle et al .

The product × time interaction was highly significant ( P < 0·001).

Furthermore, the model’s best predictor, total taste score, showed a highly significant correlation with DMFS [ β = 0.371, P = 0.001; Table 3 ].

The difference was statistically highly significant on the paired t-test (t = 116.99, p < 0.001), reflecting effective decongestion.

This reduction was particularly robust in the PGA + Fibrin subgroup (6 studies), which yielded a highly significant result (RR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.63; P < 0.001).

4 D and F), with GSEA yielding negative enrichment scores and highly significant p-values ( p < 0.001) for all three gene sets (Figs. 4 J).

Nevertheless, the effect of the reliability condition on confidence was highly significant, F (1,18) = 112.28, p < 0.001, see Fig. 3B .

ToM and NP variable As shown in Table 1 , the findings in this study indicated that PtTBI performed poorly than in the HC group on the entire ToM tasks, that is, both verbal and nonverbal task and cognitive and affective task, as the mean difference between groups was highly significant ( P < .001).

The two-way analysis of variance (á=.05) showed a statistically significant difference between the types of post (P<.001), among the different post lengths (P<.001) and showed a highly significant interaction between type of post and post length (P<.001).

Ca v 1.2 NesCre (but not Ca v 1.2 fl/fl ) animals also exhibited a highly significant correlation between win-stay behavior on ambiguous and nonambiguous trials across days (Ca v 1.2 NesCre : t (10) = 6.59, p < .001, Ca v 1.2 fl/fl : t (11) = .82, p = .43, and Ca v 1.2 NesCre versus Ca v 1.2 fl/fl : t (21) = 2.12, p = .046), further supporting the idea that Ca v 1.2 NesCre (in contrast to Ca v 1.2 fl/fl ) animals more generally followed an outcome rule.

Notably, a highly significant association between the immunohistological pattern and the presence of active, necrotizing glomerular lesions became evident ( P < 0.001).

However, there was a highly significant and negative association between ferroptosis score and SMC abundance (r = −0.27; P < 0.001) ( Figure 1D ).

Analysis of the average of all 128 channels revealed highly significant responses for every condition at 6 Hz ( upright : Z = 47.2, p < 0.001; average : Z = 58.5, p < 0.001; inverted : Z = 79.4, p < 0.001).

Trimetazidine therapy produced a highly significant effect on all components of psychomotor performances and flicker-fusion parameters ( P < 0.001) compared with pretreatment era.

Specifically, the estimated values of the intercept (b1) and the quadratic term of UOT (b3) were − 0.28 and − 0.00, respectively, both showing highly significant effects ( p < 0.001; Table 1 ).

The effects were highly significant (False Discovery Rate p < 0.001).

All participants with PPCM demonstrated reduced LVEF (<45%) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (9 (100.0%)), whereas none of the non-PPCM group showed these findings (0 (0.0%)), with a highly significant association (χ2 = 99.99, p < 0.001).

Population size was the most highly significant positive predictor of the number of MLEM patents per country ( p = 0.001), followed by wealth (GDI per capita; p = 0.001), and total healthcare expenditure (as a proportion of the GDP; p = 0.009).

Both groups demonstrated comparable and highly significant improvement in psychological nursing self-efficacy (PNS; education: t(76) = − 3.34, p = .001; scenario: t(107) = − 3.31, p = .001), with no between-group difference at post-test (t(183) = − 0.98, p = .331).

Periosteal reaction was noted in 83% of patients with pain compared with only 21% of those without pain, showing a highly significant association ( p < 0.001).

Similarly, mean mortality was substantially greater during summer (1272 ± 44) compared to winter (229 ± 27), with this difference also highly significant (Welch’s t -test, t = 13.17, p < 0.001).

Welch’s F values are indicated in Table 3 , with highly significant differences ( p < 0.001) across all evaluations.

A history of urinary tract diseases (UTD) was another major risk factor, with 33% of RCC patients having a history of UTD, compared to only 4.5% of controls, demonstrating a highly significant association with RCC risk (p < 0.001).