“highly significant”

In the regression model, attenuation of the adjacent lung parenchyma was highly significant (odds ratio 0.987, p < 0.001), with a large effect size.

The linear regression model was highly significant; F(3,399) = 638,22, p < 0.001, n = 400 and 82.9% of variance is explained by the FTE distalisation, anteriorisation and knee flexion, which corresponds to a strong effect (f 2 = 4.85).

Chewing discomfort was more frequently reported among participants at high risk for OSA (27.7%) compared to those at low risk (18.0%), with a highly significant difference ( x 2 = 74.972, p < 0.001).

Due to the non-normal distribution of data, we compared behaviors performed in different seasons using the Two-Independent-Samples Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, between the mating season and other seasons and between winter and other seasons, with significant levels (2-tailed) set at p < 0.05 (significant at the 0.05 level), p < 0.01 (highly significant at the 0.01 level), and p < 0.001 (extremely significant at the 0.001 level). 3.

The correlation of the TBARS for the storage period was 99.9%, suggesting that the effects on storage were highly significant ( p < 0.001).

The model estimated was overall highly significant, F (10, 179) = 11.54, p < .001, with R 2 = .39.

A highly significant enrichment of APC alone (χ 2 = 16.17, p < 0.001) and of samples with no mutations (χ 2 = 59.30, p < 0.001) was noted in the PDX cohort.

The difference between the sexes was highly significant (Mann-Whitney U test, p < 0.001).

Both KBP resulted in highly significant conformal plans as compared to CP, (Conformity Index CI 43 and CI 36 ; 1.07 ± 0.05 vs 1.01 ± 0.02, 1.58 ± 0.11 vs 1.45 ± 0.06, p < .001) ( Table 2 ).

The 95% confidence limits of the experimental profiles (shown for regions corresponding to the maxima of the two difference peaks) were well separated, and the calculated fits showed a highly significant difference in the position of membrane cholesterol with and without the peptide (P < 0.001).

1 However, a highly significant drop in antibody titers was observed at 3 months if a 100-fold dilution was performed ( p <0.001; from 16,935 U/mL to 8919 U/mL; a decrease of 47.3%) ( Fig. 1 ).

However, when grouped according to education, respondents who had secondary level as their highest educational attainment (Md = 116, n = 167) showed the topmost medicinal plant knowledge when compared to primary (Md = 105, n = 57) and tertiary (Md = 92, n = 111) as revealed by the highly significant difference presented in Kruskal-Wallis test ( p < 0.001).

Statistical analysis showed a highly significant difference ( P < 0.001) in the measured MIRs in Lower Saxony, and individual comparison of the MIRs from 2019 with the MIRs from 2020, 2021 and 2022 resulted in P -values of P = 0.00238 for 2019 versus 2020, P = 0.00033 for 2019 versus 2021 and P = 0.00329 for 2019 versus 2022.

For peak and mean velocities, significantly worse results were achieved (Table 3 ). The results from the Bland-Altman plots were confirmed by a highly significant correlation between 4D and 2D stroke volumes ( r = 0.96, p < 0.001) (Fig. 4a ).

The present results showed highly significant differences between African-Brazilians and the European-American standards on all variables (linear and angular) ( p < 0.001) related to the dentoalveolar pattern ( Table 1 ).

In the total sample, there was a highly significant correlation between IDE and age ( r = 0.54, p < 0.001), sex ( r = 0.40, p < 0.001), and the use of insulin ( r = 0.37, p < 0.001) (Table 2 ).

RESULTS The results were subjected for appropriate statistical analysis; the Kruskall–Wallis test revealed that an intergroup comparison of the mean percentage of tubule occlusion was highly significant ( p value < 0.001) ( Table 1 ) and Mann–Whitney U test showed that the tubule occlusion potential was statistically significant among all groups except for Group II and IV, which was not significant ( Table 2 and Fig. 1 ).

Notably, highly significant interactions were observed for word 4 and word 5 (word 4, t = 11.065, p < 0.001; word 5, t = 4.585, p < 0.001).

The statistical model revealed a highly significant interaction between diet and day ( p < 0.001), indicating that the response of laying hens to the object varied significantly between the dietary groups over time.

The mean levels of serum COMP in ng/ml, CTX-II in ng/ml, DKK1in pg/ml, TNF-αpg/ml, and IL-17 pg/ml were 5.71 ±7.04, 0.45 ±0.27, 5619.1 ±1731.4: 2.70 ±1.31, 0.23 ±0.16, 3276.96 ±1306.77, 6.4 ±2.25: 1.55 ±0.61, and 14.3 ±3.88: 5.86 ±1.09, respectively, with highly significant difference ( p = 0.001, for five biomarkers).

All the studies measured miR-20a by reverse-transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Pooled prognostic value of miR-20a in gastrointestinal cancer A random-effect model was applied to generate the combined association between miR-20a expression level and overall survival of GIC patients, since highly significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 89.5%, P < 0.001) was detected when twelve studies were pooled (Fig. 2 ).

All enrichment was highly significant with P < 0.001 ( Supplementary Table 6 ).

Nonverbal Synchrony Nonverbal synchrony was clearly different from pseudosynchrony (coincidence): The comparison with 5,000 pseudodyads was highly significant [ t (382.8) = 9.10; p < 0.001], and this difference had a medium effect size (Cohen's d = 0.67).

Statistical analysis revealed highly significant differences (p < 0.001) between raw and boiled water samples, confirming the effect of repeated boiling.

The results of chi-square tests showed highly significant associations (p<0.001) of exposure to all types of mass media with background characteristics of Indian women.