“highly significant”

a difference in renal excretion between groups, was however highly significant ( P < 0.001).

The analysis revealed a highly significant main effect of copper sulfate concentration on development time (F(4, 39) = 14.97, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.606), demonstrating that increasing copper concentrations significantly delayed development.

This evident result was supported by statistical analysis that included an aflatoxin and weeks of age interaction term, which was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

6c (left), the representational patterns of concept layers of the CATS Net model showed highly significant correlation with human VOTC activity patterns (Fisher- z mean (s.e.) ρ = 0.04 (0.004), t (29) = 9.27, one-tailed P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.70).

In the analysis of plant height and leaf rosette diameter, most of the data sets did not pass the normality test and therefore Mann-Whitney U test was used to statistically evaluate the data and to confirm highly significant (p<0.001) difference between each of the two synthetic quintuple mutants and respective controls.

muscari As shown in Figure 3 , there was a highly significant ( p < 0.001) quadratic relationship between nitrogen application rate and photosynthetic performance of L. muscari leaves.

Differences among the treatments were considered significant for p -values < 0.05 and highly significant for p -values < 0.001.

The most striking shift concerned IL-6, whose mean fell by 778 pg mL −1 (37.6%) with ECMO yet only 248 pg mL −1 (12.5%) in controls, delivering a highly significant inter-group difference ( p < 0.001).

The test showed highly significant ( P < 0.001) change in slope of 20-year running average (1940–1983) of AET wb / P for Kozluk catchment when taking into consideration the influence of hydropower, and no significant change when taking into consideration only climate change.

These differences in genotype distribution were highly significant statistically in univariate analysis for genotype 1b ( p <0.001), 3a ( p = 0.002), and 6a ( p < 0.001).

The model showed a highly significant likelihood ratio test ( p < 0.001). 4.

After controlling for these mediating variables, the direct effect of health information exposure on sleep quality is not significant (Effect = 0.07, P = 0.101), while the total effect is highly significant (Effect = 0.981, P < 0.001), confirming the presence of a full mediation effect.

1 ) and soil contact influenced straw mass loss to a highly significant degree ( P < 0.001, Table 1 ).

Test–retest repeatability correlation coefficients for the two domain scores were highly significant ( p < 0.001).

Consistent with how ROIs were defined, the overall sound-driven response was highly significant at 1.4% signal change in the left hemisphere and 1.9% in the right (both p <.001) when comparing signal change between silence and the lowest-intensity sound blocks (55 dB SPL).

The difference in the overall scores of resiquimod-induced and control wounds was highly significant, with p < 0.001.

The model was highly significant in that it predicted documented panther locations statistically better ( p < 0.001) than 1,000 random models, which means that its accuracy was significantly higher than what would be expected by chance alone.

Similarly, the logistic GAM confirmed a highly significant non-linear increase in overweight risk ( p < 0.001; Supplementary Figure 4 ).

The 2024 cohort (Group 2) exhibited a significantly higher proportion of affected permanent teeth, at 29.6%, compared to only 6.8% in the 2020 cohort (Group 1), a highly significant difference ( p < 0.001), as shown in Table 3 .

Tables 2 and 3 show, significant difference between CHXG versus Saline and Hiora versus Saline post rinse after 5 th day in index and highly significant difference ( P <0.001) was seen in PI in post rinse group after 5 th day i.e., CHXG versus Saline and Hiora versus Saline signifies that CHXG and Hiora are effective in removal of plaque than the control.

Results Differences in the standard of living between two groups Female literacy among small families is higher than that of large familes (X 2 df1 =23.56, P < 0.001 highly significant).

From the results of the analysis, it was found that there was a highly significant difference between the groups with respect to the load ( F = 456.656, P < 0.001).

The association between comorbidity and CKD stages were highly significant ( p =<0.001) with a Kendall’s tau value of 0.1517, which indicates moderate monotonicity between the two variables.

Both results were statistically highly significant (p<0.001) by Fisher's exact test.

The classification obtained was validated by an analysis of variance for hypothesis testing, which was highly significant ( p < 0.001), confirming the existence of statistical differences among the defined biotypes ( Figure 2 ).