“highly significant”

Overall Pathogen and Treatment Effects Results of the GLM analyses suggest that two locations (Jackson, Yum-Yum) had a highly significant effect on varroa load (Model 1: df = 297, p < 0.001; Table 2 followed by Milan ( p = 0.04).

The risk estimates for those aged fifty years and older were highly significant ( p < 0.001).

In the negative HSP group, sleep score showed a highly significant negative correlation with the STAI State score (r = −0.41, p < 0.001).

Raters’ agreement was highly significant (in all cases, p<.001).

Analysis of the ranked final mean mortality per tank confirmed that there were no significant differences among tanks, but highly significant differences among all species (GLM, F 2,29 = 25.3, p<0.001) and when analysed using pairwise comparisons each species was different from the other.

A step forward was taken by testing for association with plasma apolipoprotein levels: after adjustment for age and sex, we identified a highly significant association with apoA1 ( P =0.001) but not with ApoB levels ( P =0.32; Table 2 ).

However, residual heterogeneity remained (τ 2 = 0·280, I 2 = 90·3%), with the test for residual heterogeneity being highly significant (QE = 167·68, df = 23, p < 0·001).

In all models, age, sex and meal location were highly significant predictors (all p < 0.001).

Both groups had highly significant within-group improvement in MRMI, BBS and MBI ( p < 0 . 001 ).

Independent sample t -test demonstrated highly significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.001).

3 Results When comparing the demographic variables between the groups, the mean age was the oldest in the P + CAD group (51.57 ± 5.19 years), showing a highly significant difference ( p < 0.001).

As expected, the AR1 diagonal was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

This difference was statistically highly significant (p < 0.001), suggesting that patients with CKD were exposed to greater nitrosative stress (Table 4 ).

5 F) in a highly significant manner ( P < .001, Fig. 5 H). 2.4 Mitochondrial markers of apoptosis The level of pro-apoptotic Bax and the anti-apoptotic Bcl2 markers were measured in the hippocampus 10 days after Aβ 25–35 peptide oligomer i.c.v. injection in mice, by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay.

The general effect of % of body weight increase between groups was found to be very highly significant (p < 0.001).

The DeLong test indicated a highly significant difference in AUC between the 8-item GDCS (AUC = 0.936) and the BRASS (AUC = 0.518), with a Z-score of 11.929 and a p -value < 0.001, which demonstrated the substantially better performance of the 8-item GDCS.

A calculation comparable to the one described above confirms that this paucity is highly significant (P<0.001).

Results: Sedation score was statistically highly significant between Group A and B ( P < 0.001).

The results were considered; nonsignificant when the probability of error is more than 5% ( P > 0.05), significant when the probability of error is <5% ( P ≤ 0.05) and highly significant when the probability of error is <0.1% ( P ≤ 0.001).

P <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, P < 0.01 was considered to be highly significant, P < 0.001 was considered to be very highly significant, and P > 0.05 was considered to be not significant.

In the SAS condition, however, strong and highly significant intra-limb associations were found between TA and RF onsets for both the non-paretic and paretic leg (non-paretic: R 2 = 0.742, p < 0.001; paretic: R 2 = 0.754, p < 0.001).

The significance of the results was assessed in the form of P value differentiated into: Non-significant: when P value > 0.05 Significant: When P value < 0.05 Highly significant: When P value < 0.001.

Overall, the Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed a highly significant reduction in the lifespan of sSURF1 −/− (survival median 3 days) vs. sSURF1 +/− and wild type control piglets (log-rank test p < 0.001) at 28 days ( Fig. 2 C).

Comparison of all females with a cancer diagnosis under the age of 18 years with their age-matched controls shows that there is a highly significant difference in the chance of a first livebirth ( P < 0.001) (Fig. 1 ).

The likelihood-ratio comparison between these two nested models is highly significant ( X 2 10 = 759.46, p < 0.001), suggesting that item-level residual dependence should not be ignored.