“highly significant”

This difference was highly significant, t (308) = 8.24, p < 0.001, d = 1.02 2 .

Assessment of DNA damage A highly significant rise in the mean value of number of comets/120 cells was observed in CP treated and Cisplatin+Rutin treated groups when compared with control group ( p < 0.001 and p < 0.05 respectively).

There was little evidence of diurnal variability in concentrations of viruses, though there were some highly significant trends ( p < 0.001). pH and turbidity of wastewater In the effluent samples collected at Betws-y-Coed, higher pH values were observed during the summer sampling event (median pH 7.36) than during the autumn and the winter sampling campaigns (median pH 6.79 and 6.62, respectively; Fig. 2 ) with little variation evident during the sampling events (Fig. 3 d–f).

All results were highly significant ( p < 0.001).

Comparison between Group I and III showed a highly significant difference of bone resorption in ridge width at 3 months 2.56 mm ( P = 0.001) and at 9 months interval 3.2 mm ( P < 0.001).

Similarly, MDA-MB-468 showed a 7.4% and 6.9% increase in bound NADH on the 3.0 mg/mL and 1.2 mg/mL substrates, respectively, marking a highly significant change (p < 0.001) when compared to the cells plated on glass.

All TYDQ-15 effects were highly significant (all p < .001; Table 4 ).

Results and Discussion As shown in Table 1 phosphorus treatment (P) and location (LON) had highly significant effects on the measured variable ( P < 0.001).

This index was different in a highly significant way (F (5,30) = 19.43; p < 0.001) among the experimental groups.

The environmental data describing air pollution resulted in different patterns where NO showed highly significant correlations with season and PM 10 with day of the week (all p values <0.001).

When combining both active dose groups (4 mL and 2 mL) in the PP population using MMRM analysis to analyse Total Norfolk Score, a highly significant (p < 0.001, MMRM) within patient improvement of 10.4 points over placebo was observed after 24 weeks of dosing ( Table 4 ).

The main effect of chord type was highly significant ( F (2,92) = 26.73, p < .001, η G 2 = 0.03).

Breed was highly significant at all analyzed timepoints (p < 0.001).

Results Purine derivatives There were highly significant differences ( P < 0.001) in the purine derivatives in sheep.

In addition, the independent samples t -test was used to compare the mean difference of pairs of variables [ 23 ]. P ≤0.05 represented a significant difference, P ≤0.01 represented a highly significant difference, and P ≤0.001 represented a very highly significant difference.

Patients with CRSwNP who underwent PESS were younger (37.5 [± 12.77]) compared to patients who underwent RESS (40.36 [± 12.87]), with a highly significant P -value ( P < .001).

Statistical analysis of susceptibility tests revealed that insecticide type was the primary determinant of mortality, with a highly significant main effect ( F (3,49) = 46.74, p < 0.001).

The comparison of the mean spirometric indices of flour mill and controls groups (mean ±SD) indicates FVC, FEV 1 , and PEFR are highly significant (P<0.001) and FEF 25 % −75 % are significant (P<0.01).

Two highly significant ( p < 0.001) molecular signatures were identified by Gene Set Enrichment Analysis of BAP1 calling-card target genes associated with gene expression response to BAP1 depletion (see Additional file 7 ): an Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) signature was associated with up-regulated genes; and a polycomb-mediated lysine27-trimethylation of histone H3 in Embryonic Stem Cells was associated with down-regulated genes (Fig. 4d ).

From these listed genes, we selected the top 27 genes, which have a highly significant difference (p < 0.001) as shown in Table 1 .

Genetic knockdown of three genes ( Ca-Beta , Sur , and sei ), in AKH producing cells caused highly significant changes ( P < 0.001) in both male and female lifespan, and knockdown of six other genes ( Shaw , cac , Ih , NaCP60E , stj , and TASK6 ) caused significant changes ( P < 0.05) in only female lifespan.

RM ANOVA showed a highly significant effect of OBX model ( F (1,20) = 81.42, p < 0.001), feeding status ( F (1,20) = 20.99, p < 0.001), day ( F (9,180) = 1175.89, p < 0.001), day*OBX model interaction ( F (9,180) = 81.90, p < 0.001) and day*feeding status interaction ( F (9,180) = 14.80, p < 0.001).

The reduction in ED achieved with the dose reduction protocol was highly significant ( P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.82–1.32).

In contrast, the spatial error model’s error term coefficient was highly significant ( λ = −0.982, p < 0.001).

Although a formal a priori power analysis was not conducted, the consistently large effect sizes and highly significant differences ( p < 0.001) across most parameters support the adequacy of the sample size for exploratory modeling and reliable pattern detection.