“highly significant”

Highly significant (p<0.001) down-regulation of IL-6 and GM-CSF following miR-146a over-expression correlated well with our genomic data.

By performing sensitive sequence analysis using the generalized profile method 12 , we found this structural similarity to be mirrored by a distant but highly significant sequence relationship ( p < 0.001) between these families.

For instance, on average, participants switched choices 4 times in the entry game (~22%) and 2.7 times in the stag hunt (~14%) (the medians were 3 and 1 respectively), these different frequencies were highly significant (p <0.001).

Ethanol (70%, 10 mL/kg) intragastric administration (II) induced a highly significant ( P <0.001) increase in MDA content concomitant with a highly significant ( P <0.001) depression in GSH and SOD activities when compared with normal control rats (I).

Specifically, a highly significant interaction was observed between irrational beliefs and health anxiety scores with family history of diabetes on 10-year T2DM risk ( p < 0.001).

The correlation between the levels of VASP-PRI and VerifyNow-PRU was highly significant (r = 0.682, p < 0.001) (Figure 2 ).

Furthermore, we analysed the data by pooling the HR + RR genotypes with HH genotype, and a highly significant difference was observed ( p = 0.001).

For significance analyses, analysis of variance (ANOVA) between groups was used and * p ≤ 0.05 was considered significant, ** p ≤ 0.01 as highly significant and *** p ≤ 0.001 as extremely significant.

However, this appeared to depend almost uniquely on the highly significant differences that were seen in velocity measurements with versus without steer angle correction ( p < 0.001).

6B ), which was also highly significant (p < 0.001).

8D ), in which only 80±3 out of 608±18 links (13%) were intra-continental links; again, a highly significant decrease by more than one-half compared to the GMN (empirical P -value <10 −3 ).

However, the influence of floral stage remained highly significant for all of these variables ( P < 0.001).

For example, * stands for statistically significant with p ‐value<0.05, ** stands for statistically significant with p ‐value<0.01, and *** stands for statistically highly significant with p ‐value<0.001.

The results of the Bartlett test of sphericity were highly significant ( p < 0.001), indicating homogeneity of variance through the consumption of foods.

The difference in mean number of symptoms named before and after the lesson was highly significant (p < 0.001), as well as the difference in percentage of participants giving a correct definition of stroke (p < 0.001) and those naming more than 4 symptoms.

The serum levels of total IgE in patients with AR (GI, GII and GIII) were statistically highly significant compared with those in the control group ( p < 0.001).

Separate analyses revealed that the effect of Condition was highly significant in L1 ( F (1, 1939.5) = 23.8, p < 0.001), but there was no such effect in L2 ( F (1, 1939.5) = 1.35, p = 0.246).

The overall effect on PDI showed that both the therapies had highly significant relief (P< 0.001), but percentage wise, group A showed better relief by 72.20% whereas group B showed relief by 65.99%.

The results showed improvement in plaque index, which showed a mean difference of 1.78±0.51 with P <0.001 between baseline and 1 month, which was highly significant; and at 3 months, the mean difference was 1.75±0.50 with P <0.001 [ Table 2 ], which was highly significant.

5.32 ± 1.86, respectively, P = 0.011) and highly significant reduction in ICU days (9.21 ± 1.17 vs. 11.87 ± 2.6, respectively, P < 0.001).

These differences in response rates are highly significant (urban areas: χ 2 (1) = 49.470, p < 0.001; rural areas: χ 2 (1) = 23.837, p < 0.001).

The effect of vowel context was highly significant, F (2, 18) = 24.54, p < .001.

However, Spearman rank correlation between the two sets of test results was highly significant ( p < 0.001; r = 0.7; 95% CL 0.6–0.9) (Figure 4 ).

Moreover, the chi-square test results showed a highly significant association between the intervention and changes in risk levels (χ2 = 28.214, df = 2, p < 0.001), supporting the effectiveness of the intervention as given in Table 6 .

This difference between piezo and conventional sinus lift was statistically highly significant with p < 0.001.