“highly significant”

The correlation between measured and simulated FT4 values was highly significant (Spearman’s rho=0.882, p<0.001, see Figure 4 ). 3.3 Computer Aided Thyroid Treatment Framework The established mathematical model was implemented in software packages to perform numerical simulation studies.

Model Validation and Extraction Efficiency The statistical robustness of the experimental design was validated via ANOVA, confirming that the second-order polynomial models for TPC, TFC, FRAP, and DPPH were highly significant ( p < 0.001) across all leaf morphologies and extraction techniques.

A pre-specified subset analysis by cytogenetic risk category did show a highly significant benefit of induction GO in patients with favorable risk cytogenetics (79% versus 51% overall survival, P = 0.001).

On intergroup comparison, it was found that there was a statistically significant difference in terms of marginal adaptation ( P = 0.024) and retention ( P = 0.023), while a highly significant difference was observed in terms of surface texture and anatomic form ( P < 0.001) at the end of 1 year [ Table 1 ].

The results obtained are considered highly significant for P <0.001, significant for P <0.01, and insignificant for P <0.05 or P >0.05.

In the BH, HUN, and SLO populations, one locus showed significant deviation ( p < 0.05), while in the CRO population, one locus showed highly significant deviation ( p < 0.001).

Incidence of Citrus Canker and Huanglongbing In regard to citrus canker incidence on harvested fruits, a highly significant ( p ≤ 0.001) interaction was observed between the 19 late-season sweet orange selections and the two assessed harvest seasons, 2020 and 2021 ( Table 8 ).

All the values were statistically highly significant ( P <0.001). 56.62% and 56.41% improvement was reported in sandhisphutana (crepitations) in left and right knee joint, respectively, in group A, while in group B, crepitation improved to the extent of 44.83% and 46.67% in the same joints.

4.83 [0.41]), and this difference remained highly significant ( p < 0.001), confirming clear exposure contrast between the study groups.

Physicochemical Parameters There was a highly significant overall variation on dissolved oxygen ( F (6,56) = 33.85; P < 0.001) but not in temperature ( F (6,56) = 2.15; P > 0.05), pH ( F (6, 56) = 0.83; P > 0.05), and vertical transparency ( F (6, 56) = 0.47; P > 0.05) among the sampling sites (Tables 2 and 3 ).

With all thirteen variables included in the analysis, Kendall’s W was .866 and highly significant ( X 2 = 93.57, df = 12, P < .001), meaning there was strong agreement overall in variable ranking across communities.

Vaccination with N or LT alone led to a further and highly significant increase in BAL lymphocytes (LT versus C+ p<0.001; N versus C+ p<0.01), neutrophils ( Fig. 2C : LT versus C+ p<0.01; N versus C+ p<0.001) and eosinophils ( Fig. 2D : LT versus C+ p<0.0001, N versus C+ p<0.001).

Cardiovascular comorbidities were also significantly more prevalent in the PD group (χ 2 = 4.71, p = 0.030), whereas neurovascular disease was identified exclusively in PD patients, showing a highly significant difference between groups (χ 2 = 15.50, p < 0.001).

Statistical analysis demonstrated that this difference was highly significant ( p < 0.001), indicating robust overexpression of TET1 in AML.

Overall significance of the treatment effect is also highly significant (p<0.001).

The effect of time period on the score was highly significant (p < 0.001) for all variables except for appearance of genitalia (p = 0.025).

Since both dish and container random effects were highly significant (P<0.001), we included them in subsequent models.

A coefficient of determination (R 2 ) close to 1 indicates an excellent linear fit of the experimental density–temperature data, and statistical analysis confirms that the slope is highly significant ( p < 0.001).

Factorial ANOVA revealed highly significant effects of all tested factors (variety, pathogen, surface disinfection, and treatment) and their interactions (all p < 0.001), indicating a strongly context-dependent response.

As presented in Table 2 , a statistically very highly significant difference ( p < 0.001) was found between the viscosities of the NE (F5), NEG (F5G), and CR-APMG.

In the normal-flow subgroup, between-arm differences were pronounced and highly significant across all three outcomes: VSC (Δ −20.2 ± 33.2 standard vs. −55.1 ± 42.7 probiotic vs. −85.7 ± 34.0 zinc; p < 0.001), organoleptic (Δ −0.2 ± 0.7 vs. −0.9 ± 0.8 vs. −1.3 ± 0.8; p < 0.001), and HALT (Δ −11.4 ± 7.0 vs. −17.5 ± 7.0 vs. −22.8 ± 7.0; p < 0.001).

A two-tailed Student’s t-test indicated that the difference in total CFU was highly significant ( P <0.001).

To avoid multiplicity, mainly highly significant ( P < 0.001) clinically relevant ( r > 0.30) correlations were considered of interest.

Values of “*” indicate p < 0.05 (significant), “**” indicate p < 0.01 (highly significant), and “***” indicate p < 0.001 (extremely significant). 3.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the quadratic regression models for both systems were highly significant ( p < 0.001), while the lack-of-fit terms were not significant ( p > 0.05), indicating good model fit and accurate prediction of interactions among multiple components.