“highly significant”

The linear regression model was highly significant; F(3,399) = 638,22, p < 0.001, n = 400 and 82.9% of variance is explained by the FTE distalisation, anteriorisation and knee flexion, which corresponds to a strong effect (f 2 = 4.85).

There was a highly significant association between the VLO of the CT and SMA (Chi2 = 201, p < 0.001), usually respecting a “plus two” rule.

The model estimated was overall highly significant, F (10, 179) = 11.54, p < .001, with R 2 = .39.

In LUAD, there was also a highly significant difference between stage I clinical pancreatic cancer samples and stages II and III clinical pancreatic cancer samples ( P < 0.001), and stages I and IV clinical pancreatic cancer samples had a significant difference ( P < 0.05) ( Figure 5F and Supplementary Figure 4 ).

Regarding the association between intentions towards COVID 19 vaccination and attitudes towards vaccines, vaccine hesitancy had highly significant associations with intermediate mistrust level of vaccine benefit (p < .001), high worries about unforeseen effects (p < .001), intermediate concerns about commercial profiteering (p < .001), and intermediate preference of natural immunity (p < .001) ( Table 5 ).

Both KBP resulted in highly significant conformal plans as compared to CP, (Conformity Index CI 43 and CI 36 ; 1.07 ± 0.05 vs 1.01 ± 0.02, 1.58 ± 0.11 vs 1.45 ± 0.06, p < .001) ( Table 2 ).

Mixed model—repeated measures ANOVA for ∆E showed that; materials, time, and the interaction between them had a highly significant effect ( p < 0.001).

The decrease in growth was highly significant ( p < 0.001) in all test groups compared to control in antibiofilm assay test.

1 However, a highly significant drop in antibody titers was observed at 3 months if a 100-fold dilution was performed ( p <0.001; from 16,935 U/mL to 8919 U/mL; a decrease of 47.3%) ( Fig. 1 ).

Regression analysis also identified frequency of practice, (“How often did you practice YOI?”) as a highly significant factor affecting GAD-7 [estimated b = 1.2, 95% CI (0.5, 3.5), p < 0.001] and PHQ-8 [estimated b = 1.4, 95% CI (0.3, 3.8), p < 0.001].

However, there was a close‐to‐significant difference in diet composition (beta diversity) based on the PERMANOVA dissimilarity analysis of the ITS2 results (index = Canberra, p = 0.059) and highly significant with trnL (index = Canberra, p = 0.001).

The MALT score showed a highly significant difference in LMV ( p < .001), PGD 3 rates at 72 hours ( p < .001), length of ICU stay ( p < .001), hospitalization ( p < .001), and in‐hospital mortality ( p < .001).

Nonverbal Synchrony Nonverbal synchrony was clearly different from pseudosynchrony (coincidence): The comparison with 5,000 pseudodyads was highly significant [ t (382.8) = 9.10; p < 0.001], and this difference had a medium effect size (Cohen's d = 0.67).

All enrichment was highly significant with P < 0.001 ( Supplementary Table 6 ).

In adjusted analyses, the model was found to be highly significant ( p < 0.001).

classifier yielded a highly significant ( p < .001) AUC of 80.6% (95% CI: 75.8–84.8%).

The difference was highly significant (F value = 20.35 with P < 0.001), RMSE 0.19.

The analysis of variance showed a highly significant ( p < 0.001) influence of treatment, and the interaction treatment × time on the average particle size, encapsulation efficiency, and toxicity of the emulsions.

Highly significant mean differences were found (*** p -value < 0.001) (see Figure 5 ).

The model was highly significant ( F = 9.7, p < 0.001) and explained 16.5% (adjusted R 2 ) of the variance of HbA1c (Table 3 ).

First, a bivariate correlation between these variables showed a highly significant association, r (851) = −0.78, p < 0.001.

Testing the Segmentation Model Against Visual Rating Results The logistic regression between the number of DWM PVS clusters ( Figure 10A ) and the visual grading rating ( Figure 10B ) in the ENCOD set was highly significant for all 3 PredMap-Thrs (R 2 0.1 = 0.38, R 2 0.5 = 0.45 see Figure 10C , R 2 0.9 = 0.47, p < 0.001, N = 1,782).

These difference were highly significant in all the aforementioned cases (p < 0.001).

Again, all differences between these levels of job security were statistically highly significant (permanent contract vs. 5-year contract: χ 2 = 184.15; p < .001; 5-year contract vs. 2-year contract: χ 2 = 80.54; p < .001).

This analysis showed that the high correlation of CCAT values is highly significant and not expected by random chance (1000 Monte-Carlo runs P < 0.001, Fig. 4 ).