“highly significant”

The difference in risk of relapse between the G2I-1 and G2I-2 tumors was borderline significant (Odd ratio: 0.16 [0.2-1.2] p = 0.08) whereas that between the G2I-2 and G2I-3 tumors was highly significant (odd ratio: 8.5 [3.2-22.6] p < 0.001) in univariate analysis.

Adjustments for multiplicity were not performed due to the large sample size and the presence of highly significant results (most p -values < 0.001), which may diminish the risk of false-positive findings.

Furthermore, genotype variance within the breeding population reached highly significant levels ( p < 0.001), indicating significant notable differences among genotypes within the population.

There was a highly significant correlation between T I and V T in all groups (p<0.001).

saxicola with differences between the species being highly significant ( Fig. 3 , t-test: t = −22.0, d.f. = 24, P <0.001).

An ANOVA test revealed highly significant variation (P≤0.001) among genotypes ( Table 2 ).

In addition, Barlett's test for non-sphericity was highly significant (p < 0,001).

On the other hand, caterpillars occurred with a much higher frequency in deep chambers (15.8%) than in mid-depth (7.7%) or superficial (0.7%) chambers, differences that were highly significant (Pearson Chi-square= 14.86; d.f = 2; p < 0.001).

Highly significant differences in BCRY content were detected among genotypes ( p < 0.001), with lines carrying the A/A allele ( n = 4) exhibiting substantially higher BCRY levels than those harboring A/C ( n = 23) or C/C ( n = 104) genotypes.

Symptomatic knee In all the present analyses, the baseline values were highly significant, where lower (worse) score was associated with clinically relevant change (p ≤ 0.001).

While CSA exposure status was highly significant in this combined sample ( P <0.001), there was no indication of an additional effect attributable to the familial environment ( P = 0.406) based on results from generalized mixed-effect models.

For all METTLs, d S was significantly greater than d N and all Z -tests for selection (i.e., HA: d N < d S ) were highly significant ( P value < 0.001) ( table 3 ).

Urea: Highly significant increase with treatment (p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.760), with post hoc differences in Groups B, C, and E compared with control.

For both matrix data sets (strains, n =127 and ST, n =60), a highly significant correlation between the Euclidean distance of peptide occurrence and geographic distance was found (strains: n =127, correlatio n =0.36, t =7.79, two-tailed P =0.001; ST: n =60, correlatio n =0.26, t =3.1, two-tailed P =0.002).

The SARC_Cal_score was a consistent, highly significant positive predictor across all models (CatBoost: OR = 2.932 (2.096–4.305), p < 0.001; LightGBM: OR = 2.795 (1.899–4.51), p < 0.001; GBDT: OR = 4.475 (2.934–7.334), p < 0.001).

This analysis confirmed that the first five principal components (PC1-PC5) were highly significant (p < 0.001), as their eigenvalues substantially exceeded those obtained from randomly permuted data.

The CD4 depletion remained highly significant in the duodenum of virally suppressed participants ( P < 0.001), but it was less pronounced in the colon and no longer reached statistical significance ( P = 0.1).

The HTS data show a slightly higher standard deviation due to the lower number of analysed cells, but the differences in 1 μM AZT susceptibility between wild-type and mutant RT pseudotypes were highly significant (p <0.001).

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

Thus, we observed weak enrichment of strain-specific variants at sex-biased CREs when considering the full eQTL regions, but found a highly significant, 2.5-fold enrichment within intra-TAD intervals (p<0.001 for intra-TAD interval variants vs p = 0.278 genome-wide).

The model is as follows: Survival ~ sex + ( 1 | patRIL ) + ( 1 | RIL : vial ) + ( 1 | RIL : sex ) + ( 1 | group ) + ( 1 | set : group ) The fixed effect of sex was highly significant ( z = −8.0, P < 0.001).

DMRs in SAS fish were twice as frequently hypo-methylated relative to wild fish than hyper-methylated and this difference was highly significant (68%: 193/284 hypo-DMRs; 32%: 91/284 hyper-DMRs; binomial P -value < 0.001).

The improvement was statistically highly significant in Group C as compared to group A ( P < 0.001) and group B ( P < 0.001).

RM-ANOVA revealed a highly significant effect of session, F (19, 285) = 37.18, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.71, which reflected a significant linear increase, F (1, 15) = 81.01, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.84, and a significant quadratic pattern, F (1, 15) = 11.30, p = .004, η p 2 = 0.43. 3.2 Transfer task performance Table 2 shows the score on each of the outcome measures, separately for each group and assessment session.

All t -tests were highly significant (all p < .001).