“highly significant”

Results Analysis of variance The combined analysis of variance across environments showed that variances due to genotypes (G), environments (E), and GEI were highly significant ( P < 0.001) for all the traits measured (Table 1 ).

Subgroup Preference Heterogeneity Both population groups exhibited a highly significant preference for longer protection durations (10 years/30 years vs. 5 years; p < 0.001), indicating that extended protection duration is a core attribute for improving vaccination willingness ( Figure 2 and Figure 3 ).

Compared with the PBS group, the FLA-ST group exhibited a highly significant decrease in bacterial burden, with an approximately 4-fold decrease in CFU counts ( p < 0.001).

The BE showed a highly significant group effect ( p < 0.001).

In the work, it has been found that highly significant ( P <0.001) results on Shwasakastata were found in all the groups, except in the Kamsa Haritaki Avaleha (B) group which was insignificant ( P <0.02).

Highly significant association was observed in marks obtained by students in P and PD categories in all four batches in viva-voce and written examination ( P <0.001).

Statistical significance was determined as follows: p > 0.05 (nonsignificant, ns), p ≤ 0.05 (significant, *), p ≤ 0.01 (highly significant, **), p ≤ 0.001 (extremely significant, ***), and p ≤ 0.0001 (extremely significant, ****). 3.

Although fit characteristics would have continued to improve with removal of any of the remaining biomarkers from the model, all showed practically indistinguishable, highly significant interclass differences (p ≤ 0.001) and were therefore retained as important discriminatory factors.

3 c shows a highly significant correlation (R 2 = 0.96; p < 0.001) between the NVC metrics determined by the two methods.

The effect of diet type on TDF was also highly significant for the other Tr-AAs, such as alanine ( F 2,14 - 142.97, P < 0.001), valine ( F 2,14 - 118.70, P < 0.001), leucine ( F 2,14 - 189.65, P < 0.001), and isoleucine ( F 2,14 - 68.67, P < 0.001).

The comparison between baseline visit and the last visit D4M, 4 months after the last IPL session, in group <40 years, the difference was highly significant, p < 0.001, the group between 40 and 60 years, the degree of significance was lower, p < 0.005 and in the group of more than 60 years, the difference was minimally significant, p < 0.01.

Interestingly, the results showed that the relationship between mobile phone distraction and cognitive emotional pre-occupation is highly significant when attention control is low (β = 0.44, p < 0.001) but becomes weakest and insignificant when attention control is high (β = 0.05, p > 0.05).

Data was considered statistically significant if the p value is < to 0.05 and highly significant at p < 0.001.

These differences between stem‐level herbivory incidence were highly significant (Kruskal–Wallis χ 2 = 1,636.4, df = 2, p ≤ .001).

The comparison with the Chi Square statistics of the data relative to these two facilities is highly significant (p < 0.001) from a statistical viewpoint.

This difference was highly significant (T = 6.847, df = 108, p < .001).

Permutation ANOVA confirmed that the overall model was highly significant (F = 23.067, p < 0.001).

The highly significant values of genetic differentiation tests (K s *, K st *, and Z*) for both genes ( p < 0.001) suggest that these groups are genetically distinct.

The findings were highly significant ( P < 0.001).

The overall correlations between EPS concentration and substratum stability were highly significant (stability - carbohydrates r = 0.728, n = 29, p<0.001; stability - proteins r = 0.414, n = 29, p<0.05); giving evidence of the important role of EPS for both, developing and reversing substratum stability.

3 The four dummy variables for seniority level were all highly significant ( p < 0.001).

Highly significant ( p < 0.001) analgesic activity with less writhing count was seen in the standard group (19.60 ± 0.95) followed by the LF group (20.26 ± 0.98) and group VI experimental (25.35 ± 1.55) animals.

A prespecified linear frequency trend (placebo < 2× < 3×) was highly significant (F = 11.8, p = 0.001).

Regarding other sources of information, it was found that attending hands-on workshops/courses, gaining knowledge from social media, and sharing knowledge with colleagues had a highly significant effect on increasing knowledge (B = 2.27, p = 0.001; B = 2.34, p = 0.000; B = 1.32, p = 0.019).

Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA) tests supports the results of the cluster analysis and differences between clusters are highly significant ( p < 0.001).