“highly significant”

Median strain ratio (SR) values were 5.69 (4.07–14.47) for Type I, median 1.49 (1.26–1.74) for Type II, and median 0.21 (0.13–0.30) for Type III, and there was a highly significant relationship between HC types and SR values ( P < 0.001).

A highly significant decrease of the blood glucose level was observed with 3β-O acetyl ursolic acid at the same timing intervals, p < 0.001.

Highly significant differences ( P < 0.001) were noted by comparing the electrosurgical device with PIRL and scalpel.

The model performed better in first line treatment, showing highly significant association with both PFS and OS ( P < 0.001, HR = 2.82; 95% CI = 1.74–4.58 and P < 0.001, HR = 3.01; 95% CI = 1.71–5.29, respectively).

This effect was highly significant (F = 15.9, p < 0.001) overall.

Statistical significance thresholds were defined as follows: P<0.05 indicates a statistically significant difference, P<0.01 denotes highly significant differences, P<0.001 signifies extremely significant differences, while P>0.05 (marked as ns) indicates no statistically significant difference.

A highly significant positive correlation between K S-N and K S-MAX was found ( r = 0.99, p < 0.001), as well as significant positive correlations of K S-N and K S-MAX with K L-MAX and FX.

1 G revealed a highly significant positive correlation ( p < 0.001) between TPC, TFC and FRAP, ABTS + free radical scavenging activity in all three onion varieties, with the correlation coefficient exceeding 0.85; in contrast, SASC and DPPH free radical scavenging activity presented a significant positive correlation ( p < 0.05) independent of the above indices.

CAC was a highly significant independent predictor of events (p < 0.001).

The regression model was highly significant, F (8, 71) = 27.697, p < .001, explaining 75.7% of the variance in post-intervention ESAS scores ( R 2 = .757).

Analysis of variance for particle size ( Table 4 ) demonstrated that the quadratic model was highly significant ( F = 42.18, p < 0.001) with an excellent coefficient of determination ( R 2 = 0.9870), indicating that 98.7% of the variability in particle size can be explained by the model.

PERMANOVA analyses showed highly significant differences in metabolite profiles between Fe treatments (Pseudo- F = 14.197, p = 0.001) and collection times (Pseudo- F = 2.494, p = 0.003).

Traits having very highly significant correlation (***; p -value ≤ 0.001) with GY were HI (0.70), PH (0.58), SER (0.44), BM (0.43), LSL 3 (0.43), FLW (0.40) and LSL 1 (0.40), LSL 2 (0.40), PN (0.36), PL (0.31), FLL (0.29), and GW (0.29); while TN (0.25) had highly significant correlation (**; p -value ≤ 0.01; Additional file 6 : Table S3).

Furthermore, X 1 , X 2 , X 3 , X 1 2 , X 2 2 , and X 3 2 were highly significant ( p < 0.001).

Overall motor proficiency demonstrated a highly significant improvement ( F (1) = 16.40, p = 0.001, η 2 p = 0.43).

An increase in perceived intensity in Location 1 compared to Location 2 was found to be highly significant in the medial regions of the tongue, but not in the lateral regions of these Locations ( P < 0.001; Figure 6 , Table 3 ).

A 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVA confirmed a highly significant Condition (baseline, operant) × Perceptual Judgment (action, outcome) interaction, F (1, 77) = 58.6, p < .001, .

However, the correlation of the parameters was statistically highly significant ( P <0.001).

(2024) found early-stage CRC patients had a mean serum Se concentration of ~ 67.2 μg/L versus ~ 78.8 μg/L in non-cancer surgery patients, a highly significant difference ( P < 0.001) [ 16 ].

Interestingly, whole-transcriptome sequencing revealed a highly significant correlation in gene expression profile between the clinical tumor and the PDX ( r s =0.889; P <0.001) ( Fig. 1 D).

Based on the highly significant difference in the coverage index ( p = 0.001), group H had a higher OTU richness than group D.

After treatment, however, highly significant differences emerged ( p < 0.001).

Hub Gene Expression Pattern In the validation population, RFI in the high feed efficiency group ranged from −0.089 to −0.004 g/d (mean: −0.017 g/d), while that in the low feed efficiency group ranged from 0.006 to 0.034 g/d (mean: 0.017 g/d), showing a highly significant difference between the two groups ( p < 0.001).

The residual gender effect remained highly significant for generalized anxiety symptom (adjusted β = 0.18, p < 0.001) and depressive symptom scores (β = 0.09, p < 0.001) but no longer reached statistical significance for emotional/behavioral scores (β = 0.04, p = 0.078).

7 ), and found that there is a highly significant ( P <<0.001) linear correlation between the estimates obtained under the standard MG94xREV model, and the 2 MSS models.