Excerpts

Results showed a highly significant (p < .0001) 21.8% increase in the vine multiplication rate under the sandponics system.

Using a DD of 0.1 μg/ml of TBZ in the EHT seems a good alternative to the in vivo method since the levels of resistance measured by both tests were quite similar and comparable in our study, with a highly significant level of correlation ( r = 0.77; P < 0.0001).

We found a highly significant correlation for the oligomers generated from both HypF-N (r = 0.93, P < 0.0001) and Aβ 42 (r = 0.95, P < 0.0001).

2 and 3 ; all improvements were highly significant ( p < 0.0001) and similar for questions related to pain and functional activities (mean improvement of 44%) and to sleep and mental symptoms (mean improvement of 40%) (Table 2 ).

Both the environmental variation and G × E interaction were highly significant ( P < 0.0001) (Additional file 2 ).

Notably, the GSE10072 and TCGA-LUAD datasets showed highly significant differences ( p < 0.0001), while the GSE140797 dataset, though with a smaller sample size, also exhibited statistical significance ( p < 0.05), as shown in (Fig. 6 ).

A highly significant association between CEI and mortality was noted (p < 0.0001), with mortality reduction of 8.1 (CI: 6.6–9.6) per 1000 units CEI.

When data was analyzed to find a correlation between symptoms of dry eye measured by OSDI questionnaire and quality of life related to vision, the results showed a highly significant correlation linking the overall OSDI scores and the overall NEI-VFQ-25 (spearman r = 0.47, p < 0.0001, n = 93).

In contrast, the regression was significant (ANOVA: F 1,198 = 113.3754, P< 0.0001) but the Lack-of-Fit was also highly significant (ANOVA: F 8,190 = 22.9589, P< 0.0001) for the Explicit-Shaping bees over the entire set of covered trials (trials 11–20).

Averaging over the five production years, plant treatment and fertilization effects were both highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

The difference was highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

Further, comparing the 100–300 and 300–500 ms time-windows directly using the pre-stimulus baseline demonstrates a highly significant C ondition × T ime-window × AP interaction [ F (1, 25) = 31.45, p < 0.0001].

The increase in nuclear AR-V7 expression between HSPC and after AA or EZ treatment was highly significant ( p < 0.0001), as was the increase in nuclear AR-V7 between pre and post AA or EZ ( p = 0.007) treatment biopsies.

Statistical analysis revealed a highly significant difference between the control group and the dropped group ( p < 0.0001), indicating the substantial contamination risk when grafts were exposed to the operating room floor.

Hazard functions followed a significant trend across risk groups (χ 2 = 52, p < 0.0001).

Differences between singletons and between twins are highly significant ( p =0.0001 and p =0.0002, respectively).

The interaction between these three factors (group, side, and CN) was also highly significant ( P < 0.0001) ( Table 1 ).

Highly significant heterogeneity was found among these 2 studies ( χ 2 = 19.43, I 2 = 95%, and P < 0.0001), indicating their heterogeneity. 3.3.2.

Post hoc Tukey's multiple comparison analysis between groups [ Table 3b ] indicated that mean of most of the treatment groups was highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

All the psychosocial factors— perceived social norms, conditions facilitating CIM, affect, perceived consequences for patients and staff, descriptive norms, structural facilitating conditions, past behaviour and personal normative beliefs —were highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

The main effect of “correctness” factor controlling for age and sex was highly significant as for TPT, F (1,51) = 23.78; p < 0.0001, as for AED, F (1,51) = 15.65; p < 0.0001.

There was a decreasing trend of the risk with increasing children age at bereavement (trend χ 2 = 148.71, P < 0.0001).

The results indicated that there was a highly significant association between PD-L2 and PD-L1 in these tumors ( p < 0.0001) [ 107 ].

The model was highly significant (Chi-Square = 264.87 (12), p < 0001) and accurately placed 81.6% of the sample into their respective group (Actives versus Withdrawals).

Barlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant ( c 2 = 1,106, df = 190; P < 0.0001) suggesting sufficient correlation between variables.