“extremely significant”

The difference was extremely significant ( P = 0.0001) [ Table 2 ].

This statistically significant difference was during the entire follow-up 90 days, and from day 14 to day 42, in particular, the difference was extremely significant ( P < 0.0001).

The differences between slopes were extremely significant ( P < 0.0001), suggesting that the time-related linear increase in pressure was exacerbated in the simulated sialolithiasis group.

Overall, the difference was extremely significant ( P < 0.0001).

Degrees of significance were assessed by three different rating values: * p 0.05 (significant), ** p 0.01 (highly significant), *** p 0.001 (extremely significant), and **** p ≤ 0.0001 (extremely significant) or non-significant ( p 0.05). 5.

Differences considered significant when p < 0.05 (*), very significant when p < 0.01 (**), highly significant when p < 0.001 (***), and extremely significant when p < 0.0001 (****).

Nonparametric ANOVA was extremely significant ( P < 0.0001).

Twelve overlapping cases with both same-sex attraction and maternal thyroid dysfunction during pregnancy were identified, which was extremely significant (P<0.0001, by Fisher’s exact test).

A considerable elevation in the expression levels of all assessed markers—TNF-alpha, IL-1β, c-Fos, BDNF, Nfl, and GFP—was noted in the ISO-induced group, exhibiting extremely significant differences relative to the control group ( p < 0.0001).

The fitted model was extremely significant ( F = 61.47 and p < 0.0001).

Expression was extremely significant in the distal colon of the double infection group ( p < 0.0001).

Inclusion of pre hypertensive group to hypertensive proportion gives an extremely significant difference between males and females (p<0.0001); RR=1.800 [95%CI 1.407:2.303], RD=0.5250 [95%CI 0.4445:0.6039].

However, extremely significant differences ( p < 0.0001) were observed between the presence and absence of Mn 2+ .

Linear regression of wound healing profiles altogether showed that the differences between the elevations or intercepts (i.e., X -intercept when Y = 0.0 and thus closure time) were extremely significant between the stimulated samples at 1 Hz and 80 Hz and the control specimens ( p < 0.0001).

A linear regression analysis also showed that there was an extremely significant correlation between miR-4728-3p and mir-4728 (R: 0.999, p < 0.0001) ( Figure 3C ).

Further, on days 7 and 14, the membrane group showed an extremely significant reduction compared to values in respective control groups (p < 0.0001).

Analysis of variance and statistical test results showed that the model P-value was extremely significant ( P < 0.0001).

Furthermore, after 30 min of histone treatment, we revealed a significantly different MDW compared to respective controls ( p = 0.0012), whereas histone + LPS showed an extremely significant difference vs control ( p < 0.0001) (Fig. 1 B).

The significance for regression analysis of variance indicates that the regression is extremely significant, p = 0.0001, and non-significant, p = 1.0000, for the missing term, with R 2 = 0.9726 and R 2 Adj = 0.9374.

In particular, compared with the level observed at 0 d (CK), the expression of pyrB (5-fold), flmH (8-fold), pilR (4-fold) and bopD (5-fold) reached extremely significant levels at 15 days (t=20.51, df=4, p <0.0001), 10 days (t=14.28, df=4, p <0.0001), 5 days (t=26.79, df=4, p <0.0001) and 10 days (t=32.57, df=4, p <0.0001), respectively ( Figure 6C ).

A two-way ANOVA analysis shows that the variable % of AcEt/TFA is extremely significant, affecting 95.13% of total result variance, with a p -value < 0.0001.

Another t -test was conducted for the average PDI values between the 2 μm/30 nm compared to PEG, which showed an extremely significant value ( p ≤ 0.0001).

The analysis of variance of the response surface revealed that the model was extremely significant ( p < 0.0001), the lack of fit was not significant ( p > 0.05), the correlation coefficient R 2 was 0.9816, and the adjusted determination coefficients R adj 2 was 0.9632 ( Table 2 ).

Patients with no fibrosis (F0) were young as compared to those who developed liver fibrosis (F1‐F3) or liver cirrhosis (F4) with an extremely significant difference ( P < 0.0001) based on the analysis of one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test as presented in Table 2 .

Though there was a statistically significant difference among groups, the difference between Revo-S and WaveOne was extremely significant ( P < 0.0001).