“extremely significant”

The p -value ≤0.01 is considered as extremely significant.

The improvised ELISA assays that use multiple target proteins and phages for the detection of anti-MAP antibodies revealed extremely significant humoral immune responses in T1DM patients when compared to T2DM and healthy controls [ 28 ] (Fig. 2 ).

In the evolution, especially in the first 6 months, after restoring the euthyroid state, under specific treatment of hyperthyroidism and beta-blockers, we documented an extremely significant regression of CO for groups A and B, but not for group C.

We took mean of first two years compliance and compared it to mean of last two years and applied t-test which showed p-value of less than 0.0001 which was statistically extremely significant.

There were extremely significant differences in 11 indices of leaf structure for these 35 healthy plants.

The differences in the linear coefficients were extremely significant in the HD model, as was the interaction coefficient AB, though the other interaction coefficients were not.

The extremely significant (Bonferroni), significant (above t-value), and insignificant (below t-value) coefficients of various variables from the Pareto chart ( Fig. 2 ) were examined using the limit line, which may intuitively give conspicuous components [18] , [42] .

I consider it to be an extremely significant experience both for the women and for me as a rehabilitation nursing professional, as it enhances the improvement in these women’s autonomy and is a crucial factor in their adaptation to their new reality.

p > 0.05 indicated no significant difference, 0.01 < p ≤ 0.05 indicated significant difference, p ≤ 0.01 indicated extremely significant difference.

p values of 0.01 to 0.05 were considered significant (*), p values of 0.001 to 0.01 were considered very significant (**) and p values of < 0.001 were considered extremely significant (***, ****).

A P value of <0.05 or <0.01 was considered significant or extremely significant.

∗ P < 0.05 was considered a significant difference and ∗∗ P < 0.01 was considered an extremely significant difference. 3.

Moreover, oxidoreductases including alternative oxidase [ 35 ], cytochrome c peroxidase [ 36 ], mannitol-1-phosphate-5-dehydrogenase [ 37 ], thiol peroxidase [ 38 ], and thioredoxin reductase [ 39 ] already have been confirmed to be extremely significant for the virulence of C. neoformans [ 40 ].

No proof has ever been adduced for this position, and it is extremely significant that convincing evidence is still wanting to support the view that such endotoxins are responsible for, or capable of, stimulating the production of antibodies along the lines which hold for the reaction of the animal organism against the diphtheria exotoxin.

Differences were considered significant if p < 0.05 and extremely significant if p < 0.01. 5.

The significance level was set at p < 0.05 (significant) and p < 0.01 (extremely significant).

P < 0.05 and p < 0.01, which were considered to have significant differences, were labeled by “*” and “* *” in the figures, respectively; p < 0.001 was considered to have an extremely significant difference and was labeled by “* * *” in figures.

Using a one-way analysis of variance, a p -value <0.05 was considered a significant difference, and a p -value <0.01 was considered an extremely significant difference. 3.

P < 0.01 and P < 0.001 were considered significant and extremely significant differences, respectively.

Values of * p < 0.05 and *** p < 0.001 were considered significant and extremely significant, respectively. 3.

The significance of variability among different groups was determined by unpaired t-test, P values < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant, and P values < 0.01 was considered to be extremely significant.

Due to the rapid increase in the use of IoT systems, mcMTC’s role has become extremely significant.

Significance values of p < 0.05 were considered significant and p < 0.01 considered extremely significant.

p < 0.01 was considered the extremely significant difference. 5.

For the significance analysis, the P value of the quadratic model was 0.0029, less than 0.01, suggesting that it was an extremely significant model with better fitting of the experimental data.