“extremely significant”

The statistical association with severe HRCT scores was extremely significant in this study ( P < 0.00001) while no significant association of pneumomediastinum could be made with moderate HRCT scores.

The factors affected the degree of Artemisia polysaccharide extraction differently, the primary term affected D (<0.0001) > C (0.0076) > A (0.0023) > B (0.384), the interaction AB, AC, AD, BC, BD were not significant ( P > 0.05), CD was significant ( P < 0.005), the secondary terms A 2 , B 2 , C 2 , D 2 were extremely significant ( P < 0.00001).

These differences in Tables 1 and 2 are extremely significant ( p < .00001 based on χ 2 ).

The results indicate an extremely significant correlation of an NRF2 target being an upregulated gene (p-value < 0.00001 , Supplementary Table S5 ).

An extremely significant linkage also occurred between Loci I and Loci II within 100 individuals (LD = −156.02186, p < 0.00001).

Not only that, the comprehensive effects revealed that the TC changes relative to baseline further became an extremely significant difference in both groups [MD = 3.34; 95% CI (1.88, 4.79); P < 0.00001].

As shown in Figure 4 , the results of the right M1 group showed no significant indigenous effect ( Z = 1.04, p = 0.30), and there was still extremely significant heterogeneity (Chi 2 = 51.77, p < 0.00001, I 2 = 90%).

An extremely significant threshold of P < 1.48 × 10 -5 was used to determine that a total of 213 SNPs were associated with cold tolerance (data not shown).

For this case, all parameters were reported as extremely significant ( p -Value < 2 × 10 −5 ) with the following coefficients: (10) k 13 = 0.74957 · ( w t 13 ) 3.283 + 0.07617 · T 13 Although other polynomial alternatives were contemplated as well, including additional second or superior order coefficients did not improve the prediction capabilities. 3.2.2.

The results indicated that the pericarp browning index showed an extremely significant positive correlation with the expression of LOX2 (r = 0.95, p -value = 2.58 × 10 −5 ) and rotting rate (r = 0.95, p -value = 3.79 × 10 −5 ) and a high positive correlation with the MDA content (r = 0.92, p -value = 1.58 × 10 −4 ), GR activity (r = 0.91, p -value = 2.51 × 10 −4 ), the expression of PAL1 (r = 0.85, p -value = 1.80 × 10 −3 ), JAZ (r = 0.84, p -value = 2.47 × 10 −3 ) and PR-1 (r = 0.81, p -value = 4.23 × 10 −3 ).

Within the transfected FH-MC-LDLR population, the suppression elicited by free sterols was extremely significant when compared to Lovastatin ( p = 0.00004) and significant with regards to the ethanol control ( p = 0.02).

The extremely significant differences in bacterial community composition between bulk soil and plant rhizosphere (PERMANOVA test; P = 0.000050 for T1, P = 0.00010 for T2; Figures 1E, F ) suggested that plants influence bacterial communities.

SALINAS TABLE III.-Number of sera in each patient group with tumour-marker elevations Tumour marker l I SA 1 (3%) 4 (33%) 16 (94%) AGP 1 (3%) 1 (8%) 11 (64%) AAT 0 0 13 (76%) HPT 1 (3%) 0 7 (41%) AMG 0 2 (17%) 1 (6%) Abbreviations: as in Table II. extremely significant (F = 73 6 with 3 and 117 degrees of freedom, P < 0.00005).

These genes showed an extremely significant lower level of nucleotide diversity and Tajima’s D values ( P = 5.22E-05 and 1.23E-30, respectively, Mann–Whitney U test) compared with other genes in the genome ( fig. 1 A ), suggesting a potential selection effects on the divergence observed here.

The difference for DCH prevalence was statistically extremely significant (p-value = 0.00006, OR = 4.04005, CI95% = [1.96601; 8.30211]) when compared animals from collection A and collection B (Fig. 1A ).

An extremely significant increase was detected throughout the day’s 14 ( P = 0.00007, 0.0001, and 0.0008) and day’s 28 ( P = 0.000, 0.000, and 0.0001) of period studied in all present treated groups (Pro 4, Pro 7 and mixture of Pro 4 and Pro 7 strains respectively) compared to untreated group.

Hence, the top 10% of BILs (21) were regarded as the “LF group,” and the bottom 15% of BILs (26) comprised the “SF group.” T ‐test analysis of the FL trait for the LF versus SF groups showed an extremely significant difference ( P = 7.41E−5; Figure S15 ).

Figure 3F at the individual level, strengthens the men and women differences while showing an extremely significant correlation in the AL-208 group, R = 0.8268, ***P = 0.000078 between the change from baseline at 6- and 24-h extracorporeal circulation, the placebo group showed a more moderate correlation with time R = 0.6341, P = 0.0199.

Differences between two groups were considered statistically significant when the P -value was < 0.05, highly significant at P < 0.01, and extremely significant at P < 0.0001.

Differences between diameters and heights in the two groups are extremely significant (Student's t test; P < 0.0001 in both cases).

Changes in body weight After the termination of stress, body weight was significantly shifted between control and stress animals and all stress groups showed an extremely significant decrease in body weight compared with controls (two-way ANOVA, F = 66.81, DFn = 1, DFd = 89, p <0.0001, Bonferroni, NoT, Imi, DS p < 0.001, Figure 4 C).

* P < 0.05, significant; ** P < 0.01, very significant; *** P < 0.001, highly significant; **** P < 0.0001, extremely significant, ns P > 0.05, not significant.

This decrease in radiation by 44% is statistically extremely significant at P < .0001.

There was an extremely significant improvement in moderate/severe LGE versus none/mild LGE on repeat imaging compared with same‐day imaging ( P <0.0001).

Importantly, all the above statistical results had extremely significant differences ( P < 0.0001).