“highly significant”

By calculating the probability that 11 of 36 identified sites should fall in this binding region comprising 20 sites of a total 626 sites by chance ( Methods ), we found the concentration of sites identified as under positive selection in this region to be highly significant ( P < 10 −6 ).

For HR2, PON1 activity was highly significant (protective) in an unadjusted model ( p = 10 −6 ); continued to be highly significant in a collection of models adjusted for gender, age, and a set of covariates added one-at-time; and finally remained significant ( p = 0.0003) in a model adjusted simultaneously for all covariates of the dataset (gender, age, UAE, past CVD, DM, apoB, use of statins, anti-hypertensives, smoking, ethanol use, and eGFR).

By the least stringent definition of a seed match – a six-nucleotide match complementary to nucleotides (nt) 2–7 or nt 3–8 in the miRNA – 70% of the miR-1 targets and 75% of the miR-124 targets possessed seed matches, a highly significant (P<10 −6 and <10 −25 , hypergeometric density distribution) enrichment over would be expected by chance ( Table 1 , designated ‘6mer’ seed match).

Besides the obvious highly significant effect of age on age at onset and at diagnosis of RBD ( p < 0.000001), we found a significant effect of treatment with antidepressants on age at diagnosis of RBD, with antiD+ patients being on average 6.6 years younger than antiD− patients, with a large effect size.

The inhibition of each infection by heparin was highly significant ( P < 10 −6 by χ 2 test, comparing infected and uninfected populations).

As indicated by the far from overlapping confidence intervals (CI) for these estimates, the differences between the two dementia caregiver groups is highly significant ( t = 4.87, p < 1 × 10 -6 ).

This effect is small; on average people get about 6% faster and spend about 1% less time buzzing, but highly significant ( p <10 −6 for both metrics, t -test).

We observed a highly significant reduction in rolling in response to noxious stimuli compared to both controls when we inactivated the nociceptive class IV neurons (Chi square test, p< 10 −6 , Fig. 4A and 4B and Table S1 ) [2] , [29] , [40] .

For the average GR frequency, ANOVA also showed a highly significant effect of Condition ( F (4,200) = 325.9, G–G ε = 0.37, P < 1e−6, ηp 2 = 0.86; Fig. 2C ), but no effects of Group ( F (1,50) = 0.81, P = 0.37, ηp 2 = 0.02) or Group*Condition interaction ( F (4,200) = 0.32, P = 0.86, ηp 2 = 0.01).

Both values were highly significant when compared with the null hypothesis of no discriminative capacity (AUC = 0.5, p < 0.000001), indicating that the model performs markedly better than chance.

The likelihood ratio test was highly significant (χ 2 = 49.02, df = 10, p < 0.000001), as was the Wald test (χ 2 = 51.80, df = 10, p < 0.000001), indicating that the predictors collectively contributed meaningfully to HBV status classification.

This association between essentiality and positive selection in the LTEE is highly significant (Fisher’s exact test: P < 10 −6 ).

Results The statistical analysis of the Dice coefficients and the BLD values resulted in highly significant differences (p<10 −6 ) for the 5-mm and 8-mm local RRs vs the global, bony and 1-mm local RRs.

This is a highly significant enrichment relative to the <3% of background genes with known interactions (Fisher’s test p < 10 −6 ), confirming that our analytical pipeline is an effective approach to enrich for druggable targets. 645 (34%) of the compounds are predicted in a single patient, ranging from 15 in patient 17 to 205 in patient 18, further highlighting the importance of a patient-specific approach (Fig.

The difference between ASLs and ASELs means was highly significant ( p < 10 −6 ), and the variances were highly significant different ( p < 10 −6 ).

The CCorA model applied revealed that there was only a single canonical dimension between the two datasets, which was found to be very highly significant ( p <10 −6 , Wilks'-Lambda test); this first dimension corresponded to a canonical correlation of 0.99, which accounted for 67.2% of the total variance.

We find subtle, but highly significant (p < 10 −6 ) differences in relative height and relative radius between the two populations ( Fig. 2e, g ).

This highly significant difference (2.1-fold; P ≤ 10 −6 ) suggests that some of the low-scoring sites might be false positives of the ChIP approach and that the overall prediction performance might have been underestimated.

All comparisons were highly significant ( p < 0.000001), confirming that the antimicrobial effect of PAW was not transient and was maintained within 24 h storage.

The difference in reactivity against the same modified food antigens in these two groups was highly significant (p < 0.000001).

The difference between means of traffic exposure groups was highly significant (Wilcoxon test, p < 0.000001).

The analysis of discriminance revealed a highly significant discrimination between diabetic patients and controls (Wilks lambda: 0.27; P < 0.000001).

In pairwise comparison, no difference in VAS between Pfizer and Moderna was found ( p = 0.49), whereas the difference in VAS between both the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccine and the Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccine were highly significant (for both pairwise comparisons p < 0.000001).

The differences found were highly significant related to group B vs group A (χ2 85,63 p <0.000001; O.R. 2,69 [2,16-3,34] )and related to group B vs group C (χ2 33,1 p < 0.000001; O.R 2,39 [1,75-3,26]).

Sucrose, on the other hand, showed strong and highly significant changes in concentration ( P <0.000001).