“highly significant”

The marked difference between the VWF:Ag levels between critical patients (507%) versus non-critical (288%) was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

A weak, but highly significant, positive correlation, however, was observed for the parameters head size and neck width ( r = 0.30, P < 0.0001; Fig. 3G ).

Results Nematode egg counts The FEC showed a highly significant (P<0.0001) seasonal pattern, with the highest values observed in calves after they had been on pasture for eight weeks.

Bats that were associated with the (bushmeat) value chain were more frequently positive for coronavirus RNA (25.4%) than bats sampled at other human animal (peri-domestic) interfaces (5%), and this difference was highly significant (p < 0.0001).

The changes in ExitLOS and HistLOS are highly significant (P < 0.0001) but in opposite directions.

All factors were therefore taken forward into a multivariable model and again all factors were highly significant (all p < 0.0001) (Table S 7 ).

To visualise the results, we plotted the 34 network edges between the TF nodes with highly significant correlations ( P <0.0001; Fig. 5 ).

The statistical significance and adequacy of this quadratic model were confirmed by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), as detailed in Table S3 , which showed a highly significant model ( P < 0.0001) and a non-significant lack of fit ( P = 0.3012).

A highly significant negative correlation between RUNX3 and vimentin protein was observed in these gastric cancer samples ( P < 0.0001; Fig. 8 C).

*, p < 0.05 (significant); **, p < 0.01 (very significant); ***, p < 0.001 (highly significant); ****, p < 0.0001 (extremely significant); and ns, p > 0.05 (not significant). 3.

The log-rank test confirmed a highly significant difference in the survival distributions between the two groups ( P < 0.0001).

Altered K/Na, Ca/Na and Mg/Na Concentration Ratios Are Strong Indicators of Na-Stress Exposure The ANOVA summary for concentration ratios of K, Ca or Mg with Na in examined test crop tissues showed a highly significant ( p < 0.0001) impact of NaCl salinity, whereas the soil Cd contamination as well as the CdxNaCl interaction were not significant ( Table S3 ).

At the local scale, analysis revealed a highly significant isolation-by-distance pattern when all areas were tested jointly (r 2 = 0.069; Mantel test p < 0.0001; Figure 5 ).

ART to a beep was very highly significant (p < .0001, d = 0.94) (Table 3), demonstrating a large effect size and highlighting a substantial impact of intervention on ART.

Then, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test compared ccf-mtDNA levels in the three groups, resulting in a highly significant statistical difference (p-value < 0.0001).

All three models were highly significant, confirming the robustness of the classifier method ( P = 0.0001, P = 0.0002, and P = 0.0003, for 3-, 4- and 5- nearest neighbours models, respectively.

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.

The differences between species richness in NW and RB were highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE A highly significant correlation was found between transcriptional profiles of endometrial biopsies and pairwise UF-EV samples (Pearson’s r = 0.70 P < 0.0001; Spearman’s ρ = 0.65 P < 0.0001).

Statistical analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test confirmed this difference as highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

Similarly, at 25 μg/mL (gluten coated IC50), a highly significant difference (P-value ≤ 0.0001) is noted compared to sericin-coated particles, accompanied by a 40% reduction in cell viability.

Storage time interactions had significant ( p < 0.01) and highly significant ( p < 0.0001) effects on the syneresis and water‐holding capacity values of the samples, respectively.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that the reduced model was highly significant (F = 68.41, p < 0.0001), indicating adequate representation of the relationship between factors and response (Table 2 ).

For logistic regression, both HC1 (estimate: 0.631, SE: 0.117, p < 0.0001) and HC2 were highly significant (estimate: −0.686, SE: 0.097, p < 0.0001).

There was a highly significant correlation between baseline and P3 ( p < 0001).