“highly significant”

In the medium group size (6SC), the CNTRL + M + 6SC showed a highly significant increase in mirror bites compared to HGRY + M + 6SC ( P < 0.0001).

This assay demonstrated a highly significant reduction ( p < 0.0001) in gene expression for both IL-6R (~ 70%) and TGFβ2 (~ 86%) upon respective binding of miR-125b-5p and miR-145a-5p.

In a multivariable analysis the interaction with time to treatment remained highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

The combined pre-and post-treatment changes in the two studies showed a highly significant improvement of 40% in the mean Cochin hand function score (95% CI 26%–55%, P = 0.0001, Wilcoxon test).

Analysis of the two tracking sets showed that compared to sporozoites gliding independently of CD31-labeled vessels, the average apparent speed of gliding sporozoites decreases once they approach a blood vessel from 1.38 μm/s to 1.06 μm/s, and this difference is highly significant (p value < 0.0001) ( Figure 2B ).

The effect of the choice of parameter set on the number of backbone hydrogen bonds, the number of native backbone hydrogen bonds, the polar and nonpolar SASA, the radius of gyration, RMSD 100 , and the proportions of α-helix and β-strand was highly significant, with p < 0.0001.

Results in Table 2 show highly significant relative humidity effect on both D. minutus reproductive capacity (F=388.91, DF=4, 45; p<0.0001) and adult lifespan (F=464.70, DF=4, 45; p<0.0001).

The pathway of flavonoid biosynthesis had the highest rich factor and was very highly significant ( P -value < 0.0001) in the pathway enrichment of continuously upregulated DEGs.

Split-plot ANOVA revealed a highly significant main effect of contrast (F 2,52 = 37.19; p < .0001) and interaction between group and contrast (F 2,52 = 8.07; p < .001); the main effect of group was not significant (F 1,26 = 0.22; p = .64).

The correlation of health practices related to vitamin D status with dental caries was highly significant ( p = 0.0001), and lesser exposure to sun was also significant ( p = 0.002) ( Table 2 ).

"STR completion rate" was a highly significant factor in both SNP rate models (p < 0.0001), and "STR concordance rate" and "GQ score" were significant factors in the SNP concordance rate model (p = 0.0008 and 0.045, respectively).

ecuadoriensis , the square root area - but not the perimeter - showed a highly significant reduction (permutation test, 1000 cycles, P < 0.0001) in the late developmental stage.

The P for trend was calculated by treating HIV/CD4 group as an ordinal variable with four levels (0 to 3) and was highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

The linear regressions between the available energy and the measured energy fluxes were all highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

Testing this distribution against the null hypothesis, that the percentage of suicide attempts is the same for all seasons, points to a highly significant seasonality effect (Chi-squared test, χ 2 = 53.803, df = 3, p < 0.0001).

The difference in bacterial burden in the lungs between these two groups was highly significant ( P <0.0001, one-way ANOVA with Tukey's correction).

Results We observed a highly significant decrease in the presence of the KIR2DS2 and KIR2DS4 genes (OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.05-0.41, P = 0.0001; OR = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.02-0.2, P = 0.000, respectively) and in the presence of the KIR2DL5A gene (OR = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.02-0.14, P = 0.0000) in the TC group compared to the HC group.

5 ; Table 5 revealed a highly significant ( p < 0.0001) intra-nucleosomal DNA fragmentation in hepatocytes of the ACR group, evidenced by high smear in the DNA band and low OD value at 260 nm, compared to the control and treated groups.

While MEASSA’s performance advantage is most pronounced and highly significant (p ~ 1e-4) against simpler algorithms like SCA, GWO, and its predecessor ASSA, it also maintains a clear and statistically significant edge (p < 0.05) over its closest competitors, mJS and PSO-ACO, which show the smallest yet still definitive p-values (p ~ 1e-2 to 1e-3).

Results from ANOVA indicated highly significant effects for time ( p ≤0.0001), genotype ( p ≤0.05) and their interaction ( p ≤0.0001) ( Supplementary data for Fig. 2 ).

On meta-regression analysis, the combined impact of all covariates in the model explained at least some of the variance in effect size (Q = 16.21, df = 6, P= 0.0127), and the proportion of variance explained by covariates on comparing the model with and without the covariates was 73 % and highly significant (Tau2 = 0.1100, Tau = 0.3317, I2 = 86.5%, Q = .99, df = 10, P<0.0001) (R2 = 0.73).

After accounting for differences due to strategy, mean age and mean PSA in the meta-regression analysis, the amount of residual heterogeneity between studies was calculated to be 76.0, which is highly significant at the 5% level (QE = 176.8, p<0.0001).

Between-treatment differences remained highly significant at the 24-hour time point regardless of baseline WHO/ECOG performance status (performance status ≤2: 0.87 vs 17.79 hours; P < 0.0001; performance status >2: 1.46 vs >24 hours; P < 0.0001) ( Figure 2 B).

On intragroup multiple comparisons of mean reduction in the indices scores, a statistically highly significant difference was observed between the baseline vs 14 and 28 days intervals ( p = 0.0001) in both group I and group II as well as baseline vs 28 days in group III.

The effect was highly significant in the crude model ( β = −1.445; P < .0001) and, after full adjustment in Model 2, showed a strong trend that approached statistical significance ( β = −0.401; P = .091).