“highly significant”

Conversely, disease activity (estimated coefficient: 0.7397) and the use of biologics (estimated coefficient: 0.7080) were identified as highly significant and independent predictors of increased annual direct medical costs ( p < 0.0001).

Both 1 μg/mL and 5 μg/mL treatments led to a highly significant increase compared to untreated controls ( p < 0.0001) ( Figure 4 D).

Total NRI was 29.6% and was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

By one-way ANOVA, there was a highly significant disturbance category effect ( F = 44.7, p < 0.0001) with all three categories significantly different from one another ( p < 0.0001).

The free binding energies of kaempferol and catechin were highly significant with p < 0.0001 and p < 0.001, respectively.

There is a highly significant increase in age, in positive BRCA1 group; compared to negative BRCA1 group (p < 0.0001) while a non-significant difference as regards all the remaining basic clinical data (history of breast cancer, laterality, presenting symptoms and CA125 level) (p > 0.05) was found.

The differences for each muscle were highly significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, p < 0.0001).

Year-Effects on P and N in Green Leaves All variables showed highly significant differences among years ( P < 0.0001) and significant interactions of Year ×Age ( Table 1 ).

The effect of ridge orientation was highly significant (χ 1 = 17.5, P < 0.0001), which confirmed our findings in experiment 1.

As displayed in Table 1 , results revealed that the fitted model was highly significant ( p < 0.0001), indicating that it could effectively explain the variation in the yields of YKP ( Wu et al., 2021 , Wu et al., 2022 ).

There were, however, highly significant differences between groups in the extent of this decline ( p < 0.0001 for the interaction between treatment and time, see Fig. 1 A).

The differences between the component scores for the teachers and the MGH referents for PC1 and 2 were highly significant (p < 0.0001) by Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

A random permutation test indicated that the proportion of variances attributable at all groups were highly significant (p < 0.0001).

A highly significant difference ( P = 0.0001) was observed compared to those receiving placebo ( N = 57) who maintained their mean BMD at the lumbar spine over 5 years of follow-up (−0.1% (95% CI -1.3 to 1.0)).

The difference was highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

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.

The Wilcoxon test determined there are highly significant differences in SHAPE reactivity between both groups (p<0.0001).

Multiple regression analysis using these same co-variants was highly significant ( p < 0.0001; R 2 = 72.7%) with the main variants being nadir SCr >0.6 mg/dL [ p < 0.001; β coefficient: 1.38 (95% CI: 0.9 to 1.9)] and growth (current sds) [ p = 0.03; β coefficient: −0.13 (95% CI: −0.2 to −0.1)].

The values were highly significant ( P < 0.0001) for the T- and C-scores for creatinine.

The SRT measurements are reliable, given the highly significant ( p < 0.0001) increase in the SRT in multi-talker babble compared to SSN in experiment 1, in line with previous reports ( Oba et al. 2011 ; Taitelbaum-Swead & Fostick 2022 ), and high intra-class correlations between the two SRT measurements of 0.87 in experiment 1 and 0.89 in experiment 2.

This difference was highly significant, t(70.14) = 4.04, p = .0001 (degrees of freedom using Satterthwaite’s correction for unequal variance).

The results of the AMOVA using the mtDNA data showed that the genetic differentiation between lineages A and B was highly significant ( F CT = 0.750; p < 0.0001; Table 3 ).

Moreover, highly significant ( p ≤ 0.0001) effects were recorded as a result of the interaction between DDGS and EEM.

A highly significant association between IgG (p = 0.0001) and C3 (p = 0.002) positivity with specific histopathological diagnoses, while IgA showed no significant association (p = 0.987).

There was a highly significant ( p < 0.0001) but only moderate correlation between both models ( r = 0.5 and r = 0.57 for a linear and non-linear model, respectively).