“highly significant”

On the SCQ, the right lateral region showed a highly significant ( χ 2 = 21.82, p < 0.0001) age-by-region interaction.

One-way ANOVA shows a highly significant difference between Fgr, Fyn, Hck and Lyn expression levels relative to Blk (p < 0.0001), while Src, Yes and Lck are not significantly different ( Fig 1A ).

When comparing the SEDC group to all other phenotypes combined, the difference in the frequency of multiple ossification centers was highly significant (Fisher’s exact test, p < 0.0001).

The median score in the P − group was 20.7 [14.2–28.1] compared to 47.9 [39.1–56.8] in the P + group, a difference that was highly significant (Mann–Whitney U test, p < .0001).

A highly significant difference ( p < 0.0001, effect size = 0.319) is observed between protein–protein (Peptide = 0) and protein–peptide (Peptide = 1) complexes ( Figure 1 b), with a noticeably lower median affinity for the latter.

The intra-subject repeatability of the sputum calgranulin A/B was highly significant (p <0.0001).

The aspirin pH i recovery rate showed a highly significant difference in ΔpH/min compared to non-stimulated conditions, ( p < 0.0001) ( Figure 2A ).

The difference between the unconditioned and PBM conditioned light damage groups was highly significant ( p<0.0001 ), as were the differences between the saffron-conditioned and unconditioned groups ( p<0.0001 ), and between the combined-conditioned and unconditioned groups ( p<0.0004 ).

Taking all values together and adjusting them for period, this resulted in a negative and highly significant correlation between BWG in TN and LossBWG in the subsequent HS period ( r = −0.70, P < 0.0001).

All of these differences were highly significant ( p -value < 0.0001), see also Table S2 .

Scheiner described RAID (Rapid Access, Interface & Discharge) team interventions in the UK (n = 101) and reported highly significant mean reduction in ED attendances ( p < 0.0001), though the effects were smaller for patients with alcohol-related presentations compared to other FAs [ 24 ].

The model was highly significant ( p < 0.0001), while the lack-of-fit term was not significant ( p > 0.05), indicating a good fit and significant main effects.

Overall, zymosan treatment which was used for positive control resulted in a highly significant increase of both types of NETs, i.e., “cell free”- and “anchored”-NETs in bovine PMN ( p < 0.0001; Figures 3E–H ).

The difference is highly significant (mean number of kin: 16.4 ± 11.9 vs 5.8 ± 8.8; F 1,322 = 82.72, p < 0.0001).

The logistic regression model showed orographic lift to be a highly significant predictor of the probability of low altitude soaring (Wald test, p < 0.0001).

The content of each individual element, except Fe, showed highly significant differences between the inner structure and the surface (results from Wilcoxon‐test: p < .0001*, for p ‐values see Table A1 ).

Two-way ANOVA showed highly significant treatment effects ( p < 0.0001) and time exposure ( p < 0.0001).

Although the average distance between the amino and carboxyl termini is small (∼6 nm), it is highly significant ( P < 0.0001), illustrating the power of our methods.

The mean anesthesia time was significantly shorter in the WALANT group, averaging 3.6 ± 0.5 minutes (95% CI 3.44-3.76), compared with 8.4 ± 2.0 minutes in the LRA group (95% CI 7.61-9.19), demonstrating a highly significant difference ( P < .0001).

Both LPO substrates mediated A/California/04/2009 viral inactivation beyond detection limit of the assay in the cell-free system which was highly significant (p<0.0001, for each substrate) ( Fig 3A ).

Around a third of the DMTs overlapped with ENCODE liver H3K4me1 and H3K27Ac peaks, a highly significant enrichment (both p < 1 × 10 −4 ).

Highly significant effects of genotype on female night sleep were present ( P <0.0001; S12 Table ), as well as significant pleiotropic effects on all sleep traits ( S12 Table ).

The difference between WS individuals and TD controls is highly significant [ t (35) = 6.56, p < 0.0001, two-tailed, with an effect size Cohen’s d = 2.23].

Scutum and sensilla size variation There was no significant difference in the (seven-landmark) CS of S1 (0.059 mm) and S2 (0.060 mm) (P = 0.2058), and also no significant difference in the scutum perimeter of S1 (0.182 mm) and S2 (0.184 mm) (P = 0.2058), but there was a highly significant difference in size (P < 0.0001) between the perimeters of sensilla S1 (0.047 mm) and S2 (0.050 mm) ( Fig. 3 ; Table 3 ). 3.1.2.

When lineages were partitioned into four groups (background, fossorial, limbless, and limbless-fossorial), the differences remained highly significant when all genes were analyzed together (p < 0.0001; see Table S3 ).