“highly significant”

The overall effect of the model was highly significant ( p < 0.0001), indicating that NH 4 + , K + , NO 3 − , BAP, and NAA significantly affected growth.

A repeated-measures ANOVA showed a highly significant effect of drug condition ( F (3,21) = 20.3, P < 0.0001).

For the PMHS, the KMO amounted to 0.955 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

Meanwhile, the TyG index and NAFLD risk showed a highly significant overall correlation ( p < 0.0001) and nonlinearity ( p < 0.0001) according to the limited cubic splines.

Second, a linear regression of perch temperature over mean environmental temperature is highly significant ( P < 0.0001) and the slope of 0.897 is significantly different from a slope of 1 ( t = −3.233, df = 177; P < 0.005).

The level of association between clusters and origin of the isolates was statistically highly significant ( p < 0.0001), indicating a host preference, with tropism a well known feature of Campylobacter fetus subspecies [ 41 ].

The highly significant positive slope ( p < 0.0001) of relative amplitude squared on relative period further strengthens the prediction that coupling is present, as seen in the existing three families of clock models 34 , 35 .

A two-way ANOVA detected a highly significant effect of light on E PAR (F1,74= 132.20, p < 0.0001) and a significant species vs. light interaction (F3,74 = 9.71, p < 0.0001), while for the main effect of species no significant differences were detected ( p = 0.627).

Identifying Unreliable Primers Bartlett's test of heteroscadasticity (unequal variability within groups), applied to the residuals of each linear model fit by (1), is highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

Decoding of uncued orientations was highly significant on both Switch (1–1.4 s after cue onset, corrected p = 0.0001) and Repeat trials (1.05–1.4 s, p = 0.0028, Switch > Repeat 1.25–1.4 s, p = 0.0295; Fig. 5 A , left panel inset).

For both genotypes, delta power in both baseline and recovery from SD could be reliably predicted on the basis of sleep-wake history (Figure 1 ), which is underscored by the highly significant correlations between empirical and simulated data (r = 0.91 and 0.87 for cry1,2 +/+ and cry1,2 -/- , respectively, P < 0.0001 for both genotypes).

Furthermore, the clinical score differences on day four revealed highly significant intergroup variations, with P-values of <0.0001 for LPS + DH-HQ vs LPS, 0.0005 for LPS + DH-HQ vs LPS + DH, and 0.0028 for LPS + DH-HQ vs LPS + HQ (P < 0.005) ( Figure 14A ).

This 27.9% relative difference was highly significant (P<0.0001).

The t-test revealed that no significant differences in HI were observed within lines in NIL15-YXZ or NIL15-SBSM ( p > 0.05), but highly significant difference in mean HI was observed between NIL15-YXZ and NIL15-SBSM ( p < 0.0001).

All group correlations, both between fMRI and behavioral data and between behavioral models were highly significant ( p <0.0001) (for details see Supplementary file 1D,E and Figure 3—figure supplement 1 ).

The overall model was highly significant ( p < 0.0001), confirming that the selected factors collectively have a strong effect on DPPH activity.

The difference between these mean changes was highly significant (p < 10 −4 by resampling; Figure S3 A).

Both genic and genotypic differentiation tests showed highly significant ( P < 0.0001) differentiation among all populations.

The ROC analysis (sensitivity and specificity; Table 3 ) revealed that a highly significant ( p < 0.0001) difference between two medians with a large effect size does not necessarily represent a good classifier, even if the effect size is proportional to the AUC.

ANOVA results indicated that all proposed models were highly significant ( p < 0.0001), whereas lack-of-fit tests were not significant ( p > 0.05), suggesting a strong alignment between the experimental and predicted values.

For both biocatalysts, the computed F-values (91.76 for CALA-MNP and 26.22 for CALB-MNP) were highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

By aggregating the two subgroups with low risk and three subgroups with medium risk, patients could be assigned to three risk groups (high, medium, low) with a highly significant ( p < 0.0001) five-fold difference in risk (Table 5 and insert in Fig. 2 ).

ELISA results showed that the Giardia induced a highly significant increase in the secretion of IL-6, IL-12 p40 and TNF-α compared to the control group (IL-6: ANOVA, F (4, 10) = 1.116, p < 0.0001; IL-12 p40: ANOVA, F (4, 10) = 0.6885, p < 0.0001; TNF-α: ANOVA, F (4, 10) = 1.990, p < 0.0001) (Fig. 2 a–c).

The models highlighted below were all highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

The level of SC5b-9 increased significantly at T2 in the normothermic group, and the differences between T1 and T2 and between T1 and T3 were both highly significant (P<0.0001, Fig 2B ).