“highly significant”

As tested by in vitro germination and acetocarmine tests, the analysis of variance clearly showed that storage method, days of storage, and the interaction between storage methods and days of storage had a highly significant effect ( p ≤ 0.0001) on pollen viability.

nose position in HC and TC (Figures 3C,D ) indicated highly significant body posture differences (slope differences: U = 143; P < 0.0001) in shocked vs. non-shocked mice in the first 15 min after reopening the door (Figure 3E ).

There was a highly significant correlation between EBAG9 and ER immunoreactivity ( P <0.0001).

A highly significant correlation (r = 0.475, p <0.0001) was also found between the Ct values of the concordant positive saliva and NPS specimens.

19 The effect of albumin concentration on clearance was small (~ 3% increase over the range of albumin concentrations—17–53 g/L—in the dataset) but was highly significant ( P < 0.0001) and was thus kept in the model.

The interaction of winter treatment and origin was highly significant (GLMM, X 2 1 = 15.2, P < 0.0001): after warm winters, spiders from the southern core region had higher probability to balloon (18 %) than after cold winters (8%).

Most of the questions of patient satisfaction were statistically highly significant ( p <0.0001).

Results: A highly significant main effect of Brain Region was observed ( F (5,36) = 59.16, p < 0.0001), confirming the presence of a statistically distinct performance gradient across regions.

During the initial 6 months of the study, the cyclosporine A group had consistently lower IOP than the betamethasone group, which was statistically highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

A highly significant difference between the isolates was found by the study ( F = 1.46 × 10 29 , p < 0.0001), suggesting that strains differed greatly in their antioxidant activity.

Longitudinal tumor growth data, analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model with restricted maximum likelihood, revealed highly significant effects for both the time × group interaction [ p < 0.0001, F(5.514, 32.81) = 11.36] and the group main effect [ p < 0.0001, F(5, 119) = 41.56] ( Figure 2e ).

Between group comparisons revealed a highly significant difference in antibody concentrations for male rats compared to female rats at weeks 8 ( p < 0.0001) and 10 ( p < 0.01).

The difference was found to be highly significant ( P = 0.0001).

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).

The linear correlations of L ↓ and K ↓ with T are highly significant ( p < 0.0001) for all the five reanalysis products.

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.

H-FABP showed 76.92% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and a highly significant P < 0.0001 within the 3-h window, while Trop-T’s sensitivity improved over time from 35.90% at presentation to 84.60% at 6–12 h.

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).

A r -value of 0.97 shows very strong correlation between CFB and GCB, which was statistically highly significant ( P <0.0001).

LRTI was also more frequent during the HBoV1 primary infection (5%) than during the next interval (0%) but was too rare for the difference to reach significance; however, when combined with URTI, the difference was highly significant (p<0.0001).

While both monotherapies induced a modest increase in CD69 expression, the combination treatment led to highly significant upregulation compared with the vehicle ( p < 0.0001 for CD4+, p = 0.0005 for CD8+, Dunn’s test).

The result obtained in the Friedman test was highly significant and showed a p value < 0.0001, highlighting relevant differences between the compared matrices.

Frost‐Tolerance of Twenty‐Two Alpine Species There were highly significant differences in frost tolerance (LT 50 ) among the selected plants (Figure 1 ; Df = 21, F = 41.55; p < 0.0001), ranging from −21.89°C in Oxytropis proboscidea to −0.22°C in Thalictrum alpinum (lower LT 50 value indicates higher frost‐tolerance).

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 ).

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