“highly significant”

In the moderator test, the estimated model was highly significant with QM ( df = 4) = 41.21 and p < 0.0001.

Log-rank tests indicated highly significant differences across quartile groups ( p < 0.0001), suggesting that eGDR is a strong predictor of survival in hyperlipidemic individuals.

(Additional file 1 : Tables S3, S4) Mediation analyses using the Cox and Hertzmark methods indicated that BMI's effect could explain 16.1% (95% CI, 9.1%-27.1%) of the impact of adding salt to food on incident sleep apnea and is highly significant with a P < 0.0001.

In addition, fecundity and the collective mass of seeds of a tiller were always tightly correlated: for all years, the correlations between the collective mass of CL seeds and the number of CL seeds were all highly significant ( r 2 from 0.79 to 0.91, all P < 0.0001), as were all correlations between the collective mass of CH seeds and number of CH seeds ( r 2 from 0.82 to 0.95, all P < 0.0001).

The difference of 1.02 between the preoperative and postoperative mean score in group B was highly significant ( P < 0.0001).

The genetic variance was highly significant ( p < 0.0001) for all traits in all environments, except for TW in Y2.

Both PD-1 and PD-L1 exhibited highly significant differences in expression levels between the two clusters ( P < 0.0001), with a higher expression in cluster 1.

The analysis revealed a highly significant main effect of binarization method (F(1.776, 115.4) = 1689, p < 0.0001).

The difference in these three measurements was highly significant ( p <0.0001).

Linear regression analysis showed a highly significant correlation between hemispheric loss and hippocampal area loss (R2 = 0.855, p < 0.0001), with hippocampal loss tending to be greater (B = 1.209) than hemispheric area loss.

Under both the SD (10 h light/14 h dark) and LD (14 h light/10 h dark) conditions, highly significant difference ( P < 0.0001) was shown between the heading date of the two genotypic groups (Table 4 ).

Consistently, a highly significant difference ( p < 0.0001) in terms of smoke production was observed when comparing the groups (Table 2 /Fig. 1 ).

The ANCOVA analysis revealed highly significant differences between the elevations (F = 19.07, DFn = 1, DFd = 205, P < 0.0001). 3.2.3 Determination of antibody avidity maturation We determined the relative avidity index to appraise the antibody binding strength ( Fig 5 ).

The foliar area consumed with infestation at flowering ( Fig 9 Left) showed a highly significant effect of Species, Stage, Variety, Species x Variety and Species x Stage x Variety (p<0.0001 in all the cases), as well as a Stage x Species (p = 0.0019) and Stage x Variety (p = 0.0042).

Combined with the expression levels of TIAM2S measured in our previous work 1 , we found a highly significant correlation between Sp1 and TIAM2S expressions in these HCC samples (Fig. 5 C; r = 0.4567, P < 0.0001).

There was a highly significant positive correlation between CD25+ OX40+ CD4 T cell responses to RBD and CD4 T cell proliferation responses to RBD (pearsons’ rho=0.89, p <0.0001) ( Figure 1D ), as we have previously reported for a variety of other recall antigens ( 20 ).

The resulting correlations between predicted and observed richness and proportion of soil ARGs were highly significant in both cases ( P < 0.0001).

The Spearman’s rho test showed a highly significant correlation ( r = 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47–0.72, P < 0.0001); the bias between the two determinations (Bland–Altman test) was −0.33 (95% CI, −12.8–12.1; Supplemental Fig. 1 ).

The significant effect of irrigation on stem length was observed only at later growth stages, with significance emerging at 3 MAT ( p<0.01 ) and becoming highly significant at 4 MAT (p<0.0001) .

pallida experiment, the modality effect on the frequency of mobile juveniles was also highly significant ( χ 2 = 207.54, d f = 3, and P < 0.0001).

Notably, the correlation analysis shows highly significant associations between distance matrices derived from LMs-only approach and full configuration ( p ‐value < 0.0001, r > 0.98 for all shape and form analyses; electronic supplementary material, figure S7), which indicates the shape or form variation patterns revealed by two approaches are similar.

The results of third pair CCA mode of network and gene variate were again highly significant (Fig. 3 C, r = 0.97, p < 0.0001), as was fourth pair CCA mode of network and serum lipid variable (Fig. 3 D, r = 0.82, p < 0.0001).

Highly significant differences in life stages mortality among concentration were found by direct spray (df = 4, 149, p ≤ 0.0001) for 2nd instar: F = 26.01, 3rd instar: F = 22.20, 4th instar: F = 18.04, 5th instar: F = 13.63, and adult: F = 6.25 and by contact (df = 4, 149, p ≤ 0.0001) for 2nd instar: F = 16.06, 3rd instar: F = 9.95, 4th instar: F = 21.23, 5th instar: F = 6.29, and adult: F = 3.78 with an obvious decreasing pathogenicity pattern from younger to older instars to adult stage at all concentrations.

The resulting M-DLR Score demonstrated a highly significant difference between the G1 and G2/G3 tumor groups across all datasets ( p < 0.0001) (Fig. 3D ).

The results from OSCE 2 were highly significant ( P < 0.0001) when comparing the two methods.