“highly significant”

Because of the large number of residues examined, the differences in the means between conserved and non-conserved structures are highly significant (p < 0.0001).

Consequently, even modest differences in classification patterns between the two threshold methods and radiologists resulted in highly significant p -values (all p < 0.0001).

However, the element-wise Pearson (matrix) correlation of phenotypic with genetic correlations of each of the 95 pairs of characters is 0.87, which is highly significant (P < 0.0001) as judged by Mantel's permuta- tion test.

The results of the pairwise t-tests for TomatoRipen-MMT and the best baseline (two-stream CNN) indicated a highly significant improvement (t = 6.18, p < 0.0001) with very large effect size (d = 2.14).

For all nine samples, highly significant SCF determinations were obtained ( p < 0.0001).

It showed that: - the regression of K on ln(weight) was highly significant (P < 0.0001, a = 0.172), demonstrating a positive correlation between weight and condition factor; The PROSPER method for selecting fish 655 Figure 3.

According to Mann-Whitney-U-test this difference is highly significant with p < 0.0001.

During perifusion of both the whole spinal cord and the cervico-trigeminal area, the interaction between the two factors of variation was found to be highly significant indeed (F 1-27 = 24.33 and F 1-22 = 30.17, respectively, p<0.0001; Table S1 ).

Log-rank analysis of the all-cause morbidity in DIZE-treated males compared to vehicle control was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

The difference in log-ratios between the acute DF with DHF patients was highly significant (p<0.0001).

24.15 ± 5.43 pre-vaccination = 0.0001) and highly significant reduction when compared to the control group presented with respiratory symptoms (14.1 ± 2.7 vs. 26.5 ± 7.45, p = 0.0001).

The wear rate showed a statistically highly significant difference between the two liners after 12 ( p < 0.0001), 18 ( p = 0.018) and 24 ( p = 0.002) months (Fig. 5 , Table 2 ).

Geographic variation in Cry3 susceptibility Keith County grid The effect of geographic location of larger scale population clusters was highly significant for both Cry3Bb1 (F = 74.42; df = 1, 226; P <0.0001) and mCry3A (F = 84.14; df = 1, 226; P <0.0001) traits within the Keith County grid.

The statistical heterogeneity was highly significant ( P < 0.0001), with prevalence rates ranging from 32 to 74%.

In soft agar assay this difference was highly significant ( P = 0 . 0001 ).

Similarly, there was highly significant variation among the 31 samples (F = 19.0; p<0.0001), with individual mean values ranging from a low of 52.6 (SF 009) to a high of 88.3 (EC 101).

For both parameters a highly significant difference was shown (both p < 0.0001), but a certain spread of values was also present for both studied patient groups.

Log-rank test confirmed highly significant survival differences between infected controls and phage-treated groups ( P < 0.0001).

While the difference in ORR was not statistically significant ( p = 0.2867), the difference in DCR was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

Quantitative analysis confirmed this observation, demonstrating a highly significant increase in the number of CD68 + cells in the bone marrow of LP-18 M animals ( p < 0.0001) (Fig. 8 ).

There was a highly significant ( p = 0.0001) decrease in reticulated hemoglobin level in anemic patients of both sexes, in comparison to non-anemic patients, but the reticulocyte count did not show any significant difference.

Across all varieties, there was a highly significant linear relationship between E day and g day ( R 2 =0.9425, P <0.0001) indicating that the differences in transpiration were almost fully accounted for by differences in stomatal conductance.

A two-way ANOVA revealed a highly significant main effect of buffer type (F(1, 8) = 152.49, p < 0.0001 ), while the main effect of induction time did not reach statistical significance (F(1, 8) = 3.80, p = 0.087 ).

The control evaluation yielded a highly significant difference in lines slopes between both groups ( p ≤ 0.0001).

For the maximum spreadability (Smax), one-way ANOVA showed highly significant differences ( p < 0.0001), with both L and LLV displaying markedly higher values than LSV ( p < 0.001), while no significant difference was observed between L and LLV.