“highly significant”

Expression of Bax and caspase-9 genes revealed a highly significant increase in cancer cell lines ( p = 0.0001) when compared to the control group.

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).

Expressed as multiples of the 99 th percentile, the TnT concentration was elevated 3.5 fold (interquartile range: 2.2 to 5.2) compared to 0.4 fold for TnI (interquartile range: 0.2 to 0.7; Figure 1C ), which represented a highly significant difference (p<0.0001).

Finally, the atorvastatin and liraglutide combination treatment group had the lowest body weight increase (and therefore the greatest reduction in weight gain) from 155 ± 5.1 g to only 224 g, when compared to both the HFD and the HFD/atorvastatin groups; this reduction was highly significant ( p < 0.0001). 3.2.

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 ).

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).

When the MGEs are included (Figure 5a ), all pairwise comparisons between the four different sub-groups (fourth, Asian, Turkish and South American) show highly significant differences ( P < 0.0001; red arrows) except for the fourth sub-group versus South American ( P < 0.05; brown arrow).

control highly significant (e.g. in whole length, 32.0 vs . 59.9 mm; p < 0.0001), but were also significant between the two inoculation sets (N1 vs .

Further analysis of the significance based on paired t tests indicated that the differences in the red reflectance between MODIS and the other sensors were highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

Analysis of variance of the regression model Multiple quadratic regression on the data yielded the following model: (3) Y = 2.94 + 0.2539 A + 0.1618 B + 0.0904 C + 0.0447 AB − 0.0230 AC + 0.0473 BC − 0.2315 A 2 − 0.0812 B 2 − 0.1554 C 2 Analysis of variance ( Table 4 ) shows that the model is highly significant ( P < 0.0001) with a non-significant lack-of-fit term ( P = 0.7481).

For all immunological outcomes, the interaction term between groups*visits were highly significant (p<0.0001); suggesting significant variation in antibody kinetics between groups.

However, rPSG1-Fc treatment resulted in highly significant improvements in the ipsilateral/contralateral foot fault ratio at both days 3 ( p <0.0001) and 5 (p = 0.0015) post-ischaemia.

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).

Statistical findings reinforced this approach: A one-way ANOVA on mean percent change in Cp showed a strong group effect [F(2,36) = 50.42, p < 0.0001)], with post hoc Tukey HSD tests revealing no significant difference between Non-Responders and Placebo (mean difference = 0.25%, p = 0.998), but large, highly significant differences between Responders and Placebo (mean difference = 35.74%, p < 0.0001) and Responders and Non-Responders (mean difference = 35.49%, 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 ).

The regression indicated, using the Nagelkerke pseudo-R 2 , that 22% of the variance in HCW abuse was accounted for by these two predictor variables, with externally assessed gender role being highly significant (p < 0.0001) and being exposed or identifying as an MSM to the HCW not significant as a predictor (p = 0.38).

To visualise the results, we plotted the 34 network edges between the TF nodes with highly significant correlations ( P <0.0001; Fig. 5 ).

Two-way ANOVA showed highly significant effects of treatment, cell death state, and their interaction (F (15,48) = 1810.36, p < 0.0001), confirming that treatment-dependent differences varied strongly across states.

Although the difference was small, it was highly significant ( P < 0.0001) and consistent with previously published results [ 15 ].

The difference in PFS-rates between group 1 and group 2 was highly significant in the Log-Rank Test (p < 0.0001).

Furthermore, all quadratic terms (A 2 , B 2 , C 2 , and D 2 ) were highly significant ( p < 0.0001), suggesting pronounced nonlinear relationships in the extraction process, which is essential for interpreting the experimental outcomes [ 59 ].

The hazard ratio in the Cox proportional hazards model is 2.619 (95% CI 1.733–3.956) with a highly significant p -value<0.0001, indicated that the ZingiVir-H treated group had a significant recovery period.

GDF-15 showed the most robust response, with highly significant main effects for both time and dose and a strong interaction ( p < 0.0001).

The highly significant p values ( p < 0.0001) showed that there was a significant change in mean value from baseline for all three variables.

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