When considering only the oil content factor across the three extrusion conditions, a highly significant effect of oil content on glutamate release was observed ( p < 0.0001) (Figure 7 ).
← all phrases
“highly significant”
Sighted at
p=0.09
In the literature
The between-group difference at Day 28 and the between-group difference in change from baseline were both highly significant (both p < 0.0001; Figure 2 A).
A highly significant ( p < 0.0001) decrease from t0 to t1 was observed in: oxidized glutathione (−56% vs. −79%, Figure 2 A); oxidized Cys (−34% vs. −24%, Figure 2 B) and oxidized CysGly (−44% vs. −47%, Figure 2 C) for group GluReS compared to group GluS, respectively.
RSPM performance (M = 62%, SD = 21%) was highly varied across participants, and linear modeling indicated a highly significant relationship between RSPM accuracy and both D’ sensitivity for texts (b = 0.81, p = .0001) and overall judgment accuracy for comments (b = 0.29, p = .0001).
No-Reward) revealing a highly significant main effect of condition (F 1,73 = 34.09, p<.0001, η 2 p = .32; Figure 4A , left).
These analyses revealed strong correlations across all three internal data sets (all rho >0.89), with highly significant P values (all P values < 0.0001) (Supplementary Fig. 4a–c ).
The effect of rTHImax on daily milk yield was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
By 3-way ANOVA, time, environment, and age were highly significant ( P < 0.0001) for the recovery of performance on the inclined plane.
3) provided a highly significant improvement in fit in both male and female subjects ( P < 0.0001).
Correlation Between Genomic Homozygosity and Re The correlation between Re and the whole genomic homozygosity estimate (FROH) was negative and highly significant (ρ = −0.147, P < 0.0001, Figure 3 ).
Relationships in the 8–12 weeks TBI condition were also highly significant, especially in layer IV ( p < 0.0001 for Basic and p = 0.0014 for Contact).
The model for CCI was highly significant (F 3,157 = 42.837, p < 0.0001) and explained 45.5% of the variance ( R 2 = 0.455; R 2 adj = 0.444).
Publication bias and sensitivity analysis Initially, the plausible sources of publication bias were visualized through a funnel plot with Egger test, where the publication bias was found to be highly significant ( P < .0001) (Fig. 5 ).
The AMOVA analysis showed that although the most of the genetic diversity was attributable to differences among individuals within populations (85.78%), the φ ST values among populations were highly significant ( φ ST = 0.141 p< 0.0001) confirming the existence of population differentiation.
PERMANOVA confirmed a highly significant effect of time (weeks) on microbial community structure (F = 60.664; P = 0.0001), whereas treatment had no significant standalone effect (F = 0.8889; P = 0.4175; Fig. 6 ).
The most highly significant ( P < 0.0001) were SSI, vasculopathy, previous LEA, and white blood cell count >11,000 per mm 3 .
One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey ’ s test demonstrated that the enrichment of TcIT in PM with respect to HG (160%) and TM (130%) was highly significant ( P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0001, respectively).
A main effect of Emotional Expression was highly significant ( F (5,245) = 78.15, p < 0.0001; effect size, η 2 = 0.615).
Overall, the test for subgroup differences was highly significant ( p < 0.0001), confirming that the type of intervention substantially influences outcomes.
Overall, the analysis of the 4 × 4 contingency table constructed by treatments (columns) against groups of females was highly significant to accept the alternative hypothesis that there was a relationship between treatment and group of females (χ 2 = 104.78, df = 9, p < 0.0001).
This aligns with the ANOVA results, where temperature had a highly significant effect ( F = 631.83, p < 0.0001).
Both models were highly significant ( p < 0.0001), with adjusted coefficients of determination (R 2 adj ) between 0.72 and 0.78.
For bromine, a statistically highly significant difference was observed between the two groups, with much lower values in the patient group: 1086 ± 244 μg/L vs. 4137 ± 770 μg/L ( p < 0.0001).
These results indicate that pre-epidemic baseline antibody cross reactivity was stronger in the elderly (≥60 yrs) and weaker in children and adolescents (<20 yrs) and adults (20–59 yrs), with highly significant differences between age groups ( P <0.0001).
The AMP concentrations evaluated here revealed 97% to 99% cell viability; the opposite effect was observed in DMSO-treated cells (12% viability), having highly significant differences (p < 0.0001) when comparing the concentrations evaluated here ( Fig. 7 ).