This difference was highly significant, with a p-value of <0.001.
Excerpts
Hence, more number of patients belonging to group B had prolonged duration of hospital stay and is statistically highly significant (p<0.001) (Table 11 ).
Similarly, the PROMIS Pain Interference scores demonstrated a significant trend of improvements based on the initial repeated measures ANOVA outcomes (P<0.001).
Biochemically, raised fasting glucose (≥100 mg/dL) occurred in 22 (68.8%), high triglycerides (≥150 mg/dL) in 26 (81.3%), low HDL cholesterol (<50 mg/dL) in 28 (87.5%), and elevated HOMA-IR (≥2.5) in 30 (93.8%) of those with MetS, all highly significant (p<0.001).
Age variable demonstrates a highly significant association with in-hospital mortality (p < 0.001).
After adjusting for covariates, the regression analysis showed a highly significant association (p value< 0.001) between unemployment and psychological distress (OR=1.55; 95% CI 1.03, 2.31), and alcohol consumption (OR=0.67; 95% CI 0.48, 0.92).
Statistical analysis of the data presented in Table 1 using one-way ANOVA revealed highly significant differences between groups (F(8,1251) = 23.8, p < 0.001).
All differences were highly significant (p < 0.001), with large t values supporting robust group separation (Table 1 ).
Results: The mean horizontal advancement was substantial and highly significant (p < .001).
This difference was highly significant (p < 0.001).
The statistical analysis demonstrated a highly significant difference (p-value <0.001), emphasising that patients with a reduced GCS are at higher risk of TBI, highlighting the importance of immediate neurological assessment in this population.
Similarly, girls reporting menstrual morbidities were more likely to experience moderate and severe anemia (45.5%) compared to those without morbidities (21.2%), a difference that was also highly significant (p < 0.001).
The improvements in mean knowledge scores were highly significant (peer education p < 0.001; poster p = 0.004), but the reduced sample size may exaggerate this effect.
PGE2 levels showed a highly significant difference (p=0.001) with a large effect size (η2=0.91).
Two-way analysis of variance revealed significant main effects for both denture base material and tooth type, with a highly significant interaction effect (p < 0.001, η2p = 0.28).
The anterior limb of the internal capsule (ALIC) demonstrated a highly significant difference on the ipsilateral side, with a mean FA of 0.39 ± 0.013 in cases compared to 0.23 ± 0.013 in controls (t = 3.82, p < 0.001), suggesting disruption of frontotemporal connectivity pathways often affected in TLE.
The results indicated highly significant differences in rates (χ2=1236.66; df=2; p<0.001), confirming that the observed increase during the peak period was statistically significant and not due to chance.
Qualitative analysis Low EI was associated with SMES depression and the identified association was highly significant (p = 0.001, OR = 2.050, 95% CI = 1.371-3.063) (Figure 3 ).
Repeated-measures analysis confirmed a highly significant improvement in MIS across time points (p < 0.001).
Both right and left foot lengths showed highly significant (p<0.001) but small, positive correlations with corresponding side kidney length, breadth, and area, with R-values ranging from 0.2874 to 0.3668.
A highly significant association was observed between pregnancy-risk status and teratogenic medication use (χ2(1)=12.89, p<0.001).
We found a very high SOFA score in nonsurvivors than in survivors on D1, D3, and D7, which was statistically highly significant ( P < 0.001).
In Table 1 , menstrual irregularity was observed in all PCOS cases (100%), whereas none of the controls reported irregular periods, showing a highly significant association with PCOS status (χ2 = 102.000, p < 0.001).
TGF-β1 versus TGF-β3 expression in NOM, OSF (stage 1 to stage 4), and OSCC with and without OSF TGF-β3 expression showed a highly significant increase in both epithelial and connective tissue compared to TGF-β1 in all groups (p < 0.001) (Table 3 , Figure 3 ).
Over half (58.0%) of caffeine consumers report at least sometimes feeling they need caffeine to function normally during exams, whereas no non-consumers reported this need; a highly significant association exists (p < 0.001) (Table 2 ).