Results: We found a highly significant correlation between the HR measured with the Holter monitor and HR measured with 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (r = 0.77, p < 0.001).
Excerpts
However, the interaction effect turned out to be highly significant [ F (1,15) = 18.74, p = 0.001, η_p^2 = 0.55].
Index values and mortality For both species, insecticide and exposure time were highly significant ( p < 0.001), while concentration was marginally significant for T. castaneum ( p = 0.036) and non-significant for T. confusum ( p = 0.161).
Impact of the training was visible as overall mean scores increased from 10.6 ± 2.7 to 13.8 ± 5.8; gain being statistically highly significant ( P value < 0.001).
These data clearly show a relatively small but consistent elevation in basal [Ca 2+ ] i that was highly significant ( n = 10; P < 0.001) at all potentiation time points.
Concerning convergent validity, the factor loadings of all indicators for the latent constructs were greater than the 0.7 benchmark and highly significant ( p < 0.001) (see Tables in the Online Appendix).
Using the Mann-Whitney U-test, the comparison of IHC expression scores for SIX1 between PTC and ANCT revealed a highly significant difference ( p < 0.001), as illustrated in Fig. 1 .
Clinical Outcomes of Patients Who Received Non-Targeted First-Line Therapy For second-line TTD, there was a significant trend ( p < 0.001) among the four cohorts ( Figure 3 A).
These results were all highly significant ( P < 0.001).
Statistically significant changes were classified as significant ( ∗ ) where p < 0.05, more significant ( ∗∗ ) where p < 0.01, and highly significant ( ∗∗∗ ) where p < 0.001.
3.1.2 pH Biochar was the sole factor that had a highly significant effect (GLMM: p < 0.001) on soil pH ( Table 3 ).
johorensis had outlying positive values for its difference in CON effect on growth P 2 –P 1 , for both the nonspatial and spatial models, but that was accounted for by the highly significant large effects in P 1 ( p ≤ .001) despite the corresponding effects in P 2 being very close to zero ( p > .05).
Quantification of integration sites and gene densities showed a highly significant correlation for each population (Spearman correlation, ‘double negative’, rho = 0.78; ‘red’ , rho = 0.83; ‘yellow’ , rho = 0.85; p < 0.001 in all cases, Figure 2 B).
The difference in mass between the sexes was highly significant ( p < 0.001) (Table S1 and Figure S2 , section a).
When we assessed the impact of the intervention on different weaning practices indicators among participants, the outcome of interest was the remarkable increase in the percentage of our targeted objectives, exceeding our expectations with highly significant difference between pre- and post-interventional village and between post-interventional and control villages ( P = 0.001).
All of these factors had highly significant ( P ≤ 0.001) effects.
The test yielded a highly significant result ( P < 0.001), confirming the presence of overdispersion and indicating that the negative binomial model provided a significantly better fit to the data.
The difference between the preperturbation step and the perturbed step was highly significant ( P <.001), underscoring the disruptive effect of the perturbation on dynamic stability.
Vote was highly significant and had a large effect on perceived trustworthiness, F (2, 203) = 113.045, p < 0.001, ηρ 2 = 0.527.
The connection between the assessments was potent and highly significant (r = 0.756, p < 0.001), signifying stable responses over time.
The number of lesions (≥3) was associated with an approximately 1087% increase in the risk of related events (HR = 11.87, 95% CI = 3.29–42.78), with highly significant statistical results ( P < .001).
The highly significant ( p < 0.001) F IS value (0.0923) revealed a rather high inbreeding degree within populations.
However, we still found highly significant differences across host clades and species when we analyzed the runs separately (by blocking), or together with run as an interactive effect (all P < 0.001, Supplementary Table 2 ).
Specifically, there are extremely significant statistical differences between widowed and non-widowed elders in children’s economic support ( p < 0.001), children’s sick care ( p < 0.001), and children’s emotional support ( p < 0.001), respectively.
As listed in Table 3 , the analysis yielded highly significant effects of latencies after a task, β = 0.51, t (1, 205) = 8.68, p < .001, and order, β = −0.25, t (1, 205) = −4.19, p < .001.