Results The results were subjected for appropriate statistical analysis; Kruskal–Wallis test revealed that intergroup comparison of the mean percentage of tubule occlusion was statistically highly significant ( P value < 0.001) [ Table 1 ] and Mann–Whitney U test showed that the tubule occlusion potential was statistically significant among all groups except for Group B and D which was not significant [ Table 2 and Figure 1 ].
Excerpts
A mixed-design ANOVA on the total efficacy score indicated a highly significant main effect of Time, F (1, 479) = 311.17, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.39.
Rather, there was a highly significant correlation for the IRS within the four TMA cores per tumor for LAMP2A ( r = range 0.751-0.895; p < 0.001 each) and the IRS of HSC70 ( r = range 0.428-0.698; p < 0.001 each). 3.3.
Mobile phone use showed an increasing trend with increasing mother’s and father’s education (both p < 0.001).
The results from ANOVA showed that the effect of genotype factor on pigment contents was highly significant ( p < 0.001) ( Table 3 ).
* P < 0.05 was considered significant, ** P < 0.01 was considered highly significant, and *** P < 0.001 was considered very highly significant.
Sedentary behavior was more commonly found in females (60.5%), showing a highly significant statistical relationship ( p < 0.001) ( Table 2 ).
In the RPE cell culture, a similar effect was found with a highly significant decrease in VEGF-A secretion at the apical side at 24 h (0 h: 246.1±75.0 pg/ml, 24h: 90.0±29.6 pg/ml, p<0.001) and at 48 h (48 h: 17.9±8.8 pg/ml, p<0.001; Figure 4C ).
(2) In case of highly significant correlation of p < 0.001 between a pair of variables, only one of the two concerned variables was selected based on clinical rationale.
The superiority of the two-factor model over the single-factor model was further supported by a lower Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) value for the two-factor model (AIC = 4376.1) as compared to the single-factor model (AIC = 4712.9) as well as a highly significant model comparison (Δχ 2 (1) = 1238.8, p < .001).
A p value > 0.05 was considered nonsignificant (ns), a p value ≤ 0.05 was considered significant (marked as *), a p value ≤ 0.01 was considered highly significant (marked as **), and a p value ≤ 0.001 was considered extremely significant (marked as ***). 3.
The microbiological quality of drinking water improved significantly with treatment, and TC concentrations increased significantly along the finished PSW supply chain (i.e., from PWMF to POS), while there was a nonsignificant trend towards increasing E . coli concentrations along the supply chain (p<0.001 and p = 0.07, respectively).
Pooled data showed a highly significant OR of 2.49 (95% CI 1.93–3.21, p < 0.001).
Specifically, it demonstrated the largest and most highly significant positive predictive effect on both Social Responsibility ( β = 0.344, p < 0.001 ) and Prosocial Behavior ( β = 0.271, p < 0.001 ).
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sampling adequacy measure was 0.80 and Bartlett’s sphericity test was highly significant ( P<0 . 001 ).
We used a permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) on the dissimilarity matrix to confirm that time since infestation had a highly significant effect on global patterns of gene expression ( F 2,12 = 10.73, p = .001).
The levels of significance, relative arbitrary intensity and median log2 fold change of all highly significant ( p < 0.001, q < 0.001) m / z peaks contributing to class separation for OC/Normal and OC/BOT are shown in supplementary tables 6 and 7 .
The increase in RFV and CBF was lower, but also highly significant versus baseline (at minute 6 of isometric exercise: RFV 10.5%±4.2%, CBF 8.3%±3.6%; P<0.001 each) indicating choroidal autoregulation.
Differences were highly significant ( p < 0.001, one-way ANOVA).
From the table, it can be seen that the both second-order models were extremely significant (*P <0.001), the lack-of-fit term were not, anyway.
In contrast, the overlap between hTau 421D and Rab7 compartments was highly significant ( p < 0.001).
Near add power requirements decreased significantly in both groups, from 1.34 ± 0.33 DS to 0.95 ± 0.24 DS in Group A (29.7% reduction) and from 1.36 ± 0.38 DS to 0.84 ± 0.25 DS in Group B (37.8% reduction), with the between-group difference being highly significant ( P < 0.001).
NLR showed a significant trend of decreasing over time ( p < 0.001), with the value decreasing from peak to trough by 3.07 (Table 2 ).
**p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001 were considered highly significant). 3.
Compared to the control group, a highly significant increase ( p < 0.001) in MNF was observed in plants treated with 0.1% to 0.5% of ME and IM for 1, 3, and 6 h.