This difference was highly significant (Δ = −63.87, t = −14.1, p < 1.0 × 10 −3 ), representing the least effective condition in the study and the only one that failed to exceed the 30% reduction threshold.
Excerpts
We observed a clearly significant difference among ALN status in patients with Her-2 positive (P = 0.001) and Luminal B (P < 0.0001) breast cancer.
The difference in in-hospital length of stay remained highly significant (p <0.001), the 30-day mortality remained comparable (0% in MWT vs. 3.8% in STR; p = 0.12), the reoperation rate for bleeding remained nonsignificant (3.3% in MWT vs. 5.7% in STR; p = 0.51), and no significant difference was observed in infection rates.
Galling Insect Richness x Tree Species x Forest Type Our initial (maximal) model was highly significant (d.f. = 36,41; P<0.001) and explained 83% of variability observed in the galling insect richness (GIR).
As a consequence, performance in Experiment 1.2 was worse near the lateral wall than along the corridor's midline: In contrast to Experiment 1.1, there was a highly significant main effect of lateral wall distance in Experiment 1.2 (F 1,30 = 32.38, p<0.001).
Egger's test was highly significant (p < 0.001), implying evidence of publication bias (Figure 4 ).
3.3.1 Exploratory factor analysis The EFA results showed that the KMO index was 0.949, and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant ( P < 0.001).
ITSA revealed an immediate decrease in DOT per 100 visits for 3GC (-1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.31 to -0.74; P< 0.001 for intercept) and a decreasing trend in FQ and MC during the intervention period (-0.71 and -0.41; 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.27 and -1.18 to -0.25; P< 0.001 and 0.004, respectively).
Despite being highly significant, this relationship was very weak with an r of only 0.1 (PC1, r = 0.1, p<0.001, Fig. 4B ).
All linear trends were highly significant (p<0.001).
According to the multivariable logistic binary regression method, six highly significant independent predictive factors for late HZ were identified: age>20 (p<.001; OR, 4.22), use of immunosuppressants at +1 year (p<.001; OR, 3.98), CD4-CD8 ratio ≥4.71 at +1 year (p<.001; OR, 2.51), certain mental disorders (p<.001; OR, 5.58), engraftment time of granulocytes > 15 days (p<.001; OR, 2.78), and CD8 + cell count ≥77.4/μl at +30 days (p<.001; OR, 0.097).
Two-sided p values less than 0.001 were regarded as statistically extremely significant (*** p < 0.001).
With respect to differences between the processes, there was a highly significant statistical difference ( p < 0.001) observed for both total lipid content and total biomass.
For the 120-minute period, the overall effect of staple food types on iAUC 120 was highly significant (p < 0.001).
At the end of study period of 12 weeks, there was a highly significant ( P <0.001) decrease in VAS scores in all the three groups [ Figure 1 ].
The interaction was highly significant in all cases (P<0.001), and so we reported sex specific models for each age group of interest.
The table shows highly significant ( P < 0.001) differences were detected among generations for both crosses 1 and 2.
In both trials, statistical analysis indicates highly significant survival reduction for dsMESH treatment (p<0.001; Supplementary Data 1.9 ).
Further analysis of in–stock data using DiD analysis showed a highly significant improvement ( P < 0.001) in the QCs group compared with the NI group for the key composite indicator of all five iCCM products in stock on DOV.
The result was highly significant in this study ( P <0.001); It was statistically significant that Urban residence (79.3%) were in the IPT Uptake group compared to 28.8% of those from Rural settings ( P <0.001).
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sample adequacy of 0.94 and the highly significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p<0.001) supported the data’s factorability.
All examined community-level factors demonstrated highly significant associations with IMF ( p < .001).
There was a highly significant reduction in clinicians citing they had ‘inadequate knowledge’ to provide counselling (from 43% before GA to 11% of the cohort after GA, p < 0.001), although this remained the most commonly cited explanation of why counselling was not provided or was limited (for 17 sets of parents).
Similarly, the group-by-time interaction was not significant in overweight men or women in ELSA (men p = .054; women p = .567) or overweight men in HRS ( p = .103) – although in each group there was a trend towards greater weight loss among those who received a cancer diagnosis than those who did not – however, it was highly significant in HRS women ( p < .001).
Age difference remained a highly significant predictor of aggression (p<0.001).