If we had used model 5 rather than model 1, 19.3% of those who develop CVD would be appropriately assessed for their cardiovascular risk while only 11.4% of those who do not develop CVD would be falsely assessed for their cardiovascular risk, the difference of which is highly significant (P<0.0001).
Excerpts
Results of statistical analysis The Jockheere-Terpstra Test revealed a negative trend (Z = -9.1568, p<0.0001), indicating that more aggressive metastatic cancer had the lowest protein expression scores, while Gleason scores of 3 or 4/5 had higher protein expression scores.
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the LAC model shown in Table 3 indicates a highly significant regression model (F = 543.88, p < 0.0001), accounting for a considerable percentage of the variance in the data.
+ 0.0817 X 2 X 4 + 0.0405 X 2 X 5 - 0.0402 X 2 X 6 - 0.2873 X 3 X 4 - 0.1011 X 3 X 5 - 0.1967 X 3 X 6 - 0.0283 X 4 X 5 + 0.2186 X 4 X 6 - 0.0289 X 5 X 6 - 0.769 X 1 2 - 0.2811 X 2 2 - 1.64 X 3 2 - 1.13 X 4 2 - 0.2342 X 5 2 - 0.0627 X 6 2 # The ANOVA results ( Table 2 ) indicated that the model was highly significant ( F = 16.76, P < 0.0001) with a non-significant lack of fit ( P = 0.2443), confirming model adequacy.
The geographic smooth term explained the largest proportion of total variance and was highly significant ( P < 0.0001) in all years.
The linear trend between ROM scores and in-hospital mortality rates was highly significant based on the Cochran-Armitage test (p < 0.0001).
Although storage duration alone had no significant main effect, the effect of time was highly significant at both time points ( P < .0001), reflecting distinct recovery and clearance profiles over time ( Figure 5 E-F; supplemental Table 3 ).
Results: The experimental group post-intervention for static balance, dynamic balance, and postural control tests showed extremely significant improvement with a p-value of <0.0001.
The above results were subsequently analyzed using Design-Expert software, yielding the following second-order polynomial regression equation: Y = −28.06537 + 1.35037A + 1.55369B + 0.066144C − 0.007187AB + 0.00075AC + 0.000141BC − 0.169750A 2 − 0.028281B 2 − 0.000218C 2 ANOVA-based statistical validation demonstrated that the model was highly significant (F = 210.21, p < 0.0001) and exhibited strong predictive capability, with an adjusted R 2 of 0.9916, indicating good model fit.
There were, however, highly significant differences between groups in the extent of this decline ( p < 0.0001 for the interaction between treatment and time, see Fig. 1 A).
This was confirmed by a hierarchic (nested) analysis of variance (ANOVA), which showed highly significant among-cell (subgroup) variability regardless of the parameter tested (P < 0.0001, peak amplitude, risetime, halfwidth, and foot duration were tested after logarithmic transformation, cubic-root of the charge was tested without transformation).
Results: Natalizumab patients had a net improvement in disability over time (-0.15 EDSS years) while placebo had a net worsening (+0.33 EDSS years), as measured by LS mean AUC; the difference (0.48 EDSS years) was highly significant ( P < 0.0001).
The difference between the two averages of the peak heart rate was highly significant ( p = 0.0001; Wilcoxon signed-rank test, W = −225, n s/ r = 21, z = −3.9).
A highly significant trend emerges from the data (Cochran–Armitage Trend Test = −4.72, p < 0.0001): as the absolute value of the Tmax/Dmax ratio increases, the physiological outcome decreases, from 52.4% in the first quartile, 33.3% in the second quartile, 14.3% in the third quartile to 0.0% in the last quartile, respectively.
All three factors had highly significant effects ( p < 0.0001), and signal intensity levels were compared between the species using Student’s t -test on residuals after the effects of Dye and Subarray had been removed.
A linear regression analysis showed a very good correlation ( R 2 = 0.924) between the HrOr263 hydrocarbon responses in the ab3A and ab2A neurons, which was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
All factors of the model were highly significant ( p < 0.0001; data not shown).
This represents a highly significant difference in cell cycle progression ( P < .0001 by χ 2 analysis).
MHC I was detected as faint band on the blots indicating a highly significant depletion of 15.5% compared to dEAC ord (p<0.0001).
This assay demonstrated a highly significant reduction ( p < 0.0001) in gene expression for both IL-6R (~ 70%) and TGFβ2 (~ 86%) upon respective binding of miR-125b-5p and miR-145a-5p.
In GLMs with male intensity as dependent variable, and female intensity, chromosome type (Z or autosomal) and the interaction term as independent variables, the interaction term was highly significant (zebra finch: p<0.0001, Table 1 ; common whitethroat: p<0.0001, Table 2 ).
HRV during Euthanasia Highly significant differences ( p < 0.0001, Friedman tests) in HF, LF and LF/HF ratio were found between time periods ( Table 1 ).
Statistical analysis using two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post-test on a pairwise comparison of the profile of the unfertilized oocyte with mRNA profiles collected at different time points after fertilization revealed that the correlation between segment and mRNA level is extremely significant ( P < 0.0001), but that there is no effect of fertilization and time following fertilization ( P ≈ 1).
The study successfully captured significant longitudinal trends in both humoral and cellular immunity, including a highly significant decline in anti-spike IgG antibodies ( P <0.0001) and group-wise differences in IFN-γ levels ( P =0.0299), indicating the robustness of the cohort size and design.
This difference was highly significant ( P < 0.0001).