Excerpts

The most highly significant correlations were shown between the FF IDEAL IQ and the SAR values with or without liver cirrhosis ( r = 0.988, p < 0.001 or r = 0.970, p < 0.001, respectively).

Statistical evaluation using the Mann–Whitney U test confirmed that this difference was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

Statistically, differences between +snow and control plots were marginally significant in June 2006 ( F 1,6 = 3.773, P = 0.100) and highly significant in April 2008 ( F 1,6 = 40.60, P < 0.001).

Cells pre-treated with morin showed a highly significant (P<0.001) decline in the ROS generation by 2.33 fold in comparison to glucose stressed cells, whereas, 1.75 fold (P<0.001) and 1.6 fold (P<0.01) decrease in ROS generation was observed in co- treated and post- treated hepatocytes ( Fig. 1c ).

Accordingly, age distribution differences were highly significant ( p < 0.001), with isotretinoin over-represented in adolescents and topical retinoids more frequent in children and older adults, potentially reflecting off-label or non-acne use of topical agents.

There was a highly significant relationship between increasing UICC stage and increasing age at diagnosis ( P < 0.001).

In addition, SSS, WPI and VAS showed a statistically highly significant direct correlation with Lead and Chromium ( p < 0.001), and a significant direct correlation with Cadmium ( p = 0.007, 0.003, 0.004 respectively) (Table 5 ).

Frequency dependence of resistance(fdr = R5-R20), which is the most specific indicator of peripheral resistance [ 33 , 34 ], increased significantly in MA subgroup (+72.1 %), whereas it decreased significantly in HS-subgroup (−50 %), and the difference among the changes was highly significant ( p < 0.001, Fig. 1a ).

PCA conducted separately within each subscale revealed clear and interpretable component structures, with acceptable sampling adequacy (KMO values ranging from 0.685 to 0.826) and highly significant Bartlett’s test results ( p < 0.001), confirming the suitability of the data for factor analysis.

The overall trend is highly significant ( p < 0.001).

There were highly significant differences ( p < 0.001) in the occurrence of enterococcal species between lofts.

The analysis revealed highly significant effects of supplements ( p < 0.001) and days ( p < 0.001), as well as their interaction ( p < 0.001) for both growth parameters.

It was highly significant (p<0.001).

Age was a strong determinant of CVD risk: 46.2% of CVD cases occurred in individuals older than 60 years, whereas only 13.0% were younger than 40, with highly significant differences across age strata ( p < 0.001).

One-way ANOVA revealed highly significant treatment effects on circulating cTnT (F(3,24) = 32.166, p < 0.001), CK (F(3,24) = 23.908, p < 0.001), CK-MB levels (F(3,24) = 26.760, p < 0.001) and LDH (F(3,24) = 146.200, p < 0.001).

The relationship between air and water temperatures was highly significant (adjusted R 2 = 0.83, F (1, 26) = 133.3, P <0.001) (see figure S1 ).

Fisher’s exact test showed this difference to be extremely significant ( p -value < 0.001).

This analysis revealed an overall highly significant effect of Measurement ( F (1, 45) = 26.04; p < 0.001).

Both the results were statistically highly significant ( P <0.001) [Tables 2 – 7 ] Agni Bala Pariksha In Agnibala Pariksha , 80.76% of the improvement was recorded in the Ruchira-Aharkale , 63.49% in Abhyavarana Shakti and 54.95% improvement in Jarana Shakti after the treatment in group A, while 84.41% of the improvement was recorded in the Ruchira-Aharkale , 65% in Abhyavarana Shakti and 50.43% improvement in Jarana Shakti recorded in group B.

A highly significant test for interaction between sex and cohort effect ( P < 0.001) indicated that the cohort effect differed between men and women.

Leading to a correct classification of 83.8% of cases (95.1% of cases without and 53.3% of cases with UHR criteria), the model became highly significant (Omnibus test: χ 2 (3) = 38.883, p<0.001) and explained 39.2% of the variance ( Table 5 ).

Exposure-dose (concentration × time, % h) showed a positive trend with ΔE00 (r=0.401, p<0.001; R 2 =0.161).

On the regression model, was extremely significant (P < 0.001), but the ANOVA for lack of fit was insignificant (P > 0.05).

There was a highly significant correlation between the 2 methods when the assay was changed from RIA to ACS-180 in 1998 ( P < .001; r 2 = 0.94) and when it was changed from ACS-180 to DELFIA in 2003 ( P < .001; r 2 = 0.99). 100% agreement for screening passes and failures was obtained using the revised cut-off values.

Pooled analysis across all cancers demonstrated highly significant evidence of differences overall showing longer diagnostic intervals with increasing age (7.8 days; 6.4 to 9.1; P<0.001); for females (8.9 days; 5.5 to 12.2; P<0.001); and in non-NICE symptoms (27.7 days; 23.9 to 31.5; P<0.001).