Also, a significant positive correlation was observed between the KAP scores among the participants, with the correlations being statistically significant when compared between the Knowledge–Attitudes scores ( P = 0.03), the Knowledge–Practices scores ( P = 0.04), and highly significant between the Attitudes–Practices scores ( P = 0.001).
Excerpts
Hindwing data demonstrated a highly significant difference in the hindwing CS values among individuals from each region ( F = 36.08, P < 0.001).
In this table, comparing Malay’s samples and Bolton’s standard, showed highly significant differences between the Malay anterior ratio ( p < 0.001) and overall ratio ( p < 0.001) which suggest non applicability of Bolton’s value to Malay ethnic.
A post hoc statistical analysis showed that the age (as a covariate) of the population included in the study has no effect ( P = 0.749) in the highly significant clinical improvement ( P < 0.001) obtained with MV130 when compared with placebo.
This association was highly significant, with a P value < 0.001.
A highly significant association was noted between fast food consumption and BMI (χ2 = 83.31, p<0.001).
However, overall subject group differences between AD patients and controls were apparent, with highly significant results in the one-sample t-test against zero, t (71) = −5.69, p < 0.001, d = −0.67.
Weekday screen-based digital device usage showed a decreasing trend ( P < 0.001), whereas weekend usage increased ( P < 0.001).
All the differences were statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test z = −4.376; −4.379; −4.234; −4.200; −4.375; respectively, all P < 0.001 highly significant).
Crucially, all three behavioral factors were highly significant predictors of DBM: Professional Role and Self-Regulation: (B = 0.124,β = 0.456,t(231) = 9.869, p <.001), Emotional and Social Dynamics: (B = 0.098,β = 0.359,t(231) = 7.164, p <.001), and Skills and Belief Systems : (B = − 0.117,β=−0.431,t(231) = −8.178, p <.001).
In addition, Bartlett's test of Sphericity was highly significant χ 2 (210) = 9628.310 ( p < 0.001) ( 27 ).
All five specific indirect effects of TO2 (and thus also SARS-CoV-2 infection) on HR-QoL were significant yielding highly significant total indirect (t = −5.03, p < 0.001) and total (t = −13.30, p < 0.001) effects.
Post hoc analysis The post hoc analysis of TbB using only the 10 first trials of block 4 (first half of block 4) and the last 10 trials of block 3 revealed an even larger difference, attaining a highly significant level between blocks 3 and 4 ( p < 0.001, see Table 2 ; Figure 3 ).
Results of both were statistically evaluated by two-tailed Student’s t-test and considered significant ( P < 0.05), highly significant ( P < 0.01), or extremely significant ( P < 0.001).
Association between RC level and risk of GDM An increasing trend of GDM was observed with increasing RC levels, both with and without adjustment for confounding factors (overall P < 0.001 and for nonlinearity P = 0.124) ( Figure 2 ).
The R 2 change from Model I to II was 0.51, which was highly significant change ( P < 0.001).
However, a highly significant difference was found among the monthly average sizes for each sex ( p < 0.001), indicating that the captured population size varied considerably throughout the study period.
Correlation coefficients for each trait between the 2 years ranged from 0.35 for eChl_A to 0.45 for tChl_T and were highly significant ( P ≤ 0.001), except for eChl_R which was 0.11 but nonetheless significant ( P < 0.05).
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).
The Kruskal–Wallis H test confirmed highly significant overall differences across senescence phases ( p < 0.001), with effect sizes (ε2 = 0.094–0.098) indicating moderate strength.
Interferential statistics proved a highly significant change with a very large effect size (ǀ d ǀ = 1.7; p < 0.001).
older) on perceptual ratings revealed a highly significant main effect of age, F(1, 490) = 33.867, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.065.
These highly significant differences were evident with a p -value < 0.001 for IL-1β and TNF-α and a p -value of 0.002 for IL-6.
In particular, the selection during autumn was highly significant ( p <0.001).
TSPO Gene Expression Level Statistical analysis revealed a highly significant difference in TSPO gene expression in CRC tumor samples compared to normal tissue samples ( p < 0.001).