“highly significant”

There were highly significant mean reductions in the scores in all domains of IBS-SSS: pain severity scores (pre-GFH 61 vs 26 post-GFH, p<0.001), pain frequency scores (pre-GFH 61 vs 31 post-GFH, p<0.001), abdominal bloating severity (pre-GFH 51 vs 26 post-GFH, p<0.0001), dissatisfaction with bowel habit (pre-GFH 63 vs 33 post-GFH, p<0.0001) and interference with life (pre-GFH 76 vs 39 post-GFH, p<0.0001).

The highly significant difference in sleep duration and PSQI scores (p < 0.001) reinforces that RLS demonstrably disrupts sleep quality and quantity.

Statistical analysis confirmed highly significant group differences at both locations ( p < 0.001).

The model was highly significant ( p < 0.001), indicating that the equation was sufficient to predict production under any combination of variable values.

Effect of therapy on chief complaints In Group A, highly significant results were obtained in Grahana Shakti Hani ( P ≤ 0.001) and Twak Hani ( P ≤ 0.001), while significant result was found in Smarana Shakti Hani ( P = 0.004).

The analysis of the ratings of the positive-negative IAPS pictures yielded the expected, highly significant main effect of valence, F(1,198) = 897.53, p < .001, confirming that positive pictures were liked better than negative pictures (5.9 vs. 2.4), while the main effect of key mapping and the interaction were far from significant, ps > .2.

The difference was still highly significant when HIC carrying the protective allele B*57 or B*27 were excluded from the analysis (1.54 [0.78–3.23], n = 15 B*27 neg B*57 neg HIC, p<0.001).

A highly significant difference was observed in hemoglobin ( P < 0.001).

Bartlett's test for sphericity was highly significant ( P < 0.001) for all three groups, suggesting the suitability of data for factor analysis.

For example, thermal imaging was highly significant ( P < 0.001) in capturing variation in g s measured by the gas exchange at a single PPFD ( ρ ranging from 0.29 to 0.66, Figure 3 ) and the thermal estimate of g s shade had a heritability of 0.70, making it suitable for association mapping.

The highly significant difference in the results obtained by all three fracture risk scores remained (p<0.001 for all comparisons, Wilcoxon signed rank test).

This tendency was also highly significant ( p < 0.001).

Pooling data from VTN and CBN together, there is a highly significant correlation between choice probability and translation coding (R = 0.47, p < 0.001, Spearman correlation), which also reaches significance for each subcortical area separately (VTN: R = 0.54, p = 0.03; CBN: R = 0.55, p = 0.01).

Respondents from the COPD and Diabetes sub-samples had on average more co-morbid conditions than the NSA sub-sample (mean number of chronic conditions is 3.7 for the COPD sub-sample, 3.4 for the Diabetes sub-sample and 2.0 for the NSA sub-sample, with COPD/Diabetes difference significant (p = 0.010) and other differences highly significant (p<0.001)).

While go signal timeliness is highly significant (p<0.001), even though the coefficient value is positive, this actually indicates a negative relationship with information sharing due to the calculation method for the variable (calculated as the difference between requested and actual go signal date).

There was a trend (p=0.055) for a decrease in 1-year mortality between 2007 and 2008, a highly significant (p<0.001) decrease in 30-day and 1-year mortality between 2008 and 2009, but no decrease in mortality between 2015 and 2016. 10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002475.supp2 Supplementary data Possible associations between the Swedeheart quality index and readmission and mortality rate per year are presented with Pearson’s correlation coefficients in figure 3 .

A one-way ANOVA demonstrated a highly significant difference between two or more of these groups (*** p <0.001) and a two-sample, two-tailed t -test was used to evaluate pairwise differences ( Fig 4 ).

This difference in the average marginal effects (AMEs) is highly significant according to a Wald test (-.11 SD, p < .001, 95% CI [-.13, -.08]), which provides strong evidence that smaller individual concerns about health risks imply a larger effect of social norms on preventive behaviour, supporting H4.

The prediction of the independent validation data set showed a good adjustment between the predicted NIR values and the visual scoring values, with a correlation coefficient of R = 0.963, which was found to be highly significant ( p < 0.001), and a RPD of 3.677.

The changes of air-blast stimuli and thermal stimuli were highly significant in the Arginine group at Day-28 than NaF-gel group (p<0.001).

The effect of geographic distance was highly significant (β G = 0.544, p = 0.001) and larger than that of Euclidean environmental distances (β E = 0.161, p = 0.032). 4.

The first two axes were highly significant, RDA1 (F 1 15 = 364.026, P≤0.001) capturing 89.3% of outcomes variance, and RDA2 (F 1 15 = 25.828, P = ≤0.001), an additional 6.34%, totaling 95.6%.

Highly significant differences were observed in both genotype and allele frequencies of R1268Q between patients with AS and control subjects ( p <0.001, p <0.002; chi-square test).

There was highly significant difference in CBC risk between BRCA1 PV carriers and controls (log-rank p < 0.001).

Crucially, direct effects of both baseline and cumulative ASCVD10 year scores on all cardiovascular outcomes remained highly significant ( P < 0.001) after accounting for these mediators.