“highly significant”

Table 5 shows that SL has a highly significant effect on thickness of 1 × 3 Rib structure (F-value = 248.49, p-value = 0.000).

The model explains approximately 22.58 per cent of the variance in intrinsic motivation with a highly significant F value of 43.15 ( p < 0.000).

For example, FURIN and PCSK6 show highly significant correlation in blood myeloid cells (n = 156, r = 0.634, p = 0).

Remarkably, there is a highly significant overlap between genes that are differentially expressed with IGF2BP3 knockdown and MI-503 treatment (Hypergeometric test; P = 0).

7 There was significant difference in VEP latencies between patients who were compliant and non-compliant with LTOT measured from the right eye ( p =0.03) and a highly significant difference in VEP latency in the left eye ( p =0.00).

Differences in the levels of variation between the time points are all highly significant ( P ≈ 0 by Mann-Whitney U test).

The level of significance was determined using paired t -test with 95% CI that showed a highly significant P -value ( P < 0) that is representing there is a significant difference between tested variables, i.e., pre-test score and post-test score ( Table 2B ).

The One-way ANOVA test reported a highly significant variance among the six groups ( P =0.000).

The relationship between socioeconomic status and screening utilization was highly significant (χ2 = 139.2, p < 0.000), with a concentration index of 0.125 confirming substantial pro-rich inequality in service access.

Also, the risk increased to twice among children consuming junk food more than once a day (OR: 2; 95% CI = 1.30–3.08).[ 45 ] Among participants belonging to the overweight and obese category, 12% of the total were found to prefer fast food and results were found to be highly significant at X2 = 45.23 with P < 0.000, whereas 13.33% were reported as binge eaters (X2 = 68.63 with P < 0.000; highly significant).[ 46 ] Family history of obesity Findings from a study to document the prevalence of overweight and obesity among school children of an affluent school suggested a higher incid

Thus, there was statistically highly significant increase ( P = 0.000) in the bond strength of brackets bonded to fluorosed teeth after deproteinization.

The statistical difference between the two groups was highly significant ( P = 0) ( Figure 1 ).

We found that EGFR was directly related to tumor differentiation, such that its expression increased with increasing grade of the tumor, and this was found to be statistically highly significant among the three grades (p = 0.000) of OSCCs.

The analysis revealed a highly significant main effect of the treatment group F ( 2 , 4 6 ) = 5 3 . 1 , p < 0 . 0 0 1 , with a large effect size (partial η p 2 = 0 . 7 0 ).

The test of Sphericity was highly significant with χ2 = 193.8970 and p < 0.000.

PTSD torture Kurd conflict refugees The correlation between PTSD 16 items and 29 items with total 45 items of the HTQ section V were highly significant ( r = 0.72, p = 0.000; r = 0.87, p = 0.000; respectively).

The difference was highly significant (4.49, 95%CI: 3.75, 5.23; T = 11.83, P = 0.000).

With introduction of another two studies, p value became highly significant (p = 0.00, significant at 99% level of confidence) and stayed significant thereafter ( Figure 4b ).

HAQ-DI (Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index) was found to be highly significant ( P < 0.000) in 13.84% women when correlated with RD.

The mean pretest score was 15.36 (SD 1.79), which had risen post-test to a mean of 17.16 (SD 1.59), and the calculated two-tailed P value suggested improvement in the post-workshop score, which was highly significant ( P value < 0.000; 95% CI -2.46 to -1.14).

mutans count during the 4-week period which was of highly significant value, F (1.664, 34.000) = 169.607, P = 0.000.

The differences among the three periods always were highly significant ( p = 0.000 in the log-linear model).

The binary logistic regression model, gave the omnibus test as highly significant (LR chi square value being 135.745; P = 0.000), with the Hosmer Lemeshow test showing no significance at P > 0.05, proving a goodness of fit model for this sample.

Following correction for primary tumour location, metastatic status, age and gender, the difference between patient groups with and without cachexia diagnosis according to Fearon et al becomes more significant (p=00 055 instead of p=00 338) and the difference according to Evans et al remains highly significant (p<00 001; figure 2 A, B).

Most of within-population Kimura 2P GD estimates were highly significant at P = 0.000 and larger than between-population distances.