“highly significant”

Results Patient Demographics The TB cohort was characterized by a distinctly male predominance, reflecting occupational and behavioural exposure trends that have been documented nationally; nearly four in five patients were men compared with just over one-third of community donors, which yielded a highly significant χ 2 statistic (χ 2 = 18.17, p < 0.001).

There were positive, highly significant correlations between the CT bifurcation score and both age ( r = 0.5, p < 0.001) and Ca score ( r = 0.6, p < 0.001).

With the exception of days unable to work and days cut‐back work, all variables were highly significant ( p < 0.001).

The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed a highly significant difference between the different toothpastes of V2 ( p < 0.001).

After the statistical analysis, highly significant differences were found between Candida species detection and OLP clinical form (OR = 2.43; 95% CI: 1.92–3.33; P < 0.001).

Results Serum RBP4 level had a highly significant association with hyperuricemia ( P <0.001).

The incubation of all BODIPY-labeled AMs with LUVs showed a highly significant increment of r ( p < 0.001, unpaired, two-tailed Student’s t -test, Figure 2 A, Table 1 ), suggesting a lower rotational freedom of the probe in the presence of LUVs.

In our study, the difference between both untreated and protected areas was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

The noted difference was statistically highly significant ( P <0.001).

There was also a highly significant effect of speed on the peak values in the root mean square –time curves for both the TA and GM muscles ( P < 0.001).

“*” was considered significant difference ( p < 0.05); “***” was considered highly significant difference ( p < 0.001).

Highly significant correlations were found between serum levels of C3 and C4 to drug retention time ( P < .001, Fig. 1 ).

Genotype by environment interaction Finlay-Wilkinson regression The genotypic and environmental main effects of the Finlay-Wilkinson (FW) model were highly significant ( P < 0.001) for all observed traits ( Supplementary Table 4 ).

Every F-SENC CMR determined parameter was able to detect significant differences between the No CTX, Sub-CTX, and CTX groups, as well as those patients who recovered (REC) from CTX (all highly significant at p < 0.001, except p = 0.03 for LVEDVi).

Linear mixed-effects model Rainfall was a highly significant negative predictor of PMMoV RNA concentration (β = −0.0077 log 10 GC/100 mL per mm, z = − 4.041, p < 0.001; Supplementary file), independent of site, as shown in Fig. 7 .

On the other hand, age, best-corrected visual acuity and β-PPA area which showed highly significant association ( P < 0.001) in the current normal eyes could not be detected as significant factors in the current glaucoma eyes.

On the basis of fold change calculations, out of 19 differentially expressed proteins (DEP) of LF samples, 13 were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) and 6 DEP were highly significant (p ≤ 0.001) ( Table 3 ).

Reduced activity 0.72 Hair loss 0.78 Nausea 0.32 sleep 0.82 Family Appearance 0.78 Vomiting 0.25 Concentration 0.81 relations 0.70 Self care 0.81 Anxiety 0.70 Depression 0.80 Uniscale 0.72 Increased sleep 0.79 Mobility 0.64 Speech 0.63 Recreation 0.78 Correlation coefficients are highly significant, P < 0.001, except those for Diarrhoea (P= 0.005), Nausea (P =0.002) and Vomiting (P=0.012). 18 P.J.

Hypertension emerged as the most notable risk factor (OR, 3.0; 95% CI: 2.2-4.1) with a highly significant P<0.001.

Capability was most strongly related to cognition (0.468), and this was highly significant ( P <.001), indicating a relatively strong relationship between participants’ conceptions of the two, a relationship that is well established in the literature [ 44 , 45 ].

All sources of variation were highly significant ( P<0.001 ) and more than 95% of the variance was explained by differences within the A, B and D genomes, whereas only a small part of the overall variance (less than 5%) could be attributed to differences between landraces and modern varieties.

Moreover, the individual expression score of the COVID-19–related spatial covariance pattern exhibited a highly significant, negative correlation with individual results from cognitive testing using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment ( r 2 = 0.62, P < 0.001 ( 18 )).

The correlation in the present sample was slightly weaker ( r = −0.34) but highly significant ( p < 0.001) and may be interpreted as a sign of good convergent validity ( Table 2 ).

Cla at into group A (<20'!.) and group B (> 20% of cels staming postively for the p53 protein). Group B patents had a highly significant risk of proson (P<0.001, log-rank test).

The model with all six predictors resulted in a significant R 2 value (R 2 = 0.301, p < 0.001), wherein the first model (stroke and global cognition) explained the largest part of WR variance with a highly significant R 2 change (ΔR 2 = 0.254, ΔF = 11.560, p < 0.001).