Excerpts

The narrow confidence interval and highly significant p -value ( p < 0.001) further support the reliability and clinical relevance of this finding.

Therefore, with unequal variance, there is a statistically highly significant difference, which can be explained by the composition of the collective ( p < 0.001).

High-risk tumor depths (≥4 mm) demonstrated a markedly significant negative dependence on both phosphorylated SMAD2 (C.C −0.214; p = 0.001) and SMAD3 (C.C −0.200; p = 0.002), which is consistent with a tumor-suppressive role for SMAD2/3 activators in cSCC [ 41 ].

Statistical analysis consistently demonstrated a highly significant increase in apoptosis in neuroblastoma cells compared with hDFs ( p < 0.001), though replicate data are not displayed.

The tumor location was a highly significant factor, with tumors of the pelvis resulting in significantly more recurrences than those of the extremities ( p < 0.001).

p < 0.05 were considered as statistically significant (*), p < 0.01 as highly significant (**) and p < 0.001 as extremely significant (***). 3.

Remarkably, we found that tumor shape features, such as surface volume ratio and least axis length, showed extremely significant differences among the three imaging subtypes in both cohorts ( p -value < 0.001, Figure 3 a,b).

The log-rank test indicates a highly significant result, with p < 0.001.

The ulceration status was significantly different between R1 and R2 ( p = 0.008) and showed a highly significant difference between R1 and R3 ( p < 0.001), but not between R2 and R3 ( p = 0.19).

Subgroup Analysis Age stratification: Overall the age did not impact the outcome; however older patients aged > 60 years with positive ctDNA at baseline had a slight trend towards poor PFS compared to ctDNA negative patients [pHR = 1.62; 95%CI: 0.72–2.52, p < 0.001; I 2 = 71.28%], while younger patients (age ≤60 years) showed no difference ([pHR = 1.11; 95%CI: 0.39–1.84, p < 0.001; I 2 = 98.26%]; Supplementary Figure S3a ).

In parallel, there were also highly significant ( p < 0.001, mean difference 6.7, 95%CI =+ 5.6 + 7.8) changes in total physical activity levels.

IRVs did not show significantly more unfavorable clinicopathological characteristics compared to cPTC and even had a highly significant ( p < 0.001) lower risk of having bilateral presentation.

Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated a highly significant difference in overall survival among the geneClusters ( p < 0.001) ( Figure 4 C), indicating that this DEG-based secondary classification further refines outcome stratification beyond the initial senescence clusters.

The multivariate model showed a highly significant effect of age at diagnosis ( p < 0.001), age interactions with TGFB2 methylation ( p = 0.001), and age with sex ( p = 0.014) ( Figure 2 ).

STAT1 expression showed a strong and highly significant positive correlation with IL-13 (ρ = 0.99, p < 0.001; ***), highlighting a robust Th2-biased activation of signalling in patients with elevated STAT1 levels ( Figure 3 B).

Significant differences in eGFR were observed after cycles 1 through 3, with highly significant reductions emerging from cycle 4 onward (all p < 0.001).

Subgroup analyses focusing on mid/distal tumor locations and cTNM stages II/III indicated a significant trend towards improved survival with NAC (all p < 0.001).

Her2 and pHer2 expression levels showed a highly significant correlation as well (Spearman-rho = 0.531; p ≤ 0.001).

Kaplan–Meier curves showed highly significant ( p < 0.001) reduced DFS in patients with SAAR ≥ 2 compared to those with SAAR < 2 ( Figure 3 ).

**, *** in the figures indicate very significant ( p < 0.01) and highly significant ( p < 0.001) statistical differences respectively.

As for the Non-Diab group, we found an increasing trend for non-Hodgkin lymphoma [APC: 3.23% (1.25–5.15%), p = 0.0011] and thyroid [APC: 3.07% (0.67–5.38%), p = 0.0112] cancers, and a decreasing trend for gallbladder [APC: −6.04% (−8.98–−3.20%), p < 0.0001], stomach [APC: −5.25% (−7.12–−3.43%), p < 0.0001], colorectal [APC: −1.17% (−1.99–−0.37%), p = 0.

Sub-group analysis in relation to gender revealed a highly significant influence of ERα expression on OS and RFS in males but not in females, both for the ERα-positive primary tumor cohort (males: p = 0.0013; p < 0.0001; females: p = 0.56; p = 0.89) and the ERα-positive primary tumor/primary lymph node metastasis cohort (males: p < 0.0001; p < 0.0001; females: p = 0.95; p = 0.96).

Kaplan–Meier survival performed on all IHC subgroups revealed that an overall log-rank test was highly significant for both PFS ( p = 0.0017, Figure 3 B left) and SOS ( p = 0.0081, Figure 3 B right).

The HER2-low group demonstrated superior outcomes for DFS ( p = 0.0130), DMFS ( p = 0.0300), OS ( p = 0.0120), and particularly for BCSS, which showed a markedly significant difference ( p = 0.0019) ( Figure 4 ). 3.3.

Statistical analysis confirmed that this reduction in the number of tests compared to the pre-pandemic period was highly significant ( p = 0.002).