Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantP < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
hysiological parameters were age ( P < 0.0001), sex ( P = 0.002), HB ( P < 0.0005), cardiac troponin ( P = 0.006), CK-MB ( P = 0.04), eGFR ( P < 0.1), MAP, SI, MSI, AGE-SI, and Killip ( P < 0.0001) (Table 5 ). Multivariate logistic regression model defining significant predictors for mortality was highly significant ( P < 0.0001) (Table 6 ).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The statistical treatment revealed that the insecticidal effect of both samples tested was considered highly significant (p < 0.0001), as well as the effect of concentrations (p < 0.0001) at p-value = 0.05 level of significance.
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Cosmetic camouflage was found to reduce DQLI (dermatology quality of life index) (DLQI consists of 10 questions concerning patients’ perception of the impact of skin diseases each scored between 0–4 giving a range of 0–40) from 16.67 ± 3.87 and to 2.23 ± 1.16 after its use, the difference (14.67 ± 3.87) was found to be statistically highly significant (p < 0.0001) [ 24 ].
Interventions to reduce leprosy related stigma: A systematic review.
PLOS Glob Public Health · 2024 · PMC11340997
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
In the multivariate proportional hazards regression model that included IDLE, TNM staging, tumor grade, and the potential confounding variables (age at surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy received either before or after the surgery) ( Table 2 ), both TNM staging and tumor grade lost statistical association with cancer progression ( p > 0.63) when IDLE was included in the model, while the association of IDLE with progression was highly significant (HR = 5.671, 95% CI = 3.1650–10.1605, p < 0.0001).
a significant trendp < 0.00010.0× alphagold
Over the study period, a significant trend was seen over the years in the following parameters: lower age (84 ± 5.6, 83.7 ± 6.2, 82.1 ± 6.3 and 80.3 ± 6.6 in groups 1–4, respectively p < 0.0001), lower female ratio (60%, 53%, 52% and 44% in groups 1–4, respectively p < 0.0001), lower body surface area (1.79 ± 0.21, 1.8 ± 0.19, 1.81 ± 0.21 a
highly significantP < .00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
A similar pattern was seen in the control group, where the correlations were also highly significant ( P < .0001), with the exception of the correlations between MIAT and lincRNA-Cox2 ( P = .005) and between PACER and lincRNA-Cox2 ( P = .003).
an increasing trendP < 0.00010.0× alphagold
After adjustment for selected covariates, there was an increasing trend in the adjusted PRs for cancers of all sites by duration of diagnosed diabetes among men ( P < 0.0001 for linear trend) ( Fig. 1 A ) and women ( P < 0.0001 for linear trend) ( Fig. 1 B ).