“highly significant”

The median OS for the PDS group was nearly double that of the IDS group, with a highly significant difference of 52.0 months versus 27.5 months (log-rank test, p < 0.0001). 4.

total and stage I+II ovarian cancer is highly significant (P<0.0001) but negligible for healthy vs. stages III+IV cancer (P = 0.043); in contrast for the more important differentiation between benign vs. ovarian cancer, the difference between CA125 and the panel is missing for benign vs. total and stage I+II ovarian cancer and rather better for benign vs. stage III+IV ovarian cancer (P = 0.045).

For this purpose, in the present study, width (expressed in mm; W) and protein content (expressed in %; PC) of PM were considered in light of their highly significant association with the onset of WS and WB myopathies ( p < 0.0001) ( Zambonelli et al., 2016 ) and their relevance as phenotypic markers of the high breast yield and impaired muscle composition, respectively.

The difference between two groups is statistical highly significant; p<0.0001.

The results shows that when analyzing all lung cancer patients versus healthy controls the diagnostic power of C1M, and VICM individually were highly significant with an AUROC of 0.97 and 0.85, respectively ( P < 0.0001).

Several compounds such as 6 , 15 , and 18 (10–20 mg/kg; s.c.; b.i.d.) showed highly significant inhibitory activity ( p < 0.0001) and at a level approaching that of the MR-1 anti-CD154 antibody used as positive control ( Figure 6 ). 3.

This increase was especially pronounced for moribund individuals and during the “High & Prolonged 1” trial (Supporting Information Figure S2 ), and is supported by the highly significant differences in CIE b * values between trials ( F = 38.17, df = 6, P < 0.0001) and between monitoring periods ( F = 6.21, df = 4, P < 0.0001).

This biased distribution is also highly significant (χ 2 = 21.9, df = 2, P < 0.0001) and the main source of this is the LR–LR category.

A generalized additive model (GAM) fitted to the normalized data revealed strong non-linear temporal structure in activity under all light treatments, with highly significant treatment-specific smooths of time (all F > 380, all p < 0.0001), explaining 97.6% of the variance in normalised activity (adjusted R 2 = 0.97).

58 Our results revealed that the TT genotype and the T allele distribution were dominant in the HCC group rather than the CT and CC genotypes in the control group, with a highly significant difference between the two groups, P = 0.0001.

This upregulation was statistically highly significant ( p < 0.0001) ( Figure 3 ).

Using 5-fold cross validation, the multiplicative interaction term was highly significant at each of the cross-validation loops ( p < 0.0001, t-test).

There was a highly significant correlation between the coulter counter and blood gas analyzer methods of Hb measurement ( r 2 = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.97–0.99; P < 0.0001).

The F = 221.74 implies that the model is highly significant ( P < 0.0001), that is, there is a chance of only 0.01% of the model occur due to noise, as can be seen in Table 2 .

Dyspnea Two prospective intervention studies 28 , 29 evaluated dyspnea, showing highly significant results between before and after the exercise intervention (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.022, respectively).

( 1995 ), where the correlation between sCA and dCA was highly significant ( r = 0.93, P < 0.0001).

Generally, a p -value less than 0.05 indicates that the corresponding factor is significant. Therefore, the quadratic polynomial model established in this experiment is highly significant ( p < 0.0001). 55 The model’s R 2 is 0.9757, and the adjusted R 2 is 0.9514, indicating a good fit with minimal experimental error.

In contrast, particularly at 10 μM, a highly significant ( p < 0.0001) anti-clonogenic effect (26% inhibition) was found in MDA-MB-468 cells after three hours of exposure; meanwhile, there was a gradual decrease with increasing TQ concentration, exhibiting a significant 90% inhibition of colony formation at the highest tested concentration, 50 μM.

Further analysis of the 14 MRD-positive samples showed a highly significant correlation between the 10 log-transformed MRD data of both measurements ( R 2 = 0.999, P < .0001; slope = 1.0) FIGURE 1A ).

For all parameters in the Friedrichs criteria in both active and placebo group, the p -value from screening to weeks 1, 2 and 4 was highly significant ( p value ≤ 0001).

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) The ANOVA results in Table demonstrate that the developed quadratic Model is highly significant ( P -value <0.0001, F -value = 344.57), confirming its excellent predictive capability, and the Lack-of-Fit test is nonsignificant ( P -value = 0.0534), validating the model’s adequacy.

Mixed‐effects ANOVA analysis showed a significant effect of time ( **** P < 0.0001, F 14,140 = 13.02), no significant effect of the genotype ( ns P = 0.1975, F 1,10 = 1.906), no significant genotype × treatment interaction ( ns P = 0.1926, F 1,10 = 1.952) and highly significant time × genotype × treatment interaction ( **** P < 0.0001, F 14,110 = 4.085; Figure 3C,D ).

Friedman's test revealed a highly significant difference among the distributions of the illusion magnitudes across the three conditions [χ 2 (2) = 20.17, p = 0.0001].

On intergroup comparison, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the reduction in burning sensation ( P = 0.18) and erythematous area ( P = 0.07), but there was a statistically highly significant improvement in reduction of clinical scoring ( P < 0.01%).

As expected, dMMR was associated with a substantial and highly significant improvement in DFS in CRC (HR RE = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.55–0.70%; p < 1e‐04), with moderate heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 47%, τ2 = 0.015, p = 0.036) (Figure 1 ).