“moderately significant”

Furthermore, a moderately significant positive correlation was detected between information disclosure behaviour and both perceived control ( r = 0.37; p 0.01) and perceived benefits ( r = 0.52; p < 0.01).

When compared to the disease control group, the results of the normal control and treatment groups were marked as highly significant (***p < 0.001), moderately significant (**p < 0.01), and significant (*p < 0.05).

Specifically, the 9GE_0.1KH formulation shows a moderately significant difference compared to 9GE formulations, with the two asterisks ** ( p < 0.01) indicating a significant reduction in the WVTR between 9GE_0.1KH and 9GE with the addition of KH.

Statistically moderately significant values, with P > 0.01 and P ≤ 0.05 are noted in the MD values of 43 ( P = 0.024) and 46 ( P = 0.017), respectively.

[ 23 ] Moreover, data coming from the same CRIC Study [ 26 ] confirmed, as even after adjustment for multiple confounders, PWV remained an independent predictor of HF hospitalization together with brachial systolic pressure and PP. In our previous experience, [ 16 ] based on data coming from fifty-nine HF patients, PWV demonstrated a positive moderately significant correlation with creatinine (r = 0.33, P = 0.01), red blood cell distribution width (r = 0.31, P = 0.02), N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (r = 0.28, P = 0.049), brachial systolic pressure (r = 0.33, P = 0.01), central systolic pressure (r = 0.29, P = 0.02) and a negative moderately significant correlation with estimated glomerular filtration rate (r = −0.40, P = 0.002).

GHMA had moderately significant positive correlations with body mass index (CC = 0.507, p < 0.01), handgrip strength (CC = 0.530, p < 0.01), and SMI (CC = 0.541, p < 0.01), and weak positive correlations with AC (CC = 0.487, p < 0.01), CaC (CC = 0.439, p < 0.01), and quadriceps strength (CC = 0.417, p < 0.01).

Colour intensity reflects statistical significance: deep pink for highly significant (p < 0.001), pink for moderately significant (p < 0.01), pale pink for marginally significant (p < 0.05), and grey for insufficient sample size to perform accurate analysis.

In the South zone populations, 5 out of 10 loci showed levels of departure from HWE, with CsM48497 being moderately significant ( P < 0.01) and four markers ( CsM12479 , CsM92789 , CsM30177 , and CsM37073 ) being least significant ( P < 0.005).

The results were considered moderately significant at P < 0.01, while these were considered highly significant at P < 0.001. 3.

A moderately significant positive correlation was observed in those with viral contact (r = 0.59, p<0.01).

A moderately significant positive correlation was identified between negative reactions and secondary trauma ( r = 0.419, p < 0.01), occupational burnout ( r = 0.374, p < 0.01), and compassion fatigue total mean score ( r = 0.417, p < 0.01).

P ≤0.05 was considered statistically moderately significant, and P ≤ 0.01 was considered statistically strongly significant.

The linear regression model to predict total earnings was not statistically significant (R 2 = 0.26, F(8,34) = 1.492, p = 0.2), but the auction price was a moderately significant predictor for higher total career earnings (β = 0.506, t(99) = 2.982, p < 0.01).

The treatment groups receiving 200 mg/kg and 400 mg/kg doses of AJME showed moderately significant improvements (P < 0.01), similar to the GSH level restoration observed in the standard group (P < 0.05).

11 showed moderately significant differences (p < 0.01) and pair no. 7, 8 and no. 12 showed less significant differences (p < 0.05). 4 Discussion The uniqueness of the current study stands upon the following points: (1) 252 CBCT data; (2) Three different Arabian sub-population data; (3) assessment of odontometric morphometry and symmetry/asymmetry using new approach.

The recovery of GSH content in the treatment group with a dose of 800 mg/kg was highly significant ( P < 0.001), while the other treatment doses (100 and 300 mg/kg) showed moderately significant improvement ( P < 0.01), which was comparable to the replenishment of GSH level in the standard group ( P < 0.05). 3.4.4.

Significant figures +Suggestive significance ( p value: >0.05<0.10) *Moderately significant ( p value:0.01-0.05) **Strongly significant ( p value <0.01).

Both the ASF-1 and ASF-2 exhibited highly significant differences ( p < 0.001); however, the ASF2 only showed moderately significant variations ( p < 0.01) between bile concentrations at the survival rates after 3 h.

However, a positive and strongly significant correlation was found between inflammatory cell count and neovascularization scores (r = 0.708, p < 0.01), and a positive and moderately significant correlation was found between new bone formation and neovascularization scores (r = 0.535, p < 0.01).

In another study, 27 it was moderately significant ( r : 0.47, P < .01); a moderate and significant ( r : 0.41, P < .01) correlation was reported in the same direction with the HAD-depression scale. 27 In other studies, the correlation of PAT with other applied scales ranged from 0.16 to 0.69. 12 , 26 - 28 The correlation of Family Structure and Resources subdimensions was not compared with other scales in other studies.

In addition, a positive, moderately significant relationship was detected between the GAMA scores and CGI-S scores ( r = 0.692, P < .01), PANNS positive symptoms subscale scores ( r = 0.626, P < .01), negative symptoms subscale scores ( r = 0.331, P < .01), general psychopathology subscale scores ( r = 0.636, P < .01), and PANSS total score ( r = 0.646, P < .01).

For all statistical analyses done in this paper, p < 0.001 is defined as highly significant, 0.01 > p > 0.001 is defined as moderately significant, and 0.05 > p > 0.01 is defined as weakly significant.

From this map we can interpret that under 5 child mortality of four states (Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Karnataka) are moderately significant ( p < 0.01) that those are affected by the prevalence of under 5 child mortality of neighbouring states.

Pooled findings indicated that studies conducted in the home had a moderately significant pooled effect size (SMD = −0.38, 95% CI [−0.62 to −0.14], p < .01), and the effect size of studies conducted in an outpatient setting did not reach statistical significance (SMD = −0.25, 95% CI [−0.53 to 0.04], p = ns ).

There was a moderately significant negative correlation between body appreciation and depression ( r = −0.51, p <0.01).