The AR(1) (−0.690582) and MA(2) (−2.00298) coefficients were also highly significant ( p < 0.0001), confirming the autoregressive structure of the model.
Excerpts
In all cases, the values of p were highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
The quadratic model best described the data behavior; it was highly significant ( p < 0.0001) and did not show a lack of fit ( p = 0.0655 > 0.05).
Additionally, all interaction terms ( AB , AC , BC ) and quadratic terms ( A 2 , B 2 , C 2 ) were highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
Significance analysis of regression coefficients reveals the linear term A (trehalose) is highly significant ( p < 0.0001), B (lactose) is significant ( p < 0.05), and C (skim milk powder) is highly significant ( p < 0.01).
Both models were highly significant ( p < 0.0001), with adjusted coefficients of determination (R 2 adj ) between 0.72 and 0.78.
Statistical tests, including the likelihood ratio and Pearson chi-square, were highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
Although significant lack of fit was observed for some responses, the models were retained because they remained highly significant ( p < 0.0001) and exhibited satisfactory coefficients of determination and adjusted R 2 values.
As shown in Table 4 , the model exhibited highly significant differences ( p < 0.0001), with the lack-of-fit term yielding a p of 0.3237 (>0.05).
The analysis also quantified the influence of parameters on TPPs yield through standardized coefficients: liquid-to-solid ratio (X 3 ) and ultrasonic temperature (X 4 ) were highly significant ( p < 0.0001), followed by ultrasonic time (X 1 ) ( p = 0.005) and ultrasonic power (X 2 ) ( p = 0.0049).
The regression model was highly significant ( p < 0.0001) and the lack of fit was not significant ( p = 0.1535 > 0.05), with a goodness of fit R 2 = 0.9879 and the difference between R 2 Adj and R 2 Pre being less than 0.2, indicating that the model had good fit.
Subjects who received GR showed a highly significant increase in SFN in both zones ( p < 0.0001), similar to levels previously observed in breast tissue after similar supplementation.
However, packaging treatment exerted a highly significant main effect on all color attributes ( p < 0.0001), highlighting the predominant influence of packaging type on strawberry visual quality during storage.
A highly significant seasonal effect was observed for casein content, with summer samples showing higher concentrations (1.26 ± 0.14%) compared to autumn samples (1.04 ± 0.18%) ( p < 0.0001).
The data indicate that the regression model is highly significant ( p < 0.0001), while the error term is not significant ( p > 0.05).
kudriavzevii ITMLB97, the best correlation models were those produced from inulin ( Q 2 = 0.93) and BS-juice ( Q 2 = 0.93), which had a highly significant effect ( p < 0.0001) on the MIR profiles.
The superiority of BBSNet is statistically unequivocal, as confirmed by highly significant t -tests (all p -values < 0.0001) comparing its performance to each benchmark backbone.
First, for all the descriptors, the panelist effect was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
Conversely, treatment with 20 μg/mL oleacein reduced the mean lifespan by 34% relative to control S-base and DMSO; this was an effect that was highly significant (LogRank p > 0.0001).
The model showed that X 2 , X 3 , X 1 2 and X 2 2 had a significant effect on the tyrosinase-inhibiting activity ( p < 0.05) and that X 3 2 had an extremely significant effect on the same ( p < 0.0001).
By day 5, inhibition of Alternaria alternate and Aspergillus niger was highly significant (**** p < 0.0001), and that of Penicillium sp. was also strongly significant (*** p < 0.001), underscoring the sustained efficacy of the microencapsulated formulation.
As shown in Table 2 , the model selected by the test was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
The ANOVA results for protein content in this group showed a highly significant F-value of 284.19 ( p < 0.0001), demonstrating that there are statistically significant differences among the samples in this group.
However, purge loss in cured pork sausages was highly significant with the addition of ligands ( p < 0.0001; Table 2 ), with cysteine treatment showing higher purge loss than histidine and nicotinamide treatments ( p < 0.05; Table 3 ).
The Y 1 regression model had a highly significant ( p < 0.0001) effect on the primary term B, a significant ( p < 0.05) effect on A, C, AC., and B.C., and a non-significant ( p > 0.05) effect on AB., A 2 , B 2 , and C 2 .