“extremely significant”

Results Pain intensity and function disability level in LL-BFRT had extremely significant improvement at 4 weeks ( p < 0.001, ES = 1.44–1.84).

In the figures, “*” denotes significant differences ( p < 0.05), “***” denotes extremely significant differences ( p < 0.001), and “ns” indicates no significant difference. 3.

The results of calculating the p-value show that: p 0.05, the difference is not significant (ns); 0.01p 0.05, the difference is significant (*); and 0.001p 0.01, the difference is extremely significant, the difference is very significant (**); 0.0001 < p < 0.001, the difference is extremely significant (***). 3.

Additionally, concentrations of 5 mg/L and higher for more than 4 days exhibited a significant inhibitory effect on the growth of Foc TR4 mycelia, with the inhibitory effect being extremely significant at concentrations of 40 mg/L and higher ( p < 0.001).

In both Table 5 and Table 6 , the proposed CDOM full-model (integrating channel attention and multi-scale feature fusion) exhibits extremely significant performance gains compared with the other three models (all p < 0.001), which fully verifies the synergistic effect of the two components.

Differences were considered significant at P < 0.05, strongly significant at P < 0.01, and extremely significant at P < 0.001.

From Figure 8 , it can be concluded that in April 2022, the number of female cones had a significant negative correlation with the K content in November 2021 ( p < 0.05, r = −0.46), a very significant negative correlation with the N content in July 2022 ( p < 0.01, r = −0.51), a significant negative correlation with the K content in July 2022 ( p < 0.05, r = −0.40), a significant positive correlation with the C:N ratio in July 2022 ( p < 0.05, r = 0.38), and an extremely significant negative correlation with the K content in November 2022 ( p < 0.001, r = −0.62).

PERMANOVA analysis revealed extremely significant differences between fallen leaf and fecal bacterial communities (F = 13.47, R 2 = 0.53, p < 0.001).

C8α levels in vitreous of culture-positive bacterial endophthalmitis was around 137 ± 25.86, which was extremely significant ( P < 0.001) in comparison to control (1.20 ± 1.20).

In this study, the results showed that IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-a in control group were lower than those of the model control group, and there were extremely significant statistical differences (p < 0.001), indicating that LPS-induced zebrafish pneumonia models elevated inflammatory factors.

Both LREEs/HREEs and Eu/Eu* displayed extremely significant and positive correlations with La N /Yb N , La N /Sm N , and Gd N /Yb N ( p < 0.001), respectively.

The primary term B was extremely significant ( p < 0.001), while the primary term C was significant ( p < 0.05); however, the terms A and D were not significant.

On a relative basis, the FBA gene of the F10-D strain presented extremely significant upregulation on days 5 and 7 in YPD + Fru medium, with a 1.4-fold increase on day 5 ( p < 0.001) compared to that in the YPD group; the FBA gene of the T17-D strain in YPD + Fru medium was upregulated on days 1, 3, and 5, with a 1.5-fold increase on day 5 ( p < 0.05); the FBA gene of the TF15-A strain was extremely significantly upregulated on days 1, 3, 5, and 7, and the expression level was upregulated almost 2.5-fold ( p < 0.001) on day 5.

According to the result, the d S values showed an extremely significant correlation with the d N values ( R 2 = 0.8081, p < .001) (File S2 : Figure S3 ).

An unpaired two-tailed t-test showed that the differences were extremely significant ( p < 0.001) among different parts of M. struthiopteris .

Overall fitting analysis using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) ( Figure 7 ) revealed that the characteristic fungal genera had an extremely significant and positive effect ( p < 0.001) on soil available nutrient content, while soil available nutrient content had an extremely significant and positive effect ( p < 0.001) on the tea quality index content.

“*” p < 0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically-significant difference, very significant at p < 0.01 and labeled with “**”, and extremely significant at p < 0.001 and labeled with “***”.

The statistical value of * P < 0.05 is considered as significant difference; ** P < 0.01 is considered as extremely significant difference; *** P < 0.001 is considered as very significant difference.

We concluded that there is an extremely significant difference between the groups ( p <0.001, X 2 =52.26).

As shown in Table 2 , school bullying was an extremely significant positive predictor of depression ( β = 0.87, p < 0.001), and the fit index R 2 showed that the predictive model of school bullying on depression explained 6% of its variance.

p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, very significant if 0.001 <p < 0.01 and extremely significant if p < 0.001.

Statistical validation via perMANOVA indicated extremely significant differences between groups (R 2 = 0.94, p = 0.001).

Statistical differences are considered significant at a p < 0.05 significance level and marked with “∗”, very significant at p < 0.01 and labeled with “∗∗”, and extremely significant at p < 0.001 and labeled with “∗∗∗”.

The resultant P values, calculated using an unpaired t -test, were shown to be extremely significant ( P = 0.001).

The study revealed that the increase in mean score was extremely significant at P < 0.001.[ 13 ] The above study finding is in agreement with another similar quasi-experimental study undertaken by a team of researchers from Maharashtra to determine how well 30 patients with MI were educated about CR.