“highly significant”

Crucially, in this adjusted model, the association for group assignment remained highly significant (RR 0.31 (95% c.i. 0.19 to 0.52) for noise isolation versus control; P < 0.001).

In contrast, the UUO group exhibited extensive collagen accumulation in the interstitial area, showing a highly significant increase compared to the control group (p<0.001) ( Figure 15B and C ).

The time-by-group interaction for enamel microhardness was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

This difference was highly significant (Fisher’s exact test, p < 0.001).

Statistical analysis confirmed that the improvement was significant between SP1 and SP2 ( P < 0.01) and highly significant between SP1 and SP3 ( P < 0.001) ( Figure 3A ).

As shown in Table 6 , all 4 features showed highly significant group differences (all P <.001; df=235) with large effect sizes (Cohen d range: 1.11‐1.19).

3 ). Analysis of variance revealed highly significant effects of environment (E), genotype (G), and genotype-by-environment interaction (G × E) (all P < 0.001), with F-values of 45.22, 3.15, and 26.97, respectively.

Asthma severity was also highly significant (χ 2 = 68.02, p < 0.001), with uncontrolled asthma reported in 42.91% of those with intermittent/mild persistent asthma (combined as “mild cases” for analysis) and 88.79% of those with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma (combined as “persistent cases”).

It is important to note that adjustment for average daily screen time, as well as for levels of physical activity and sleep quality (as covariates in ANCOVA), did not alter the significance of the results: all between-group differences remained highly significant ( p < 0.001).

For all the tests, DLR fixed effect was highly significant: ( p < 0.001), as shown with violin plots in Fig. 2 (R1 evaluations) and Fig.

A G-test confirmed the asymmetry, showing a highly significant difference ( P < 0.001).

However, the inclusion of a large cohort (n=1012) and the highly significant differences observed between groups (p < 0.001) suggest that the study possessed adequate statistical power to validate the results.

A two-way ANOVA revealed a highly significant effect on the total number of plant leaves, influenced by plant species ( p < 0.001), treatment groups ( p < 0.001), and the interaction between species and treatment groups ( p < 0.001). 3.2.

In predicting decision-making, the model was highly significant (F = 28.03, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.447); natural elements (β = 0.60, p < 0.001) and natural lighting (β = 0.32, p = 0.046) had positive effects, while organizational culture exerted a strong negative influence (β = − 1.03, p < 0.001).

The healthcare capacity times inequality interaction was highly significant ( β = 0.69 , p < 0.001), formally confirming that diagnostic infrastructure moderates the inequality-CKD relationship—the detection bias hypothesis.

LMM analysis revealed a highly significant decrease in negative mood immediately following SKT1 practice ( b = 0.572, t (522.79) = 42.12, p < .001), representing a large effect size (Paired Cohen’s d = 1.00, 95% CI [0.91, 1.09]).

The collapsed comparison remained highly significant (chi-square = 2645.39, p < 0.001) with a Jensen–Shannon divergence of 0.0351, indicating that while most four-class disagreement was absorbed by the collapse, the LLM still assigned substantially more posts to Negative and fewer to Neutral/Positive than the human labels.

3.6 Correlation matrix POD activity exhibited a highly significant positive correlation ( P < 0.001) with chlorophyll b, AsA, and root Cd contents under Cd stress.

Non-parametric sensitivity analyses Kruskal-Wallis H test comparing sentiment across all reaction types was highly significant (H = 1430.53, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.063), indicating that reaction type explains approximately 6.3% of variance in sentiment scores.

The analysis revealed a highly significant difference ( p < 0.001), with a Cramer’s V = 0.65, indicating a large effect size.

Regarding perceptions of job-related career development factors, a highly significant relationship was found with age ( p < 0.001), education level ( p < 0.001), and academic position ( p < 0.001), while years of experience also showed a statistically significant association ( p = 0.010).

The parameter estimates for the model using DBH and H together as predictors (M2) were highly significant ( p < 0.001), with acceptable PRSE values (PRSE < 25%) for each species.

CO Emissions: Highly significant reduction with CNG (F = 45.63, p < 0.001).

OHIP-14 scores demonstrated a highly significant reduction from baseline to post-intervention assessment (p < 0.001), indicating marked improvement in OHRQoL across all participants.

In contrast, sampling time exerted a highly significant effect on estrogen concentration (p < 0.001), reflecting marked temporal fluctuations throughout the estrous cycle ( Table 11 ).