“highly significant”

Table 5 provides robust statistical evidence of disability reduction through MODI assessment, with all pairwise comparisons demonstrating highly significant improvements (p < 0.001).

At T1, the difference in treatment was highly significant between oral and injection ( p < 0.001) and between oral and the control group ( p < 0.001).

In the univariate analysis, BMI exhibited a significant association with periodontitis, with odds ratios (OR) of 2.28 for overweight and 6.46 for obesity, both highly significant ( p < 0.001*).

The overall comparison revealed a highly significant difference among the groups (F = 314.675, p < 0.001).

Results The CEUS-assessed perfusion differences between aseptic and infected knees after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were highly significant (p < 0.001).

*p <0.05 indicates significant difference, **p <0.01 indicates highly significant difference, ***p <0.001 indicates highly significant difference. 3 Results and discussion 3.1 In vitro analysis of the combined effect of CXB, ATO and IR820 The MTT assay was initially employed to evaluate the cytotoxic effects of the free drug on AKR cells and to determine the optimal combination ratio of CXB, ATO, and IR820 ( Fig. 1 A).

The correlation coefficients exhibited a strong positive correlation, ranging from 0.871 to 0.951, indicating a highly significant association ( p < 0.001).

The difference observed in treatment modalities used in our study between surgical management and those who were treated medically or given expectant management was found to be highly significant ( P < 0.001).

In the literature, a Malaysian study conducted on 40,667 patients between 2006 and 2012 found a highly significant correlation between HbA1c and FBG ( r 2 = 0.86, P -value <.001).

The main effect of the year was highly significant (F(1, 31) = 222.8, P < 0.001), while the main effect of sex alone was not significant (F(1, 31) = 3.34, P = 0.077).

Results Development of insects reared in laboratory The linear mixed-effects model applied to the morphometric data confirmed a highly significant effect of the developmental stage ( F = 4323.5, p < 0.001) and the interaction between stage and generation ( F = 1.6, p < 0.001) on insect weight, with similar significant results for all other morphometric variables (length, width, and area).

Z-tests confirmed that the urban advantage in DFLE was highly significant at age 65 (Z = 3.91, p < 0.001) and remained significant through age 85 (Z = 1.98, p < 0.05).

The Kruskal–Wallis H test confirmed highly significant overall differences across senescence phases ( p < 0.001), with effect sizes (ε2 = 0.094–0.098) indicating moderate strength.

3.3.1 Exploratory factor analysis The EFA results showed that the KMO index was 0.949, and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was highly significant ( P < 0.001).

For all systems, H2O 37 °C vs NaOCl + EDTA 60 °C was highly significant (p < 0.001).

All primary outcomes demonstrated highly significant improvements ( p < 0.001) with large effect sizes (Cohen’s d > 0.8), indicating both statistical significance and clinical meaningfulness.

Crucially, all three behavioral factors were highly significant predictors of DBM: Professional Role and Self-Regulation: (B = 0.124,β = 0.456,t(231) = 9.869, p <.001), Emotional and Social Dynamics: (B = 0.098,β = 0.359,t(231) = 7.164, p <.001), and Skills and Belief Systems : (B = − 0.117,β=−0.431,t(231) = −8.178, p <.001).

The TDS was significantly lower in protected plots, but the differences in TDS among treatments, varieties and their interactions were highly significant ( P < 0.001) during both cropping seasons.

older) on perceptual ratings revealed a highly significant main effect of age, F(1, 490) = 33.867, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.065.

This association was highly significant, with a P value < 0.001.

A highly significant association was noted between fast food consumption and BMI (χ2 = 83.31, p<0.001).

However, overall subject group differences between AD patients and controls were apparent, with highly significant results in the one-sample t-test against zero, t (71) = −5.69, p < 0.001, d = −0.67.

Additionally, the DTF was significantly higher in the success group (37 ± 19%) relative to the failed group (29 ± 8%), with a highly significant t-value of 4.118 and P-value of < 0.001.

Predictive relationship between management strategies and quality of life Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that management strategy adherence was a highly significant predictor of quality of life outcomes (β = 0.682, p < 0.001).

Epimedium brevicornu showed highly significant differences in the stomatal area compared to E. davidii (mean difference = 261.01, p < 0.001), E. fangii (mean difference = 252.50, p < 0.001), and E. franchetii (mean difference = 218.51, p < 0.001), but exhibited minor differences with E. sagittatum and E. stellulatum ( p ≥ 0.05).