“highly significant”

Sleep and Arousals Including condition alone did not significantly improve model fit (χ 2 (3) =0.003, p =0.99) but the inclusion of sleep stage resulted in a highly significant improvement over the null model (χ 2 (2) = 962.46, p <0.001).

Adding the health variables (Model 2) reduced the difference in fills between the non-enrollees and LIS recipients by just over a quarter to −16.9, a difference that remained highly significant ( P < 0.001).

In contrast, [ 99 m Tc]Tc-HMPAO showed a highly significant reduction (*** p < 0.001) at both 3 h and 24 h compared to the reference standard.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin analysis yielded a high index of 0.941 and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was highly significant (χ 2 (136) = 8,313, P < 0.001), indicating suitability for factor analysis.

The model was highly significant, χ 2 (47, N =200)=129.49, P <0.001, at the same time the model explained 47.7% (Cox and Snell R 2) to 64.5% (Nagelkerke R 2) of the variance on AMR knowledge and was able to classify 86.5% of the cases.

The most significant overall change was observed at Week 15 (12 weeks post‐second injection), yielding a high t‐statistic of 4.150 and a highly significant p value of p = 0.001.

Among all variables, both maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures showed a strong positive correlation with strong positive correlation with stripe rust severity, with correlation coefficients of 0.66 and 0.70, respectively, and were highly significant (p<0.001) ( Figure 2 ).

The log-rank test revealed a highly significant difference between the survival curves ( χ 2 = 28.57, df = 2; p < 0.001) (Fig. 3 ).

Furthermore, the statistical significance was defined as follows: P < 0.05 (significant), P < 0.01 (highly significant), P < 0.001 (very highly significant), and P < 0.0001 (extremely significant).

A non-parametric analysis of variance (Kruskal–Wallis test), followed by Dunn’s post-hoc test, indicated highly significant differences (p < 0.001) for VC as well as for all soil surface components.

As shown in Figure 2 , the prospective effect of SNA on NSSI was strongest and highly significant in the low resilience group (T1-T2: β = .25, p <.001; T2-T3: β = .23, p <.001).

Nevertheless, there was a highly significant difference ( p < 0.001) in smoking status between NSCLC patients (51.2%) and controls (23.9%).

Among the factors, feed rate (A) is highly significant for forming time (F = 55.50, p = 0.001) and also influences WA, TR, Ra, FT, and SB ( p ≤ 0.04), though it is not significant for Pc ( p = 0.10).

In contrast, the omitted dimethyl disulfide and dimethyl trisulfide models showed highly significant results ( p ≤ 0.001 and ≤ 0.01, respectively).

Paired lines display some variability in magnitude of saving between respondents, but the overall pattern is a consistent reduction; the Wilcoxon test yields a highly significant P -value ( P ≈ .001), indicating the change is unlikely due to chance.

The fitted model (Discomfort = −28.94 + 1.12 × Loudness) showed a highly significant slope, t (133) = 27.64, p < .001, reflecting a near-linear coupling across the tested intensity range.

Results and Discussion Body weight, food intake, and water consumption In Table 1 , FA treatment resulted in a highly significant decrease in final body weight, food intake, and water intake when compared with the control group (p < 0.001).

Using conventional benchmarks (≥ 0.90 = excellent; 0.75–0.90 = good), these findings support excellent stability for: Concern About Aversive Consequences, Sensory-Based Avoidance, and Severity of Impact, and good stability for Lack of Interest; all tests were highly significant ( p < .001).

All four inflammatory indices (NLR, PLR, SII, MLR) exhibited highly significant group differences, even after adjusting for age: Group F-statistics varied from 7.91 to 10.34 ( p < 0.001 for all indices).

Our analysis indicated a highly significant association between prevalence of anaemia and country income ( p < 0.001).

Further quantification and statistical analysis of fluorescence intensity across groups demonstrated a highly significant difference between the control and dsRNA-treated groups ( P < 0.001) (Figure 4 C).

The defender role presented a highly significant association with age group, χ 2 (2) = 204.46, p < .001, with a Cramér's V of .446 (strong effect).

Additionally, the frailty term was highly significant (variance = 4.97, p < 0.001), indicating substantial inter‐individual variability in the risk of implant loss.

A formal trend test treating loneliness as an ordinal variable was highly significant (p < 0.001).

KRAS codon 13 polymorphisms were identified in 21.4% of iCCA patients, were absent in OV cases, and were present in 17.5% of healthy controls, demonstrating a highly significant difference (P < 0.001).