“highly significant”

The relationship between AI Transparency and Employee Trust is highly significant ( r = 0.63; p < 0.001) and the relationship between AI Transparency and Algorithmic Justice is also very strong ( r = 0.72; p < 0.001).

The degree of significance was identified using p-values, with the following interpretation: highly significant ( p < 0.001), significant ( p < 0.05), and not significant ( p > 0.05).

The Mann–Whitney U test confirmed that this decrease was highly significant ( p < 0.001). 2.7.

After adding the three compounds, the mRNA level of PTGS2 showed a highly significant decrease ( p < 0.001).

A two-sample t -test confirmed that this difference in the percentage of retained data was highly significant [ t (132) = −27.66, p < 0.001].

Construct validity was also supported, as indicated by a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value of 0.848 and a highly significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity (approximate χ2 = 1,415.524, P < 0.001) [ 24 ].

Furthermore, concerning overall cognitive status and neuroplasticity markers ( Figure 3 ), the adjusted analysis confirmed highly significant improvements for the EG in both global cognition measured by the MMSE ( p < 0.001; η p 2 = 0.147) and urinary BDNF concentrations ( p < 0.001; η p 2 = 0.931).

Pairwise comparison was done using the post hoc Mann–Whitney test and showed that there exists a statistically highly significant difference in the mean fold increase of P. gingivalis expression between OPMD group and control group ( P < 0.001) [ Table 3 and Graph 2 ].

In the figure, three stars (***) indicate highly significant overexpression ( P < 0.001), two stars (**) represent moderate significance ( P < 0.01), while a single star (*) denotes relatively lower but statistically significant expression differences ( P < 0.05).

When the HP concentration was at 0.20 mg/mL, there was a highly significant reduction in Nrf2 protein expression in comparison to the model group ( p < 0.001) ( Figure 8 C).

In the propensity-matched cohort, BMI ≥25.2 kg/m 2 remained a highly significant predictor of complications, with a consistent and robust effect magnitude (adjusted OR 3.35, 95% CI 2.32–4.84, p <0.001).

McNemar’s test confirmed that the difference in individual-level positivity between RDT and qPCR was highly significant ( P < 0.001), suggesting that reliance on RDTs alone may underestimate true infection prevalence, particularly in low-density or asymptomatic infections.

Furthermore, the prognostic association of the 70 μg/dL threshold remained highly significant even after stratifying by presence of HCC (stratified log-rank test, p < 0.001); for instance, within the HCC cohort, the median OS was 68.4 months in the ≥70 μg/dL group compared to 37.7 months in the <70 μg/dL group.

The feasibility and necessity of the perception domain were highly significant ( P < 0.001 and P < 0.003, respectively).

P < 0.05 (∗) was considered significant, P < 0.01 (∗∗) was highly significant, and P < 0.001 (∗∗∗) was extremely significant. 2.

A highly significant and large effect of group was seen across the spread of different error patterns ( χ 2 (9, n = 95) = 79.312, p ≤ 0.001, Φ = 0.914).

The results revealed a highly significant difference ( χ 2 = 22.66 , p < 0.001 ), confirming that the detection model performs differently depending on whether the input was written by a human or generated by an AI model.

The ANCOVA model was highly significant (R2 = 0.86, F(4,86) = 135.3, p < 0.001).

For soil pH, the main effects of both PE-MPs and TSB were highly significant ( p < 0.001), while their interaction was not significant ( p = 0.213).

Statistical analysis using the chi-square test demonstrated a highly significant association between the clinical indication and the biopsy’s effect on management ( p < 0.001).

Similarly, lamb birth weight was highly significant for perinatal mortality in the univariable analyses ( p < 0.001), and the current mode of delivery also showed significance (0.018), with lower odds of survival for lighter lambs and lambs born through vaginal delivery.

The results of ANOVA revealed that the effects of both the treatment and days were highly significant ( p < 0.001) on the fruit diameter, but the interaction between the two factors was nonsignificant.

A highly significant association was observed between mGPS and nutritional status ( p < 0.001) (Table 3 ).

Herbicide treatment had a highly significant effect on all yield parameters (p < 0.001), whereas the main effect of year was not significant.

The relationship between LBP presence and number of exercises performed was highly significant (χ 2 (10) =300.61, p<0.001).