“highly significant”

This pattern was supported by the global Wald test of the Time × Group interaction, which was highly significant ( p < 0.001), indicating consistently superior food tolerance in the SG group across the entire follow-up period.

Remarkably, in the alcohol group, the percentage of good outcomes was 82%, a highly significant difference from the controls (36%; p < 0.001).

3 b) were 64.6% and 37.1% for L-CR, whereas non-L-CR was 0% at both time points, with a highly significant difference ( P < 0.001).

We found that the effect of Subblock was highly significant for participants with higher [t(15.97) = 5.474, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.652] and lower [t(15.11) = 7.988, p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.809] BMI.

Increase in SWT (R = 0.554) and SR (R = 0.607) showed highly significant ( P < 0.001) increase with TLD but this relation was not apparent with other parameters.

4 When averaged statewide, the mean temperature increased at a rate of 0.21°F per decade from 1901 to 2022—a trend that is highly significant ( p < 0.001) and larger than the contiguous 48 states’ average rate of 0.17°F per decade. 14 Analysis of seasonal temperature observations from the same long‐term, quality‐controlled data set shows highly significant warming for New York State on the whole in all four seasons over the period 19

Tumor stage exerted the largest effect sizes: relative to Stage I, Stage II carried an HR of 2.31 (1.88–2.83) and Stage III an HR of 4.71 (3.74–5.92), with both associations highly significant ( p < 0.001).

A paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test (testing whether pre-exercise scores exceeded post-exercise scores) was highly significant (W = 10 585, P < 0.001; Table 2 ).

A highly significant relationship was found with the perpetrator of the incident ( P <0.001), with patients more commonly involved in verbal and physical violence, while staff members were more frequently reported in bullying and racial harassment cases.

the right-hand histogram bars in Figure 3 ) were each statistically significant (Wilcoxon signed-rank test; n = 8, T = 0, T crit < 3; p < 0.05) and highly significant when pooled over all comparisons ( n = 32, T = 0; T crit < 94; p < 0.001).

The mean length-to-width ratio varied from 1.520 -+ 0.376 SD to 1.858 +- 0.678 and always showed a highly significant increase (P < 0.001) over nonsheared controls (1.111 --_ 0.143 to 1.187 - 0.250).

Specifically, among one-to-one OGs with consistent annotations across species, we found a highly significant association between the positional annotation categories and whether expression was higher among adults or hatchlings ( χ 2 = 1,043.8, d.f. = 6, P < 0.001).

Centiloid scale again showed a highly significant negative association ( p < 0.001), scan interval showed a negative association ( p = 0.03), and age remained a significant positive predictor ( p = 0.01).

Analysis of variance showed that the difference was highly significant (P < 0.001).

Statistical analysis of mean grain densities indicated that the difference between the grain density over fused membranes (+GTP) and that over unfused vesicles (GTP) was highly significant (P < 0.001) and remained significant (P < 0.001) after corrections for section thickness effect (23).

In this study, p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant and marked with *; p < 0.01 was considered statistically highly significant and marked with **; p < 0.001 was considered statistically extremely significant and marked with ***. 3.

Three reviews specifically on Baduanjin reported highly significant improvements (all p < 0.001) [ 31 , 33 , 42 ].

The MR showed a mean limbal distance of 8.67 mm (SD ±1.75), with significant posterior displacement relative to the Indian cohort (P < 0.05) and highly significant displacement when compared with Thai and Taiwanese populations (P < 0.001).

Cohoused control rats showed a statistically significant difference ( P < 0.01, t = 3.934), and cohoused PS rats presented a highly significant difference ( P < 0.001, t = 4.839).

Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests 28 comparing the observed run-length distributions to their geometric expectation were highly significant (D = 0.52–0.59, p = 10− 3 –10− 5 ), demonstrating that the contiguous match structure of real alignments departs sharply from random expectations even when compositional bias is preserved.

This effect was highly significant in the improvement scenario (72.7% vs 86.4%; χ 2 =10.50, df=1, p=0.001), significant in disc clin better (28.8% vs 42.4%; χ 2 =5.01, df=1, p=0.025) and non-significant in disc clin worse (36.4% vs 37.9%, χ 2 =0.07, df=1, p=0.797).

The first canonical axis was highly significant (eigenvalue = 0.525, F = 31.999, p = 0.0010).

Moreover, the Composite × Procedure interaction was highly significant (Wald χ2 = 41.428; df = 2; p < 0.001), demonstrating that the extent of color change induced by the procedures differed according to material type rather than affecting all composites uniformly.

Statistical validation showed that the model was highly significant ( p < 0.001), with no significant lack of fit ( p = 0.7073).

In 9 out of 10 treatments where fusion proceeded extensively, the aggrega- tion of IMP was judged as highly significant by this technique (P< 0.001 in 8, P< 0.01 in 1, and P< 0.1 in 1).