“highly significant”

After controlling for these mediating variables, the direct effect of health information exposure on sleep quality is not significant (Effect = 0.07, P = 0.101), while the total effect is highly significant (Effect = 0.981, P < 0.001), confirming the presence of a full mediation effect.

This was reflected in a highly significant mask-by-congruency interaction ( F (1, 19) = 45.32, p < .001, η 2 = .71, JZS Bayes factor: > 500).

Differences between the 3 Tesla MRI scans and the 7 Tesla MRI scans in the degree of ease with which a muscle could be identified and separated from the other muscles were highly significant ( P < 0.001).

Kruskal-Wallis Test results showed that DC parameters exhibited highly significant statistical differences across different periods ( P < 0.001, Table S3 ), confirming the temporal heterogeneity of DC concentrations; further analysis indicated that such differences were mainly driven by the uneven spatial distribution of sampling (Table S4 , Fig.

A one-way within-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a highly significant effect of condition on intelligibility, F (7, 161) = 40.187, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.636.

Among them, laccase, β-glucosidase, and filter paperase exhibited highly significant correlations with SC/N ( r = 0.80, 0.99, and 0.95, respectively; p < 0.001), while carboxymethyl cellulase showed a slightly weaker correlation ( r = 0.67, p < 0.01), possibly due to substrate specificity.

Adjusted model (controlled for age, BMI, smoking, GOLD stage): CAT score → BODE index: β = 0.122 (95% CI: 0.098-0.146), p < 0.001; adjusted R2 = 0.720 Interpretation: The adjusted association remained highly significant (p < 0.001) and was not materially different from the unadjusted correlation (Δβ = 0.004, or 0.6% change), suggesting minimal confounding by age, BMI, smoking status, or disease severity classification.

At this stage, the hydrogels showed statistically significant differences ( p < 0.01) compared to SF, and highly significant differences ( p < 0.001) compared to the CT- group, which reached only about 46% wound closure.

The analysis revealed highly significant linear, F (1, 48) = 37.250, p < .001, η 2 = .437, and quadratic trends, F (1, 48) = 15.065, p < .001, η 2 = .239, indicative of learning across trials.

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 difference was found to be highly significant with the random model for total TGF-β2 (p<0.001), but not for active TGF-β2 (p=0.21).

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

Nonetheless, the double interaction [Zeitgeber time × treatment] was highly significant (Three-Way ANOVA; 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 ).

Comparing follow-up with pre-training performances using a Benjamini–Hochberg-corrected two-sided paired t -test, the improvements were still highly significant for the Token test [ t (8) = 4.208, P = 0.001], written language [ t (8) = 3.957, P = 0.001], naming [ t (8) = 4.318, P = 0.006] and significant for comprehension [ t (8) = 2.731, P = 0.03].

There is a strong and highly significant correlation between genetic and geographic distances when all populations are analyzed (Mantel test R = 0.73, p<0.001; S2 Fig ).

For RT, a highly significant main effect of stimulus type was observed [ F (2,34) = 14.53, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.46].

In particular, inclusion of ALA, either alone or in combination with wheat and ME, produced pronounced increases in yolk n‐3 content and the n‐3:n‐6 ratio, as reflected by the large effect sizes for these traits (η2 = 0.9861 and 0.9917, respectively) and highly significant ALA main effects ( P < 0.001).

Despite these correlations, three of the variables were highly significant in the full model (P < 0.001), and excluding the two that were not (slope and mean temperature; P > 0.7) did not substantially change their coefficients or standard errors.

The ANOVA with the within-subject factor Condition on ToT revealed a highly significant main effect, F (2, 34) = 72.42, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.81, ε = 0.74.

Kaplan–Meier analysis confirmed highly significant differences in survival across groups (log-rank test, p < 0.001).

Buck circulation between herds was a highly significant risk factor for seropositivity to at least one of those diseases in herds ( p =0.001; odds ratio (OR) = 109.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 6.61–1,807.38).

Additionally, contact angle exhibited a highly significant positive correlation with ΔH m and ESI ( p < 0.001), while demonstrating a significant negative correlation with M w ( p < 0.01).