“highly significant”

Within each diagnostic group, all paired comparisons between regions were highly significant (all p < .001).

Consequently, when the data for all 41 samples were combined, the difference in staining frequency between anti-MCM2 and anti-Ki-67 was highly significant ( p < 0.001; Table 1 ).

Weekly differences were highly significant ( F = 3.22, p < 0.001, η 2 = 0.51), indicating that age accounted for a substantial portion of variance.

The highly significant differences observed in temporal synergy parameters (e.g., p < 0.001) suggest that dopaminergic medication substantially affects motor coordination, even within this cohort.

However, training demonstrated a highly significant effect ( P < .001), as practitioners who received training scored higher (mean = 70.91, SD = 3.335) compared to those without training (mean = 62.72, SD = 2.963).

The associations between degree of freedom (df)=4 and the other variables are all highly significant: sanitation (χ 2 =146.47, df=4, p<0.001), malnutrition (χ 2 =114.26, df=4, p<0.001) and diarrhea (χ 2 =14.53, df=4, p=0.005).

These changes in CA and CDCA species led to a highly significant ( p <0.001) accumulation of total primary acids (91-fold), total CA (186-fold) and total CDCA (39-fold) ( Table 1 ).

Authenticity of CoT responses by reasoning-capable LLMs For reasoning authenticity, the Kruskal-Wallis H test demonstrated highly significant differences in physician ratings among the four models ( p < 0.001).

Overall, most covariates were highly significant ( p < 0.001), confirming that the Tweedie GLM effectively captures the variability in insurance claim amounts.

In contrast, grouping factors including species and treatment explained as much as 74.79% of the variation in fungal communities, with a highly significant effect ( R 2 = 0.7479, p = 0.001).

The IC 50 value of the leishmanicidal and cytotoxicity activity test showed that highly significant difference between the tested samples and the standards at p < 0.001 ( Table 1 ).

(3) Consistency between C-DOS and C-ONI The two tools demonstrated a highly significant statistical association in binary classification [χ 2 (1) = 200, p < 0.001; OR = 42.8, 95% CI: 20.3–90.2]; however, their agreement was only moderate [κ = 0.50], with 65 cases (9.4%) being classified discordantly.

3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ) Statistical analysis confirmed these differences to be highly significant (log-rank test, p < 0.001).

Statistical significance was defined as p ≤ 0.05, while p < 0.01 was considered highly significant, and p < 0.001 indicated very highly significant differences.

One-way ANOVA revealed highly significant differences among groups (F(3,8) = 3054.65, p < 0.001).

With respect to between-group comparisons, no statistically significant difference was found between the groups in the pretest median Trait Anger scores ( p = 0.291, ES = 0.447, 95% CI: −0.370, 1.250), whereas a highly significant difference was detected between the groups in the posttest median Trait Anger scores ( p < 0.001, ES = 1.481, 95% CI: 0.560, 2.380).

A highly significant association was found between breakfast consumption and mental stress ( χ 2 = 272.725, p < 0.001).

The Chi-square test revealed a highly significant difference ( χ 2 = 20.92, df = 1, P < 0.001), which was further confirmed by Fisher’s exact test ( P = 9.50 × 10 -6 ).

In addition, the type of closure showed a highly significant difference ( P = 0.001), as extra-peritoneal closure was predominantly used in rectal tumors (78.8%).

5c ), PM 2·5 demonstrated a strong and highly significant decrease with distance (β = −0.6345 μg m −3 per 100 m; 95% CI: −0.6989 to −0.5701; R 2 = 0.7919; r = −0.8899; p < 0.001), indicating a pronounced near-road effect.

As in previous cohorts, there was a highly significant increase in brain weight relative to body weight in Nf1 +/- mice compared to +/+ controls (Fig. 4G : main effects – Genotype: p < 0.001; Sex: p < 0.001).

Highly significant improvements (p<0.001) in the average ODI and VAS were found after 12 months (ODI change from 70.6% to 30.1% and VAS change from 7.7 to 1.4 points).

The effect is highly significant ( P <0.001) for each sex.

The bias of the three coefficients was negligible and the p values remained highly significant: • Constant: Bias −0.033, standard error 0.229, 95% CI –3.90 to −2.96, p = 0.001 • SRM: Bias −0.058, standard error 1.51, 95% CI 1.26–7.30, p = 0.004 • DPR: Bias 0.238, standard error 1.55, 95% CI 2,89–8.96, p = 0.001 The MDPI was tested for discrimination using an ROC analysis ( Figure 2 ), in comparison with the other three existing CSA-AKI predictive models.

The Wald test for fixed effects identified that genotypic variation was highly significant (p-value <0.001) for stem color, stem fill, and winter injury, but not for winter standability ( Supplementary Table 2 ).