Excerpts

When removing this interaction effect from the random structure for Item and Subject, the effect became highly significant (estimate = -9.50, SE = 2.94, t = -3.23, p = 0.001).

The risk variable was highly significant (p<0.001); as was years of experience (p = 0.004); but 2D∶4D was not (p = 0.911). 2D∶4D was, however, correlated with risk in a simple regression (n = 47, r = −.43, p = 0.001.

In 10 and 14 Gy animal groups, highly significant (p<0.001) body temperature decreases from 35 (± 3)°C to 28 (± 2)°C (20%) and to 22 (± 4)°C (40%) were observed 2 and 4 days, respectively, prior to death or euthanasia ( Fig 3C and 3D ).

The Ne in the present study was maximal at Cz; the amplitude difference between ERPs to errors and to correct trials tested at this electrode (where the Ne was largest) was highly significant, F (1,14) = 129.9, p < .001, and also showed a trend for an interaction between group, session, and correctness, F (1,14) = 3.8, p = .073.

The configuration obtained between NMDSs based on 10000 permutations was highly significant ( t0 = 0 . 521 , m 2 = 0 . 728 scale factor = 0 . 521 , p-value = 0 . 001 ).

An increasing trend in age was observed across the BUCR categories (63.52 ± 14.42 vs. 68.70 ± 14.15 vs. 73.48 ± 12.48 years; P < 0.001), along with a progressively greater proportion of male patients (38.56% vs. 42.54% vs. 62.35%; P < 0.001).

Multivariate analysis Multi-variate analysis showed that EMVI was a highly significant independent prognostic factor (p<0.001) when other tumour dependent factors including tumour stage, lymph node stage, Dukes stage, tumour site and degree of tumour differentiation as well as patient specific factors of age and gender are considered (Tables 2 and 3 ).

The overall model fit is also satisfactory, as reflected by a highly significant model F-test ( F = 51.24, p < 0.001).

This difference was highly significant (corrected p -value < 0.001) in 15 of 17 patients (88%) for both cumulants and less significant (corrected p -value < 0.01) in the other 2 patients.

Second, I extended these analyses to the genotypic level by comparing least-square means from ANOVAs in cases where both focal and neighbour genotype exerted a highly significant effect on the performance variable ( P <0.001–0.01).

Indeed, the Egger test for funnel plot asymmetries was highly significant (p<0.001), but the non-parametric Begg-Mazumdar test was not (p = 0.14).

Using this ranking, gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA)[ 34 ] of the nearest gene to each HIF-1 α binding site demonstrated a highly significant (p<0.001) association between HIF-1 α binding and positive, but not negative, regulation of these transcripts ( Fig 1E ).

Statistical analysis indicated highly significant ( P < 0.001) reduction of FRR symptoms on durum wheat seedlings for all 10 mutants tested, whilst the ectopic transformants did not differ significantly from the wild-type reference strains ( Table 2 ; Fig. 1A ).

Sport participation and physical activity guideline concordance After controlling for sex, grade level, and school type, there was a significant trend for association ( p < 0.001) between soccer or handball participation and physical activity guideline concordance ( Table 3 ).

Although most of the genetic variance occurred within the accessions, the differentiation of the accessions and groups was highly significant (p ≤ 0.001).

A simple computation reveals that, for n = 223, the Spearman rank correlation between the two sets of scores (the number of pairwise interactions won and the total sum of the number of points won) is ρ = − .45; it is negative and highly significant ( p < 0.001).

Acoustic startle response measured in another cohort of mice (9 controls and 10 mutants aged 9 weeks) showed an altered curve: there was a highly significant interaction between genotype and startle pulse intensity (F (7,11) = 4.153, p<0.001), and Bonferroni posthoc tests revealed a significantly lower response of mutants at maximum dB (p<0.01, Fig. 2F ).

Furthermore, the SI algorithm revealed a significant trend in sequence scores across all four birds (p = 0.001), while SAP did not detect a significant overall trend (p = 0.43).

This was highly significant ( P <0.001) for the interaction between trial 4 (4×MIC) and time for L . monocytogenes , S . aureus and S .

P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant (*), p-values < 0.01 were considered highly significant (**) and p-values < 0.001 were considered very highly significant (***).

The overall correlation between MMSeq-derived expression estimates and true assigned expression levels of the 18 transcript variants is highly significant with p <0.001.

Also, a highly significant linear relationship was found between root rot severity and biomass reduction especially for F . avenaceum (R 2 = 0.91, P < 0.001).

In contrast, there was a highly significant influence of walking speed and position on all parameters (all p values < 0.001).

Of the total putative protein-encoding genes in the genome (6,312), 5–32% were differentially expressed ( p ≤0.05), depending on the treatment ( Figure 2A ) and the majority (∼67%) of these differentially expressed genes displayed highly significant changes in transcript abundances ( p ≤0.001; Table S2 ).

The results indicate that significant differences were found across all four variables (p < 0.01), with the following specific findings: Interior spatial design satisfaction: The differences among groups were highly significant (F = 437.234, p < 0.001).