Excerpts

Although this difference is highly significant (p<0.0001, t = 4.6345, df = 1355, SE = 0.058), the degree of the difference in linear dimensions is relatively small ( Fig 18 ).

In both populations, the effect of floral display size was highly significant ( p <0.0001).

2D showed that induced cell migration by synthetic activation of PI3K is statistically highly significant (p<0.0001), while endogenous activation of Rac does not cause a significant increase in cell migration.

The correlation between Δ7 SMN baseline and Δ7 SMN at one year was less than flSMN, but still highly significant (p<0.0001).

Thermal Detection Thresholds ANCOVA with age as a covariate (partialing out the highly significant age-related effects) revealed a highly significant effect of group (F 2,113 = 30.04, p<<0.0001), body side (ipsilateral vs. contralateral: F 1,113 = 12.39, p<0.001) and group x side interaction (F 2,113 = 4.65, p<0.05) for the cold detection threshold (CDT).

Analysis of these 10 significant genes as a single metric by two-way ANOVA proves highly significant (p<0.0001) for islet quality, and together have a predictive accuracy for reversal of diabetes of 86% (ROC analysis; Area Under the Curve = 0.8640 ± 0.0285).

Our χ 2 analysis indicated that these group differences were highly significant ( Figure 7 ; χ 2 =36.7; df=1, p=0.0001), suggesting that the HIP14 knockout disrupts behavior-related correlated firing in striatum.

The group treated with VP2.51 from day 1 after treatment with L-BMAA (L-BMAA + VP2.51 PT1) ( S3 Movie ) presented highly significant differences in the evolution of the neurological evaluation from the group treated only with L-BMAA (F = 89.34, p <0.0001) ( Fig 3 ).

There is a highly significant difference between B10-injected and PBS-injected mice in two-way ANOVA (F = 50.32, P<0.0001).

[ 46 ] assessed the accuracy of the Invu system at recording the FHR using simultaneous CTG; a highly significant correlation was reported been the two modalities (r = 0.92, p<0.0001).

All three models were highly significant, confirming the robustness of the classifier method ( P = 0.0001, P = 0.0002, and P = 0.0003, for 3-, 4- and 5- nearest neighbours models, respectively.

156±29.6 pg/ml for T2DM and healthy controls, respectively), increase that is statistically highly significant (P<0.0001).

Mean FID in the 714 populations ranged from 1 to 180 m, mean (SE) = 11.46 m (1.03; back-transformed from log 10 -transformed data), with a highly significant effect of species ( F = 3.06, df = 158, 555, R 2 = 0.47, P <0.0001).

Spearman's rank correlation for race frequency between the three collection efforts was highly significant for all cases (p<0.0001; Rho for 1950*1975 = 0.72, 1950*2005 = 0.63, and 1975*2005 = 0.73) and also between each of these efforts and the whole sample (p<0.0001; Rho 0.77, 0.86, and 0.95, respectively for 1950, 1975 and 2005).

The backward logistic regression model ( Table 3 ) showed that the model was highly significant (p <0.0001, R squared 0.46).

In contrast, a highly significant difference ( p <0.0001) was detected in the frequency of mspA phase ON (tract length of 6, 9 or 12Cs) strains in the carriage versus invasive collections ( Table 6 ), with mspA being significantly more often ON in invasive isolates compared to carriage isolates (69.2% compared to 50.0%).

agulhensis had a negative and highly significant Fu's F S test (−22.82, P<0.0001); C. sinicus was also negative and significant (−7.29, P = 0.008).

An increasing trend was observed for overall TDR when comparing 2000–2005 (6.0%) and 2006–2015 (8.2%) (p<0.0001), which was associated with significant NNRTI TDR increase (p<0.0001).

All pair wise distances were highly significant ( p < 0.0001).

Prevalence among HC accounted for only 7% and the results were highly significant ( p <0.0001; Fig 1B ).

Both F ST (0.172) and Φ PT (0.254) statistics revealed the presence of highly significant genetic differences among sites (P <0.0001 and P <0.001 respectively) ( Table 2 ); as expected, Φ PT values exceeded those of F ST .

A paired t -test between percentage of correctly identified learned versus new PPPs revealed a highly significant difference [ t (32) = -6,453, p < .0001] indicating a better selection performance for new pairings.

When scores were evaluated, non-parametric ANOVA yielded a highly significant difference among groups (P<0.0001, Kruskal-Wallis test) ( Fig. 1C ).

This difference in syllable count was highly significant (paired t-test: t = 11.6, P <0.0001, df = 22).

Pairwise estimates of population differentiation were all high and highly significant ( Table 5 , P = 0.0001).