Our results showed a highly significant elevation of ALT ( p < 0.01, Figure 2 A) and AST ( p < 0.01, Figure 2 B) in the TAA-treated group compared to the control.
Excerpts
The difference between male and female students is highly significant ( P < 0.01), whereas this difference is not significant between government and private colleges. 43.06% of students feel being addicted to social media.
All six diseases showed highly significant (p = 0.01) rises in incidence between the study years 2008 (540 cases) and 2012 (1330 cases), compared with no significant rise in overall all-cause hospital admissions in the same period (p = 0.19).
LAI exhibited a highly significant correlation with OSR in the wavelength ranges of 454–702 nm and 718–950 nm ( p< 0.01), with a particularly strong correlation observed at 750–922 nm ( Figure 4A ).
Gene expression profiling in SCW-induced arthritis Analysis of RAE230A GeneChip ® microarray data identified about 9000 probes (5479 upregulated and 3898 downregulated) that were differentially expressed to a highly significant degree ( P < 0.01) in arthritic rat joints from the time course study.
This comparison for CD3+IT-CD8 was borderline significant ( P = 0.01) ( Fig 2F ).
In addition, except for time (X 4 ), other factors were highly significant ( p -value < 0.01).
The free phenolic content showed an extremely significant positive correlation with the DPPH • and ABTS •+ radical scavenging capacity and the FRAP (p < 0.01).
While this effect was only marginally significant after correction, it was replicated in the PP analysis ( β = -1.49, 95% CI: -2.62 to -0.36, p = 0.01, adjusted p = 0.023, d = 0.38) ( Supplementary Material 6 ).
Compared to uninfected control cells, MV99Y-infected cells were not different at 24 hpi, but a highly significant difference (P<0.01) emerged between 48 and 96 hpi.
Subsequently, Pearson's correlation matrices were performed in each species to detect significant ( p < 0.05) and highly significant ( p < 0.01) correlations between all analysed parameters.
When performing the same ANCOVA with these average values, as expected, the overall group effect was highly significant ( F = 7.98, p < 0.01).
Correlation analysis ( Table S6 ) revealed that both the EI and the SI showed very highly significant positive relationships with ALVI (r ALVI vs.EI = 0.833 **, p < 0.01; r ALVI vs.SI = 0.620 **, p < 0.01).
Specifically, in the case of A172 and D54 cell lines, the increase was highly significant ( p < 0.01), while for U138 and D458, it was statistically significant ( p < 0.05).
Values are denoted as significant ( p < 0.05) or highly significant ( p < 0.01).
Significant difference existed when P < 0.05 and extremely significant difference existed when P ≤ 0.01, while insignificant difference existed when P ≥ 0.05.
Data were presented as mean ±SD, and differences between treatments were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05 and highly significant when p < 0.01.
Differences were considered statistically significant at P <0.05 (*) or highly significant at P <0.01 (**).
Some metabolites in bMECs in treatments LPS12h and LPS24h showed highly significant increases when compared with Control samples ( p < 0.01), and were significantly up-regulated in LPS24h compared with LPS12h ( p < 0.05).
And ensiling days had a highly significant effect ( P < 0.01) on pH decline.
The Kruskal–Wallis tests ( Table S1 ) returned highly significant differences ( p < 0.01) for all alpha diversity indexes between each of the western sites (SBART and PM) and the eastern one (CDM) but not between SBART and PM within the WEST subpopulation ( p > 0.05: Table S1 ).
RILs and treatment interaction was highly significant for (p ≤ 0.01) for RWC, MSI, WP, TChlC, Chl a, Chl b, Pro, SOD, Na + , K + and significant for (p ≤ 0.05) OP, Cl- and Na + /K + ratio.
Statistical differences were considered highly significant when p < 0.01 and significant when p < 0.05.
Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05 and highly significant at p < 0.01.
This interaction remained significant among men ( P = 6.1 × 10 −8 ) but was only nominally significant among women ( P = 0.01).