Excerpts

In the early weaning group, 90% of the infants were formula-fed, in the appropriate weaning group it was only 50%, which was highly significant ( p < 0,01).

The results showed a highly significant difference ( p < 0.01) in the phenolic content between Dobrogean and Bulgarian rosemary, with Dobrogean extracts having consistently higher phenolic concentrations across all solvent concentrations.

Employment and duration of illness were highly significant with a positive relationship to treatment adherence (p = 0.010 and 0.000, respectively).

Statistical Analysis Statistical analysis was performed with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test for comparison of 2 time points and the Spearman test for correlation ( P < .05, significant; P < .01, highly significant).

The bZIP transcription factor ( Glyma.19G193400 ) exhibited a comparable pattern, peaking at 25 DAF in QH34 (2.29-fold) with highly significant differences from DS16 (* p < 0.01) at 25 and 35 DAF, and at 45 DAF.

“**” denotes a highly significant difference ( P < 0.01), and “*” signifies a significant difference ( P < 0.05).

PERMANOVA results were consistent with those of the PCoA analysis, showing that the differences between P0/P30 and other P levels were highly significant ( P < 0.01, Table 1 ), indicating that the P availability gradient was associated with a shift in soybean P acquisition strategies.

In these mice, oxaliplatin caused a highly significant ( p < 0.01) preference towards a colder plate of the two used in the experiment involving 30–35 °C ( Figure 1 G) and 40–45 °C ( Figure 1 I).

In contrast, pregnant mice from RV group showed a highly significant decrease in the uterus weight ( p < 0.01) with almost 50% decline compared with SV group.

01; however, its relation with other variables of the study failed to reach significance level. ‘Who decided’ was positively correlated with migration history, r (680) = 0.110, P < .01 and negatively with proactive coping, r (682) = .-0.078, P < .05.

The co-solvent type and C/OS ratio factors were highly significant ( p < 0.01), whereas the surfactant type did not have a significant effect on the ORR ( p = 0.396).

For the Stroop task, a highly significant main effect was found for Condition type, F (2, 41) = 73.36, P < 0.01, but not for Group, F (2, 41) = 0.55, P = 0.58, nor the interaction between Condition type and Group, F (4, 41) = 1.02, P = 0.39. fMRI results For individual group activities on both tasks see Figure S1 .

Differences were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05 and highly significant at P < 0.01.

If a significant trend was detected at p ≤ 0.01, Williams’ test was used [ 21 ]; if the trend was not significant Dunnett’s test was used [ 22 ].

As shown in Table 6 , BIX demonstrated highly significant positive correlations with FIX and C3 ( p < 0.01). 4.

Highly significant differences were found between POP2 and POP1 ( t = −5.33, P < 0.01), POP3 and POP1 ( t = 6.18, P < 0.01), PO P 4 and POP1 ( t = −5.96, P < 0.01), and POP5 and P OP1 ( t = 4.83, P < 0.01) ( Fig. 2 ).

The beta band in the parietal lobe had a decreasing trend in post-intervention and three months’ post-intervention (F = 7.14, P = 0.01), which was significant compared to pre-intervention.

Highly significant (p<0.01) variation existed among the genotypes for A. flavus and A. niger infections, and the AFB 1 contamination ranged from 13.98 (G14) to 1990.86 ppb (G12).

Consistent with the CCK-8 results, MED15 overexpression triggered a profound pro-apoptotic response, evidenced by a highly significant increase in Caspase-3/7 activity compared to the Mock group ( Figure 3C , P < 0.01).

Results were deemed significant if p < 0.05, and highly significant If p < 0.01.

All the statistical analyses were performed via nonpaired two-tailed t -tests (a p -value < 0.05 was considered significant, and a p -value < 0.01 was considered highly significant).

What is interesting to note is that we found that a question commonly used to investigate trust – “ Do you agree that most people could be trusted ?” or trust in the average person—“generalized trust” have a positive and highly significant effect (p < 0.01) on relaxing the wheat varieties constraint.

Finally, in addition to demonstrating that unfamiliar face identity processing was less robust than that of familiarized faces, Megreya and Burton (2006) demonstrated that upright unfamiliar and familiar face matching accuracy correlated only weakly and non-significantly ( r = .277, p > .05), whereas the correlation between performance on upright unfamiliar face matching and inverted familiar face matching was strong and highly significant ( r = .673, p < .01), leading the authors to title their article Unfamiliar faces are not faces .

Year (Y), GT, MM and Y×GT had a highly significant ( P ≤ 0.01) effect on crude fat content, crude ash content, acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) content of the forage.

Moderately significant “r” value noted in between headache frequency and global PQSI score (r = 0.45, P < 0.01).