Excerpts

The interaction between treatment and production stage was also found to be statistically highly significant ( p < 0.01).

Significant differences ( p < 0.05) and extremely significant differences ( p < 0.01) between values were tested using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and assessed using Duncan’s test. 3.

In this model, only one continuous variable is statistically significant: rurality, which has a positive impact on the dependent variable (0.32) and is statistically highly significant (p < 0.01).

Conversion of pre-NAC biomarker profiles of HR+HER2– and HR+HER2+ to triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) post-NAC may be associated with worse event-free survival, hazard ratios of 2.23 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.90–5.53; p = 0.08), trending toward significance, and 36.7 (95 % CI, 2.2–610.8; p = 0.01), respectively.

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

The upward trend of blood creatinine of the rats in the DN group suggested that kidney function had changed (P<0.001), and only the PH group showed a decreasing trend (P<0.01) in ACR levels, but the intensity was lower than that in the MET group ( Figures 2B, C ). 3.5.

Statistical differences were considered to be extremely significant when p < 0.01.

Figure 2 suggests a highly significant correlation ( P < 0.01) was found for the H index and impact factor against OA fees.

Of the highest ranked loci in the Ewens-Watterson test, two were almost significant ( COR008 and AHT006 , P <0.1), two were significant ( NVHEQ079 and TKY316 , P <0.05) and one was highly significant ( TKY222 , P <0.01) for the F ST test.

But the most interesting result was observed in medial thalamic nuclei, where, although at 24 h the signal was significantly increased (p<0.001) in PILO SE animals with regard to the control and PILO noSE ones, it appeared an opposite signal increasing when evaluating 1 year later the same groups, being highly significant the increase of the signal in the PILO noSE group compare to the control (p<0.01) and PILO SE group (p<0.001).

In addition, there was a highly significant relationship between the common peak 6 area, common peak 15 area, and common peak 14 area with Soil Unit Symbol (FAO-90) ( P < 0.01).

The number of samples positive by qRT-PCR during 2–5 days post onset of fever (47/105) was highly significant (p < 0.01, Chi-square test with Yates correction) when compared with samples collected from 6–10 days post onset of fever (18/107).

Differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05 and extremely significant at p < 0.01. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Notwithstanding, we found that the differences between populations were highly significant ( p < 0.01). 3.2.

Statistical evaluation of clustering Two-fold PC tests showed that all the contrasts between the clusters in CL1 were extremely significant (p < 0.01).

There was highly significant difference seen in SNA angle (86.3° ± 5.3°), Go-Gn to SN (27.3° ± 5.3°), and LI to N-B (29.4 ± 5) in Bihar male than Caucasians ( P < 0.01).

Determination of antioxidant enzyme activity After inoculation of C.parvum , the total concentration of MDA in the plasma samples of Se-deficient mice was markedly higher than that of Se-adequate mice (p<0.05), especially there was extremely significant difference between two groups (p<0.01) at day 13 and day 19 p.i.

The abundance of Limosilactobacillus was highly significant ( p < 0.01) and positively correlated with PROG and PRL.

Some of the markers showed borderline significant deviation (p = 0.01–0.05) from HWE (underlined), but no marker had a HWE p-value less than 0.05 in more than one dataset, so all markers were used for the association analysis.

Within population differences in the polymorphism spectra between coding and NC regions were highly significant across all populations (P<0.01, Table 4 ).

All correlations were highly significant ( p < 0.01 for all, Pearson's goodness of fit test).

Age was a highly significant covariate in the model for negative affect ( p < 0.01), with older participants demonstrating lower negative affect.

The differences were considered to be statistically significant when p < 0.05 and highly significant when p < 0.01 or p < 0.001.

As shown in Table 3 , the overall effect of time on S i was highly significant ( P < 0.01).

The difference in overall data transferred for each patient was highly significant (p < 0.01).