It was found that the temporal alignment implied by the data was highly significant (p = 0.01) suggesting a temporal concordance between the bird and human cases.
Excerpts
Statistical differences were considered highly significant at p<0.01, significant at p<0.05.
The differences were considered to be statistically significant at P < 0.05, and highly significant at P < 0.01.
Furthermore, the FRSM100 group showed a highly significant decrease in serum UREA content relative to the CSD, FRSM50, and FRSM75 groups ( p < 0.01).
The final six selected variables exhibited highly significant correlations with SWHC ( P < 0.01), with LOG(R’’) at 1247 nm having the highest correlation coefficient of 0.78.
The correlation coefficient between serum glucose and salivary glucose in the patient group was also calculated and the r value was found to be 0.7686, which was highly significant ( P < 0.01).
The Shannon diversity index indicated that ST had the highest value, followed by NT, with SA the lowest; the difference between SA and ST was highly significant ( p < 0.01).
In spite of these similarities, the PERMANOVA analysis showed that for the whole assemblage of environmental variables, differences between the two groups, ‘dark water’ and ‘white’ lakes, were highly significant ( P <0.01) and accounted for 36% of the total variation of environmental parameters ( Table S2 ).
As shown in Table 1 , in different age groups, no significant difference was detected no matter by nuclear, cytoplasmic or overall MTA1 analysis (P = 0.537, P = 0.302, and P = 0.178, respectively); However, in different groups of clinical stage, T stage and metastasis, the differences are all highly significant by nuclear, cytoplasmic and overall MTA1 analyses (P <0.01 for every test), indicating that both nuclear and cytoplasmic MTA1 were involved in tumor promotion; The role of MTA1 in cancer differentiation is poorly understood.
To evaluate phenotypic reproducibility, Paired Pearson correlations of CR values from 213 core accessions between the 3 years of testing was performed, which indicated positive ( r = 0.87–0.93) and highly significant ( P < 0.01) correlations between each year.
Results The differences between the four conditions were highly significant [ F (3,45) = 9.48, p < 0.01] by a repeated measures, one-way ANOVA applied to the scores of the 16 participants.
Threshold for highly significant difference was p<0.01, for significant difference was p<0.05.
We report findings that are statistically highly significant ( p < 0.01), according to the research questions and the target parameters.
The t -test showed a highly significant difference with *** P < 0.01 for both shh and ihh in the group cultured in Vitrolife medium compared to the in vivo group.
Differences were considered significant if p<0.05; and highly significant if p<0.01.
Differences were considered to be significant at p < 0.05 and highly significant at p < 0.01.
However, the 2 cell lines which showed only partial promoter methylation (MDA-MB-231 and MDA-MB-468) showed highly significant (p<0.01) increases in HtrA1 expression levels.
This effect was highly significant, Fig.1 ; χ 2 = 18.29, df = 2, P <<0.01.
The following criteria were used to define statistical significance: differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05 (*) and highly significant at p < 0.01 (**), with p > 0.05 regarded as not significant. 3.
Comparisons were deemed significant if p < 0.05 and highly significant if p < 0.01.
However, the two combinations, NP + P and NP + P + L of SG10, caused a highly significant increase in FLuc activity compared with the native LaSota strain ( p < 0.01) ( Figure 6A ).
A 2–fold change expression cut-off for ratio experiments was applied together with anti-correlation of ratio profiles rendering the microarray analysis highly significant (P-value >0.01), robust and reproducible.
A highly significant ( P < 0.01) decrease in alcohols (21.68 ± 4.89 μg/kg vs. 68.26 ± 13.26 μg/kg) was also observed in LT of group A ( Fig. 2 F).
Lipids within the same class exhibited highly significant positive correlations ( P < 0.01).
Time Trends and Subgroups of CHD The overall incidence of CHD increased from 10.29‰ (2206/214333) in 2018 to 13.45‰ (2,174/161,605) in 2020, revealing an increasing trend of 30.7% [overall: χ 2 = 50.13, P < 0.01; 2018 vs. 2019: χ 2 = 4.94, P < 0.05); 2019 vs. 2020: χ 2 = 23.24, P < 0.01; 2018 vs. 2020 (χ 2 = 47.75, P < 0.01)].