Specifically, the group‐average correlation between condition‐specific performance and d’ was 0.97 (SEM = 0.06) and highly significant (T(18) = 32.57, p < 10 -6 ).
Excerpts
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In accordance with previous studies (Bloom and Adami [ 5 ] and references therein), we found a highly significant correlation between the mean E of the complexes and their mean K (Pearson's R = −0.45, p < 10 −6 , n = 94, using K Candida-Saccharomyces ).
This effect was highly significant and strongest in the proximal intestine (duodenum) where the number of stained PCs was reduced by half ( n = 7; P < 10 −6 ).
Such a difference is highly significant ( p < 0.000001, Figure 5 a) and corresponds to a significant difference ( p = 0.02656) between the corresponding E distributions.
The difference between CD24+/CD44- and CD24-/CD44+ cells with respect to their position in the E-M state space was highly significant (p<10 –6 ).
These studies reported robust sample sizes, highly significant p -values ( p < 10−6), and statistically significant results in the largest included studies.
In all cases, the difference in the level of divergence between normal and tumor samples in each tissue and platform cohort is highly significant (Wilcoxon P value < 10 − 6 ; see Fig. 2 ).
This difference was highly significant ( U -test, p < 0.000001).
29 To test for replication of hits from each study, we ran meta-analyses with each dataset individually excluded from the analysis and then queried significant and nominally significant SNPs ( p < 10 −6 , n = 45) from the excluded dataset in the meta-analysis results.
We found the association between long sleep duration and increased mortality of lung cancer was highly significant in the random-effects models ( p < 1 × 10 −6 ).
A Chi-square test showed these differences to be highly significant (χ 2 = 236.6; df = 17; p < 0.000001), confirming that germinated seeds are much more likely to occur on the side to which the ants do not have access.
SwinIR and SeD fell below clinically acceptable thresholds, showing scores near 1.0 and highly significant differences across all categories ( P < .000001).
In contrast, the proposed GNN model shows a highly significant result, achieving a W-statistic of 0.0000 with an extremely small p-value ( p = 1 × 10 − 6 ).
This association between essentiality and positive selection in the LTEE is highly significant (Fisher’s exact test: P < 10 −6 ).
However, it was highly significant ( P < 0.000001 ) in this study, and the direction of the regression line showed that the rare allele can increase the rate of multiple births.
The difference, when tested by a likelihood ratio test, is highly significant (likelihood ratio chi-square = 931.0514, DF = 17, p < 0.000001).
McNemar Test: χ 2 = ( b − c − 1 ) 2 b + c The McNemar test demonstrated a highly significant difference between the two conditions (continuity-corrected χ 2 = 262 , p < 10 − 6 ; exact binomial p < 10 − 12 , Table 10 ).
This is a highly significant enrichment relative to the <3% of background genes with known interactions (Fisher’s test p < 10 −6 ), confirming that our analytical pipeline is an effective approach to enrich for druggable targets. 645 (34%) of the compounds are predicted in a single patient, ranging from 15 in patient 17 to 205 in patient 18, further highlighting the importance of a patient-specific approach (Fig.
An additional 79 variants were marginally significant ( p < 1.00E-06) and are described in Supplementary Table S3 .
A one-way repeated measures ANOVA confirms that the number of items had a highly significant effect on identification accuracy ( F (3,15) = 42.8, p <0.000001).
A paired t test revealed a highly significant and strong decrease in the mean slope from the EO to EC condition in the combined group of subjects ( T (82) = 5.81, p < 0.000001, Cohen d = 0.64), as well as in the separate groups (TD: T (44) = 3.67, p = 0.0006, Cohen d = 0.55; ASD >85 : T (22) = 3.38, p = 0.0003, Cohen d = 0.71; ASD <85 : T (14) = 3.31, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.85; Fig. 2 D).
Lastly, kDGF was a highly significant multivariable predictor of a higher CCI, even after controlling for the four other significant multivariable predictors of this outcome ( p < 0.000001, Table 5 ).
The overall model fit was strong, with a pseudo-R 2 of 0.438 and a highly significant likelihood ratio test ( P < 0.000001), indicating that the model explains a meaningful portion of the variability in patient outcomes ( Table 4 ).
All other combinations of methods and scenarios had highly significant sensitivity (P < 1.0 × 10 −6 ) and specificity (P < 1.0 × 10 −6 ) compared to the baseline value 0.5, except for sensitivity of Lasso in Scenario 2 (P = 0.90).
This series of six LOF variants is a highly significant finding, given that there are only four LOF TYMS variants in the gnomAD database, which comprises more than 125,000 individuals (p < 0.000001: Chi squared with Yates’ correction).