Publication bias and sensitivity analysis Initially, the plausible sources of publication bias were visualized through a funnel plot with Egger test, where the publication bias was found to be highly significant ( P < .0001) (Fig. 5 ).
Excerpts
In GLMs with male intensity as dependent variable, and female intensity, chromosome type (Z or autosomal) and the interaction term as independent variables, the interaction term was highly significant (zebra finch: p<0.0001, Table 1 ; common whitethroat: p<0.0001, Table 2 ).
Consistent with the target data, the effect of generation rate on CS1 was highly significant in all four simulations, with a very large effect size [Simulation 1A: F (5, 94.47) = 82.43, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.64; Simulation 1B: F (5, 96.54) = 65.16, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.71; Simulation 2A: F (5, 95.53) = 74.62, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.65; Simulation 2B: F (5, 97.278) = 29.85, p < 0.0001, η 2 = 0.54].
As a cross-check, calculated (via DIC and TA) and directly measured pH values were compared and showed a highly significant correlation and no outliers (pH (total scale) = 0.9176 pH (NBS) +0.5453; r 2 = 0.99; p<0.0001).
However, there was still a positive and highly significant covariance between the male and female partner's in tGSH and GSSG ( n = 340, tGSH: F = 22.163, P < 0.0001; and GSSG: F = 5.955, P = 0.015).
+ 0.0817 X 2 X 4 + 0.0405 X 2 X 5 - 0.0402 X 2 X 6 - 0.2873 X 3 X 4 - 0.1011 X 3 X 5 - 0.1967 X 3 X 6 - 0.0283 X 4 X 5 + 0.2186 X 4 X 6 - 0.0289 X 5 X 6 - 0.769 X 1 2 - 0.2811 X 2 2 - 1.64 X 3 2 - 1.13 X 4 2 - 0.2342 X 5 2 - 0.0627 X 6 2 # The ANOVA results ( Table 2 ) indicated that the model was highly significant ( F = 16.76, P < 0.0001) with a non-significant lack of fit ( P = 0.2443), confirming model adequacy.
By definition, there was a highly significant difference in preoperative third ventricular diameter and FOHR between group I and II ( p < 0.0001).
Additionally, non-parametric one-way ANOVA analysis for comparing methylation levels of one loci in different tissues was highly significant for all loci (CpG-1 and CpG-2 for both male and female subpopulations, Krustal-Wallis test, p<0.0001) A relatively greater level of methylation was observed in most tissues at IAP-LTR, Line-1 and Myc .
Generally, a p -value less than 0.05 indicates that the corresponding factor is significant. Therefore, the quadratic polynomial model established in this experiment is highly significant ( p < 0.0001). 55 The model’s R 2 is 0.9757, and the adjusted R 2 is 0.9514, indicating a good fit with minimal experimental error.
In general, the impact of age on the three cost outcomes was highly significant (p < 0.0001) within all four subgroups.
The pooled analysis demonstrated a highly significant overall RR of 4.51 (95% CI, 2.95-6.90, P < .0001) for adverse outcomes in the high-risk TGF-β1 group compared with the low-risk group.
A block averaging t -test confirmed this difference to be highly significant ( P -value <.0001, t-statistic = 12.36; Fig. 8 ).
At the low and moderate doses (5 and 10 mg/L nCS), there was a highly significant increase in MDA content ( P < 0.0001) in all four examined tissues compared to the control group.
Body conformation indices of pelvic index, body index, transversal pelvic index and weight were highly significant ( p < 0.0001) among the studied districts.
This reflects a -9.89% reduction in pore count from baseline, with a highly significant difference (p < 0.0001).
The model was highly significant ( p < 0.0001) with no lack of fit ( p > 0.05), while the optimum conditions (Arabic gum at 160°C) were validated with < 2% deviation.
Accordingly, season length was highly significant in the full models (combining long and short season length) of both species ( B. hybridum p < 0.0001; H. rhagadioloides p < 0.0001; full results in Table A1 ).
Females with low HDL (61.02%, n=72) were in a larger proportion compared to males (38.98%, n=46), and this difference was highly significant (p<0.0001) (Table 2 ).
However, in Figure 6I, there is a highly significant difference in the number of HNF4A positive cells, more than a 3-fold percentage difference, with a p-value of <0.0001.
The resulting model was highly significant ( R 2 = 0.85, P <0.0001) and the within-basin fitted lines were specified by T max7d-water = 3.372+0.656· T max7d-air , 4.688+0.589· T max7d-air , 4.171+0.626· T max7d-air for Aragón, Arga-Ega and Bay of Biscay basins, respectively.
A one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s posthoc test showed a highly significant difference between the Bacillus group and either control ( P ≤ 0.0001).
The interaction of intervention group and time point was highly significant in a two-way mixed ANOVA model (F(2, 28) = 13.38, p < 0.0001), with significant simple main effects for both intervention group (p = 0.026) and time (p < 0.0001) ( Fig. 5 c).
The mean preoperative satisfaction score was 42.88 ± 19.3, while the mean postoperative score was 84.83 ± 7.6, statistically highly significant improvement ( p < 0.0001).
The only variable that was significant was the NCEAS score, having a highly significant p-value in all of the models (p-value<0.0001).
Similarly, the relationship between airway resistance and airflow into the lungs was highly significant, following a logarithmic curve (p<0.0001; Fig. 1C ).