“extremely significant”

When compared to S1, extremely significant differences were seen among the other nine batches of samples ( p ≤ 0.001).

The primary term B was extremely significant ( p < 0.001), while the primary term C was significant ( p < 0.05); however, the terms A and D were not significant.

In this study, the TNF- α increase in Group 2 STZ-treated animals was extremely significant at a p < 0.001 level.

Threat appraisal had an extremely significant positive effect on coping appraisal (0.45, p < 0.001) and SDI (0.27, p < 0.001.

The changes in SWS from pre-HPE to 3 months post-HPE, 1–3 months post-HPE, 2–3 months post-HPE, change in TBIL from pre-HPE to 3 months post-HPE, 2–3 months post-HPE, and change in DBIL from pre-HPE to 3 months post HPE showed extremely significant differences between the NLS and transplant or death groups (all p <0.001).

* P -values of 0.001 to 0.05 reflected statistically significant differences; ** P -values of 0.001 to <0.01 were considered highly significant; and *** P -values <0.001 reflected extremely significant differences.

When we excluded those developmental changes that remain Equal for Ob.C comparison, we observed an extremely significant association between the direction of the methylation changes in development and obesity (Fisher’s test P < 0.001, OR = 3.02) (Fig. 5 D).

*, P < 0.05 (considered significant compared with control group); **, P < 0.01 (considered highly significant); ***, P < 0.001 (considered extremely significant). 3 Results 3.1 Identification of inhibitors that target PRRSV nsp4 (3CLSP) A library of 1000 lead compounds was screened against PRRSV 3CLSP using FRET assays.

Four volatile compounds, including 4-(2,4,4-Trimethyl-cyclohexa-1,5-dienyl)-but-3-en-2-one, alpha -ionone, 2-pentadecanone and 5-ethyl-2,2,3-trimethyl-heptane, exhibited extremely significant ( p < 0.001) positive correlations with stale odor score but negative correlations with aroma sensory score.

The regression coefficients for both equations were extremely significant ( P < 0.001).

It’s worth noting that the total flavonoids contents and total phenols contents had high positive correlation with DPPH IC50 /ABTS/FRAP values (0.847-0.959) (P<0.01), and an extremely significant and positive correlation existed between total flavonoids contents and ABTS values (0.935) (P<0.001).

Differences were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05 (*), very significant at P < 0.01 (**), and extremely significant at P < 0.001 (***).

The results show that the number of patents of invested enterprises has an extremely significant positive correlation with the human capital index ( P < 0.001), and a significant positive correlation with the education level of personnel, the proportion of engineering professionals ( P < 0.05).

As depicted in Figure 3 A,B, the effect of NEFA on the apoptosis rate of cells was dose-dependent, and it was extremely significant in comparison to the control group ( p < 0.001).

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

Extremely significant differences are observed ( P < 0.001) between mung bean seedlings continuously exposed to audible sound with swept frequency band of 2.0–2.5 kHz and the controls.

A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, p < 0.01 was considered statistically highly significant and p < 0.001 was considered statistically extremely significant. 3.

The significance thresholds were deemed as statistically significant ( P ≤0.05), highly significant ( P ≤0.01) or extremely significant ( P ≤0.001).

In the present study, however, we observed an extremely significant reduction on FIQ ( P < 0.001) with cannabis oil, while allopathic therapy studies presented more modest reductions on FIQ and/or greater incidence of intolerable adverse effects, leading to considerable rates of participant dropout.

The p value criteria used in the figures are as follows: * p < 0.05 presents a significant difference, ** p < 0.01 shows a highly significant difference, and *** p < 0.001 shows an extremely significant difference. 3.

For the first node, there were seven possible pairs, and it was apparent that the majority of features were extremely significant between the normal person samples and the patient samples (N vs. rest, 57 features with p <0.001) among all these possible pairs.

The significance thresholds were defined as statistically not significant (#), statistically significant (*p < .05), highly significant (**p < .01), or extremely significant (***p < .001).

Significant ( p < 0.05), very significant ( p < 0.01), and extremely significant ( p < 0.001) statistical differences were observed between the GD and OMFS practitioner groups’ antibiotic prophylactic frequencies for medically compromised patients.

Statistically significant ( p < 0.05), highly significant ( p < 0.01), and extremely significant ( p < 0.001) features are indicated with ( * ) , (**) , and (***) , respectively.

From the table, it can be seen that the both second-order models were extremely significant (*P <0.001), the lack-of-fit term were not, anyway.