“highly significant”

Differences were considered statistically significant with p ≤ 0.05 and highly significant with p ≤ 0.01.

In addition, specific comparisons within the two attention conditions confirmed that the face-house difference in the N170 latency range in the attended condition was highly significant ( F (1,14) = 8.82, p = 0.01), whereas there was no significant difference in the unattended condition ( F (1,14) = 1.37, p = 0.26).

The relationship between stomatal conductance and leaf temperature was highly significant ( P < 0.01) under cyclic drought treatment ( r = –0.72 and r = –0.73, 24 h and 48 h after re-watering, respectively), but there were no significant correlations between stomatal conductance and leaf temperature under WW treatment.

A McNemar test revealed that virus transmission by dogs was highly significant ( P < 0.01) compared with other animals.

For 23 of the top 25 conditions the highly significant targets show expression which is different from both the average and the negative sets ( t -test p -value ≤ 0.01).

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

Regression analysis revealed that for every day of growth, Fgf2-treated aggregates and vesicles increased in size by an additional 492.03 μm 2 (SEM: 35.72) per day compared to control cultures, and that this effect was highly significant (p < 0.01).

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

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).

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).

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.

Sixteen of the 18 genes were similarly regulated, which shows a highly significant co-variation (p = 0.01).

This shift analysis revealed a highly significant 30% decrease in GAD65-GFAP association ( p ≤ 0.01, n = 20 different sections in 3 different mice), indicating that the organization of GAD65 along BG fibers was not due to chance.

Of these, 50 differentially expressed genes were highly significant ( P <0.01; Table 2 ).

The level of shading of the dot indicates the statistical significance for support of the QTL: * P < 0.001 or reported as highly significant; * 0.001 < P < 0.01 or reported as significant; and * 0.01 < P < 0.05 or reported as marginally significant. statistically significant in some sense.

In a prospective blinded study of 165 patients with breast cancer, Weidner and Folkman showed that there was a highly significant association between IMD and RFS and OS in both node-negative and node-positive subsets ( P =0.01).

Results Shoot misting experiment ANOVA showed highly significant ( P <0.01) effects of misting, both root and shoot genotypes, and the scion×rootstock interaction on leaf area ( Table 1 ).

First, the adRP-linked p.G56R mutant showed a highly significant decrease in NR2E3 WT -mediated rhodopsin transactivation by 50% already at a NR2E3 WT /NR2E3 G56R ratio of 2∶1 (p<0.01 by ANOVA test for p.G56R vs all other mutants).

The number of codivergence events was highly significant (P<0.01, the null hypothesis being the two phylogenies are randomly related) for scenarios with 0, 1 or 2 gene transfers, giving a good indication that AVR k1 and TE1a sequences have coevolved.

Of these, the distortions observed in Satt038, ATG/CAC340 and Satt505 on linkage group G, and Satt551 on linkage group M, were highly significant ( P = 0·01).

Statistically, these difference were highly significant for the numbers of affected lung lobes and lung-associated lymph nodes, as well as the lymph node, lung, and total pathology scores (P<0.01).

The differences in infection intensity and rate between the lpg2 − and the WT were statistically highly significant ( P <0.01).

A highly significant (p < 0.01) reduction in medication errors (from 3.69% to 0.86%) was observed, mainly related to the Type 1 errors (2,34 vs. 0%) Conclusion the implementation of a PIMS in ICU was followed by a highly significant reduction in medication errors.

The parameters that represent the production in the total hospital estimations is highly significant ( P < 0.01).

In contrast, using this approach, aging effects on inflammatory genes were highly significant (p = 0.01).