“highly significant”

2010 ), direct pairwise comparison of gene expression levels between testis and all other FlyAtlas samples shows a pattern consistent with X chromosome demasculinization—a paucity of X-linked genes overexpressed ≥2-fold in testes—that is highly significant (χ 2 ≥ 11.8, P < 0.001) and consistent in magnitude (22–40%; tables 3–5 ; see supplementary table S6 , Supplementary Material online; for results with 4- and 8-fold testis-biased genes).

This revealed a highly significant difference (p < 0.001), indicating that, among the subjects who declared sexual activity, younger subjects debuted earlier than their older counterparts.

Specifically, AFP, CA125, and CYFRA21–1 exhibited highly significant differences (P<0.001) ( Table 2 ). 3.4.

As a further validation of the left-right self-placement scale we created a sum score for conservativism from the 18 individual policy items (reverse scoring where appropriate so that high scores always indicated right-wing policy preferences); as expected, the correlation with self-placement scale scores was highly significant, r = .504, p < .001.

Question 1 and the category ‘other’ from questions 2, 3 and 4 were dropped because of inconsistent interpretation and irrelevant responses. Four highly significant ( p < 0.001) risk factors were found: ‘having severe cold symptoms’, ‘attending day care with >4 children’, ‘having siblings’ and ‘male gender’.

Table 4 shows highly significant ( P < 0.001) differences in hematological parameters of non-BTT/non-SCT study subjects.

30 Before the availability of ACPA testing, a seminal study of over 2000 healthy INA monitored biannually for up to 19 years revealed a highly significant association between RF level and RA development (p<0.001, controlling for age and sex). 60 Genotype also confers additional risk of ACPA and RA in FDRs of INA populations.

The data, as shown in Figure 6 , show a highly significant correlation ( r = 0.89; p < 0.001) between the revolutions of the VitalView running wheel and the wheel time measured by the Goblotrop system.

However, among those with ≥30% body fat, only 42.6% had a BMI ≥30 kg/m2—a highly significant difference (p<.001).

The Cochran-Armitage test for trend confirmed a highly significant trend (Z = 5.5578, p < 0.001), indicating that as the spatial heterogeneity of perfusion (discreteness grade) increases, the probability of a malignant diagnosis rises monotonically. 3.3.

lingzhi The applied microbiological assay to estimate the effect of Reishi supplementation on the growth rate of the applied stains revealed the potential prebiotic effect of the studied mushroom that was confirmed by the highly significant MANOVA overall test (Wilk’s λ < 0.001; p < 0.001) together with the follow-up tests for the measured E. coli and L. casei initial and end count growth rates (F(5;12) > 8.97; p < 0.001).

Importantly, when baseline values were adjusted for using ANCOVA, these between-group differences remained robust and highly significant across all outcome measures ( p < 0.001), further confirming the superiority of the intervention ( Tables 3 , 4 ).

The cluster effect was highly significant, according to PERMANOVA analysis ( p value < 0.001) (cluster_analysis.xlsx), and explained 72% percent of sample variation.

Contrariwise, biostimulant treatments had a highly significant effect ( p -value ≤ 0.001) on tomato productive and qualitative traits.

[ 78 ] reported a highly significant correlation between NLR and fecal calprotectin (r s = 0.347, p < 0.001); however, Bertani et al.

The statistically significant alpha is described as p < 0.05 (*) and p < 0.01 (**), statistically highly significant as p < 0.001 (***) and statistically extreme significant as p < 0.0001 (****).

ANCOVA revealed a highly significant interaction between sites and MC congeners on MC concentration ( P < 0.001). summer Hartbeespoort Dam dry weight (DW) quantitative LC-ESI-MS intracellular variations microcystin-RR pmc-status-qastatus 0 pmc-status-live yes pmc-status-embargo no pmc-status-released yes pmc-prop-open-access yes pmc-prop-olf no pmc-prop-manuscript no pmc-prop-legally-suppressed no pmc-prop-has-pdf yes pmc-prop-has-supplement no pmc-prop-pdf-only no pmc-prop-suppress-copyright no pmc-prop-is-real-version no pmc-prop-is-scanned-article no pmc-prop-preprint no pmc-prop-in-epmc yes pmc-license-ref CC BY 1.

ITUG Test The dynamic balance analyzed during the ITUG test revealed highly significant differences ( p < 0.001) between the single motor condition and the other two dual task conditions (dual motor task and dual motor task with cognitive demands) in the kinematic data of the ITUG test different phases. 3.2.1.

In this case, the chi-squared estimated values for the likelihood ratio, and Score and Wald statistics indicated that the model was highly significant ( p < 0.001).

Response of Four Cereals to a Combination of HexaFrassTM and Biochar In the trials investigating how HF and biochar might interact in their effects on plant growth, adding 4 g of HF per pot had highly significant effects (F 1,28 > 60; p < 0.001) on the shoot dwt of all four cereal species ( Figure 3 ).

According to Cochran’s Q test, heterogeneity (Q) of the full dataset ( n = 1214 observations) was highly significant (Cochran’s Q = 164278, df = 1213, p < 0.001) [ 44 ].

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.

Glucose levels were higher in exposed fish compared with the control at multiple time-points. Cortisol levels exhibited a highly significant difference between groups ( P < 0.001) ( Table 3 ), with post hoc analysis revealing significant differences between the control and all time-points (0, 2, 12, and 24 h), as well as between 0 and 2 h ( Figure 3e ).

Ahmadreza Dorosty suggested that there is a highly significant correlation between socioeconomic status and sarcopenia ( p < 0.001) and that people with low socio-economic status people have 0.97 times the risk of developing sarcopenia than those in the middle and high-income brackets ( 8 ).

Overall across all centres and participant groups the variance explained by the diagnosis was eight times greater than the variance explained by centre alone, with the effect of diagnosis highly significant ( p < 0.001) and the effect of centre not significant.