Excerpts

As shown in Figure 3 and Table 3 , the p -value of each model term indicated that the quadratic terms of X 2 2 and X 3 2 have highly significant effects with T P and T F ( p < 0.001), which indicated the important role of extraction time and liquid-to-solid ratio on content.

There was also a highly significant statistical difference between the analyzed extracts in this system ( p < 0.001).

As shown in Table 3 , highly significant differences ( p < 0.001) were detected by 18, 16, and 18 out of 20 panelists for the omission models of 4-methyl-2-methoxyphenol, 3-(methylsulfanyl)propan-1-ol, and 3-(methylsulfanyl)propanal, respectively.

The results presented a highly significant decrease in IL-6 and TNF-α secretion in III and IV when they were treated with asiaticoside (*** p < 0.001) compared to the control and untreated group II.

dicoccos Leaf Extract DPPH radical (DPPH • )-scavenging activity was highly significant for all concentrations of ascorbic acid control (10–100 μg/mL) when compared to the plant extract ( p < 0.001).

Leaf Mineral Content There were highly significant differences ( p ≤ 0.001) among the genotypes from different ecological regions for most of the mineral contents including Mg, P, Al, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn ( Table 1 ).

The cross validation of the model using CV-ANOVA provided highly significant results (F = 10.3017, p < 0.001).

p < 0.05 indicates a significant difference, p < 0.01 indicates a highly significant difference, and p < 0.001 indicates a highly significant difference. 4.

Highly significant correlation was observed between TPC and TFC (r = 0.973, ( p < 0.001).

All the spectrophotometric assays thus performed showed a highly significant positive correlation (R 2 ≥ 0.9454, p ≤ 0.001) with each other ( Table S3 ).

Compared with the blank group, arbutin group showed a highly significant tyrosinase activity of 75.056 ± 2.846 ( p < 0.001), the 400 μg/mL RGBs showed a tyrosinase activity of 84.545 ± 0.783, and the 400 μg/mL YGB showed a tyrosinase activity of 84.184 ± 2.240 ( p < 0.001), and it decreased with the increase in concentration. 2.6.

After post-hoc testing, the following significance levels were specified: extremely significant ( p < 0.001; ***/+++/###, very significant ( p < 0.01; **/++/##), significant ( p < 0.05; */+/#), and not significant ( p > 0.05).

The Model term is extremely significant ( p < 0.001), and the Lack of Fit term is not significant ( p > 0.05), indicating that the model equation is suitable for estimating the TPC extraction yield from T. sebifera leaves.

As per the results of roughness parameters and SEM photomicrographs of the present study, it is quite evident that 4% acetic acid was the most damaging immersion medium and produced a highly significant surface roughness of the evaluated ceramic in all dimensions ( p < 0.001), when compared to the other groups.

A p -value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant, a p -value of <0.01 was considered statistically highly significant, and a p -value of <0.001 was considered statistically extremely significant. 3.7.

The fractionated PC also showed a considerably significant ( p < 0.001) prooxidant effect in conjunction with UVA exposure on keratinocytes.

MMEx at 200 mg.kg −1 achieved a highly significant ( p < 0.001) inhibition of BSA denaturation of (58.27 ± 0.19%) in a dose-dependent manner.

P < 0.01 was considered highly significant, while p < 0.001 was considered extremely significant. 4.

An unpaired two-tailed t-test showed that the differences were extremely significant ( p < 0.001) among different parts of M. struthiopteris .

The linear term B and quadratic term B 2 had extremely significant effects on the DH ( p < 0.001). 3.4.2.

In which, SCH showed a highly significant difference ( p < 0.001) compared to the control ( Figure 2 e2,d).

All the obtained values were statistically highly significant ( p < 0.001).

Factorial ANOVA revealed highly significant effects of all tested factors (variety, pathogen, surface disinfection, and treatment) and their interactions (all p < 0.001), indicating a strongly context-dependent response.

Although there was a weak trend (y = 0.23x − 142.1, p < 0.001) showing increased difference between the two methods ( Figure 7 c), this increase in difference is of small practical importance and in most cases the error will be smaller than the analytical precision.

The significance of the correlation was interpreted based on the p -value as follows: p ≥ 0.05 NS , not significant trend; 0.01 ≤ p < 0.05, weakly significant; 0.005 ≤ p < 0.01, mildly significant; 0.001 ≤ p < 0.005, moderately significant; p < 0.001, strongly significant.