Reviewer Expertise The addition of the RE variable in model 2 represented a highly significant improvement over the baseline fit ( Table 3 ; χ 2 (1) = 36.8, p<0.001).
Excerpts
A full factorial ANCOVA of the residuals revealed a highly significant three-way interaction term between predator group, square of relative initial prey density and the predator-prey body mass ratio (F 7,344 = 26.41, p<0.001, r 2 = 0.35).
Statistics GraphPad (version 5) was used to calculate unpaired and paired p values: ***, extremely significant, p < 0.001; **, very significant, p = 0.001-0.01; *, significant, p = 0.01-0.05; and ns , p > 0.05.
‘n.s’, ‘*’, ‘**’, and ‘***’ are non-significant (p>0.05), significant (0.01<p<0.05), very significant (0.001<p<0.01) and highly significant (p<0.001) difference in means, respectively, based on permutation tests.
This analysis confirmed that the increase in braille reading speed was highly significant (effect of testing session: F(5, 130) = 35.85, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.57).
The initial DFA model, which included 14 characters measured from 137 scorpions, confirmed that morphological differences between the sexes were highly significant (Wilks’ Λ = 0.12, χ 2 = 266.87, df = 14, P < 0.001, canonical correlation = 0.936), with means for the discriminant function scores of-2.22 (range = -0.38 –-4.33) and 3.12 (range = 1.25–6.01) for females and males, respectively.
NCDs showed an increasing trend as age increased (p<0.001).
The linear regression analysis between the total amount of bacteria and changes in weight proved highly significant (p<0.001, R 2 = 0.39) and with a correlation coefficient of -0.62.
For microsatellites, pairwise comparison of F ST showed highly significant differentiation ( F ST = 0.068, P<0.001).
This effect was apparent after 2 week of CUMS and became highly significant from 3 week to the end.( Fig 2 ) Sucrose preference test In the SPT, ANOVA revealed a significant effect of CUMS (1 h: F (1,78) = 414.40, p < 0.001;12 h: F (1,78) = 55.12, p < 0.001; 24 h: F (1,78) = 37.15, p < 0.001) and week (1 h: F (5,390) = 47.70, p < 0.001; 12 h: F (5,390) = 42.59, p < 0.001; 24 h: F (5,390) = 17.88, p < 0.001) and a significant interaction between the factors week and CUMS(1 h: F (5,390) = 41.23, p < 0.001; 12 h: F (5,390) = 30.95, p < 0.001; 24 h: F (5,390) = 12.60, p< 0.001).
LMM analysis of trapping success data against time (days), allowing for positive autocorrelation between successive trapping sessions, suggested a highly significant increasing trend across May to December (LMM, P <0.001; parameter estimate = 0.00130±0.00035 catch rate day −1 ).
One-way ANOSIM also revealed a highly significant effect of sampling site (Global test R = 0.797, P = 0.001) based on fish abundance data, represented a significant difference among the four group of those sites.
A highly significant difference in cAMP- and IP 3 baseline levels was detected at ZT 1, 9, 16, 18, 20, and 23 (Kruskal-Wallis test, p < 0.001).
The distance-based AMOVA analysis revealed genetic variance among and within the populations were highly significant (P<0.001) and the variation within subgroups (89%) was significantly higher than that among subgroups (11%) ( Table 4 ).
The difference is highly significant: t ( df = 27.0) = 6.10; p <.001.
Increased sunniness had a highly significant effect on the rate of bumblebees reported (P<0.001; Fig 3C ); with an almost doubling for counts taking place in full sun compared to counts taking place during no sun.
The rates were shown to have a decreasing trend (p <0.001) as time on TDF increased; however, rates remained above 1.00/PY across all years, suggesting that in this cohort S-Cr was measured, on average, at least annually while receiving TDF.
Specifically, the relationships between the two smallest size classes (50–75 μm and 75–100 μm) of zooplankton and the larval fish density were highly significant ( p < 0.001 and p = 0.001; Fig 3A and 3B , S3 Table ).
Statistical comparison of the means using two independent samples t-test shows highly significant differences between the means (p<0.001).
On all four dimensions of our self-developed rating scale, there were highly significant main effects of Time (Physical: F (1, 12) = 69.06, p < .001, η p 2 =.852; Mental: F (1, 12) = 18.83, p < .001, η p 2 =.611; Emotional: F (1, 12) = 25.41, p < .001, η p 2 =.679; Social: F (1, 12) = 15.15, p < .002, η p 2 =.558).
Smoking/tobacco consumption was highly significant (p < 0.001) with both anxiety and depression while moderate level physical activity and alcohol consumption were highly significant (p < 0.001) with anxiety only.
Second, I extended these analyses to the genotypic level by comparing least-square means from ANOVAs in cases where both focal and neighbour genotype exerted a highly significant effect on the performance variable ( P <0.001–0.01).
The ANOVA found highly significant differences (p < 0.001) in leaf chlorophyll content between sites and canopy layers.
Multivariate regression models adjusting for age, sex and variables with highly significant associations to MMP-9 in univariate analyses (p<0.001) were performed in addition. 3) Both the total risk load model and the regression models on single risk factors were performed with and without adjustment for CRP.
The difference between mFPR1 -/- mice and WT-mice was highly significant either among the CD11b + - (153±32 vs 102±24 (p<0,001)) and the Ly6G + -cells (WT126±21 vs mFPR1 -/ 85±22 (p<0,001)).