Excerpts

We found highly significant differences ( p < 2 e - 16 ) between most cluster pairs at K = 5, except clusters 2 and 5 ( p ≈ 1 ) and clusters 2 and 3 ( p = 1.2 e - 09 ).

The analysis of variance showed a highly significant effect of genotypes ( p < 2 × 10 −16 ) (Table S4 ).

Data analysis showed a highly significant reduction of the average CpG methylation levels from 13.8% in control animals to 8.3% in KD samples over sixteen million mapped CpGs ( p < 2e-16, Wilcoxon rank sum test; Fig. 4a ).

There was a highly significant difference between the sensitivity groups ( p < 2e−16) but not between P. cactorum isolates ( p = 0.2046; Table S6 ).

gondii /THP-1 conditioned media resulted in a highly significant (P = 2x10 -16 ) increase in H . hammondi vacuole size ( Fig 7C ).

The Fligner–Killeen test of homogeneity of variances is also highly significant ( p < 2 × 10 −16 ) between ht-UtLM6 and CR-LM6.

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) results (Supplementary Data 1 –Table B 3 ) showed a highly significant effect of landmarks on measurement variance ( p -value < 2 × 10 −16 ); however, no significant effect of the operator ( p -value = 1.00) or the interaction between landmark and operator was observed ( p -value = 0.968).

The highly significant (β = 2.02, z = 45.64, p < 2 × 10 −16 ) intercept, the model estimate of around 8 roadkill, shows a strong baseline effect for predictors at their reference values.

We obtained a highly significant interaction effect between hosts and isolates nested within each population for virulence (degrees of freedom = 1,540, F = 2.11, p < 2e −16 ) and reproduction (degrees of freedom = 1,540, F = 2.68, p < 2e −16 ).

This shift is highly significant compared with either the simulated random distribution ( p = 2 × 10 −16 ) or the distribution from the glucose-grown cells ( p = 2 × 10 −11 ; Wilcoxon rank sum test).

The effect of time alone was highly significant (P< 2 × 10 -16 , 99.999% CI), though genotype-time interaction was not statistically significant (P = 0.4904, 5% CI) ( Figure 5C ).

Statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA confirmed a highly significant effect of treatment on fungal growth (F(20, 42) = 56.52, p < 2 × 10 −16 ).

General linear model showed that clinical symptoms have a highly significant effect on the number of cMBs (N = 2.78, 95%CI [2.51–3.07], p<2*10–16; ndf = 78, AIC = 1218).

An analysis of ChEMBL data demonstrated a highly significant relationship between bioactivities in human and rat targets ( R = 0.71, p < 2 e - 16 ), although outliers were identified for targets such as the Histamine H 3 receptor ( Kruger and Overington, 2012 ).

Results Bacterial quantification The effect of extraction methodology on the concentration of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene was highly significant (Repeated measures ANOVA, F = 61.5, P < 2 × 10 −16 ; Fig. 1 A).

The variance analysis showed a highly significant municipality effect ( p < 2 × 10 −16 ), and the multivariable GLM confirmed strong spatial heterogeneity in TIR. 4.

As expected, the PY effect was highly significant (P < 2 × 10 −16 ), and the smoking group W5Y remained significant after correcting for PY (P = 0.008).

The first GLM, which included all values, returned a highly significant relationship between time spent in male germline and the observed substitution rates ( P < 2e-16; odd ratio 1.16, 95% CI: 1.1622–1.1626).

Although, the correlation was highly significant ( p < 2e-16), the R2 of only 0.57 shows a low predictive power.

As for senior authorship, the difference between men and women was highly significant in both the 1999 (166 vs. 47, p = 2e-16), and in the 2009 cohort (188 vs. 115, p = 3e-5), but inspection of the absolute difference reveals that this difference is diminishing.

I do think it is appropriate to highlight those smooth terms which are extremely significant (p<2e-16) according to this test.

After accounting for the general tendency for each participant to report higher or lower GAD-7 scores (Model 2), and adjusting for other covariates (Model 3), highly significant dose-response trends were evident (p < 2e-16 for each), adding 2–3 additional points to GAD-7 scores in highest categories of exposure ( Table 3 and S4 Table ).

We found that both RM and n sites had a highly significant effect (respectively, F 9,449 = 71, P < 2 × 10 −16 and F 1,449 = 103, P < 2 × 10 −16 ), and the interaction between RM and n sites was also significant ( F 9,449 = 8.99, P < 2 × 10 −16 ).

An overall log‐rank test comparing survival curves across the eight groups defined by larval treatment, adult treatment, and sex showed highly significant differences (χ2 = 146, df = 7, p < 2e–16).

In the reference model (model 1), the effect of acid exposure was found to be significant and negatively associated with mobility (estimate = − 0.21, p = 0.001), while the observational time also showed a highly significant negative effect (estimate = − 0.24, p < 2 × 10 −16 ).