An unpaired t-test between PPG-based (mean = 140 ms, SD = 10 ms, n = 116) and our measurement (mean = 98.3 ms, SD = 16.9 ms, n = 18) confirms a highly significant difference between the distributions; t(132) = 16.75, p < 0.0001.
Excerpts
Geographical distribution of folate-mediated one-carbon metabolism pathway alleles and genotypes showing continental variation and intra-population differences in Mexican Mestizos In contrast to the additional four out of the eight variants analyzed, MTRR A66G, MTHFR C677T, A1298AC and MTHFD1 G1958A showed a gradient in the frequency between MEX groups and highly significant differences between AMI and EUR groups ( P values <10 −4 ).
In total, about a two-fold increase in seeds was observed in reduced tillage plots (7936 seeds m −2 ) compared to ploughing (3846 seeds m −2 ) in the 0–20 cm topsoil layer, which was highly significant (ANOVA, F-value 24.5, p < 0.0001).
In the multivariate proportional hazards regression model that included IDLE, TNM staging, tumor grade, and the potential confounding variables (age at surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy received either before or after the surgery) ( Table 2 ), both TNM staging and tumor grade lost statistical association with cancer progression ( p > 0.63) when IDLE was included in the model, while the association of IDLE with progression was highly significant (HR = 5.671, 95% CI = 3.1650–10.1605, p < 0.0001).
The decreasing trend in odds ratios with increasing age at first birth was highly significant (P<0.0001).
The elevated expression (2.4 times) of cpr-1 in GRAgNPs treated J2s larvae revealed the higher oxidative stress caused by GRAgNPs in comparison to CAgNPs, which was highly significant at p < 0.0001 and 95% CI.
The 300 values of the RMS standard deviations (SD) associated with the three channels of the calibrated and non-calibrated orthophoto were compared by means of a paired Wilcoxon test for non-parametric distributions which reported a highly significant difference ( p < 0.0001) between the calibrated and non-calibrated images ( Table 3 ).
The difference was highly significant ( p < 0.0001), although PASI scores were often low.
This analysis revealed a highly significant correlation between HLA-presentation and the abundance of the source proteins ( p < 0.0001) ( Fig. 5 C ).
The Fisher’s Kappa was 16.924 and Bartlett’s Kolmogorov–Smirnov was 0.281, which was highly significant ( P < 0.0001).
The model was found to be highly significant, with an F -value of 118.2 ( p < 0.0001), while the lack-of-fit term was nonsignificant ( p = 0.9015), confirming the adequacy and robustness of the model.
Detection of recombination, using the pairwise homoplasy index test (PHI-test), was marginally significant in the HCV Sanger data set ( P = 0.043), and highly significant in the HIV-1 data set ( P < 0.0001).
The predicted model developed for catechin (Y 1 ) was as follows: Analysis of variance for predicted models implied that the model was highly significant (F-value 20.13, P < 0.0001) with a good coefficient of determination (R 2 = 0.98).
Lastly, analysis of the relative usage of pAs in 182 genes that displayed significant modulation of at least two alternative pAs ( Supplementary Table S7 ) highlighted a highly significant negative correlation between the abundance of the two APA isoforms for most genes (92.85%; r = –0.8936, P <0.0001, Pearson correlation; Figure 2F ), thus confirming the effect on transcript lengthening induced by HT.
A comparison of grain length in samples carrying GS3 -Hap1 or GS3 -Hap3 was highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
The results in Table 1 showed a highly significant increase in oral body temperature among the exposed group (the bakers) compared to the control group (p < 0.0001).
Figure 4 shows a bar graph of the average A , ε m a x , ε ∞ , τ r of the 4 cell lines and indicates the level of significance: where p > 0.05 is not significant (ns), 0.01 < p < 0.05 is significant (*), 0.001 < p < 0.01 is very significant (**), 0.0001 < p < 0.001 is extremely significant (***) and p < 0.0001 is extremely significant (****), raw values can be found in Table S1 .
A more recent analysis for NHANES 2007–2010 data found a significant trend ( P < 0.0001) toward higher HEI 2010 scores for children who consumed 12 oz of juice/d (HEI = 52.3) than those who did not consume juice (HEI = 43.8) ( 40 ) There are reports that argue fruit juice consumption is comparable with consuming sugar-sweetened beverages that contribute to overweight and obesity, particularly among children ( 41 – 43 ).
However, a highly significant heterogeneity of the included studies was observed with an I 2 of 87% ( p < 0.0001) (Fig. 3 ).
The detorque values for IIA (19.96Ncm ± 0.19Ncm), NIIA (19.90Ncm ± 0.83Ncm), and NIIAMC (19.51Ncm ± 0,69Ncm) were similar and remained close to the initial value, while IIAMC (55.2Ncm ± 2.36Ncm) showed an extremely significant torque value increase (p < 0.0001).
The test for residual heterogeneity was highly significant ( p < 0.0001). 4.4.1.2 DBS primary for treating chronic pain (DBS-P) analysis The test of moderators for age as a predictor was not significant F(df1 = 1, df2 = 22) = 1.1608, ( p = 0.29), indicating that age did not significantly moderate the effectiveness of DBS-P for chronic pain The estimated amount of residual heterogeneity (tau^2) was 43.86, indicating considerable heterogeneity among the studies.
For extremely significant (****) P < 0.0001; extremely significant (***) 0.0001< P <0.001; very significant (**) 0.001< P <0.01; significant (*) 0.01< P <0.05; not significant (ns) P ≥ 0.05. b Number in brackets is the median survival time in days. c Number of animals in group. d BALB/c.WT vs .
The mean age at death for animals unaffected was 614 days (SEM ± 20) compared to 741 days (SEM ± 18) for animals with pathology; a difference which is highly significant ( p < 0.0001, two-tailed unpaired t test).
There was a significant trend towards a decrease in average ED LOS 282 (standard error of mean [SEM] ± 19) vs 185 (± 13) minutes ( p = 0.0001).
No significant differences in the prognostic value are noted between iPET-2 and i-PET-4 with both showing highly significant differences in EFS between the CMR and nCMR patients ( P -value < 0.0001): patients with iPET-2-CMR and iPET-2-nCMR had 3-y-EFS’s of 93.1% and 45.5%, respectively while the respective values for patients with iPET-4-CMR and iPET-4-nCMR were 89.5 and 39.4%.