We observed a highly significant nonlinear association of urinary 8-oxoGuo with serum ferritin ( P < 0.0001) and higher 8-oxoGuo concentrations for respirable iron >1,000 μg/m 3 compared to ≤57 μg/m 3 .
Excerpts
In this comparison, the difference found between the four haploidized strains and the haploid-at-all-times and diploid-at-all-times strains remains highly significant ( t -tests; p < 0.0001).
No significant correlation was obtained for solitary fish (Spearman Rank Correlation: R S = -0.325, P = 0.303), while there was highly significant negative correlation for fish in groups ( R S = -0.972, P < 0.0001).
ANOVA revealed highly significant effects ( p < 0.0001) of experiment, genotype, and their interaction, indicating that genotypes responded differentially across years.
Similarly, GC2 cells exhibited a significant and dose-dependent reduction in sphere formation following treatment with pemigatinib, with both concentrations showing highly significant effects (**** p < 0.0001).
However, a highly significant difference ( p < 0.0001) was observed between mild and severe psoriasis.
The difference between the sta-1(RNAi) and akir-1(RNAi) animals is highly significant (p<0.0001; one-sided log rank test).
This regression was highly significant (standardized beta = 0.49 ± 0.002, t = 35.25, P < 0.0001, R 2 = 0.34; linear regression).
The fitted regression coefficient is negative and highly significant ( β 1 = 1.5 ± 0.3, P < 0.0001).
TE enrichment in the ZFP57-bound subset of repeats was highly significant in comparison to the rest of genome (Fig. 1 c, P < 0.0001).
The coefficients for the two main explanatory variables (GDP per capita and occupancy rate) are highly significant (p < 0.0001), as well as most of the control dummies, e.g., hospital level.
When comparing the 3 measures to the environmental stimulus of years of exposure to RHI, all 3 scores were highly significant ( P < .0001) ( Figure 3G ).
The variance of the random effect was highly significant in all these models (p<0.0001).
This difference in syllable count was highly significant (paired t-test: t = 11.6, P <0.0001, df = 22).
The high‐dose ARC‐520 group showed a highly significant reduction in HBsAg ( P < 0.0001) compared to placebo, with a mean reduction of 0.379 log IU/mL from baseline (Fig. 1 B).
This difference corresponded to a risk difference of 13.2 percentage points (95% CI 10.5–15.9), a risk ratio of 4.0 (95% CI 3.4–4.6), and an odds ratio of 4.6 (95% CI 3.8–5.5), all highly significant ( p < 0.0001).
The occurrence of each of these features is highly significant (P<0.0001, Fisher’s exact test, two tailed) for none of these features was observed in the 351 non duplication mice generated in the cross.
Conversely, significant differences occurred with nematodes Originally sampled in Morelos: at 1.5 h after assay initiation, more virulent J2s raised root tips compared to avirulent ones ( P = 0.038); this trend was reinforced and became highly significant ( P < 0.0001) at 3, 4.5, and 6 h (Fig. 3 B).
The omnibus test for heterogeneity was highly significant (Q [42] = 424.22, p < .0001), and the residual heterogeneity was substantial ( I 2 = 82.3%), justifying the need to explore potential moderators that could account for this variation. 3.4.1.
ELISA results showed that the Giardia induced a highly significant increase in the secretion of IL-6, IL-12 p40 and TNF-α compared to the control group (IL-6: ANOVA, F (4, 10) = 1.116, p < 0.0001; IL-12 p40: ANOVA, F (4, 10) = 0.6885, p < 0.0001; TNF-α: ANOVA, F (4, 10) = 1.990, p < 0.0001) (Fig. 2 a–c).
This difference in the survival rate was highly significant in comparison to both the control Vehicle treated group (p<0.0001) and the PLX-Mat group (p<0.005).
The difference between the two lots is highly significant according to a log-rank test ( P = .0001).
Nevertheless, there was a highly significant correlation ( p < 0.0001) observed between the grade representing combined Discovery deliverables and the final course grade (Fig. 2a ).
For women, only patients <65 years showed a decreasing trend (β = −32.3, P < 0.0001).
ANOVA results ( Supplementary material 1 , Table S5 ) indicated that the model was highly significant (P < 0.0001), while the lack-of-fit was not significant (P = 0.102 > 0.05), supporting good model adequacy within the studied region.