“extremely significant”

Two indicators were extremely significant under the effect of PCA, and two were significant in the result of FA.

O 3 and species showed highly significant interactive effects on these indices except WSC, while O 3 and organ had extremely significant interactive effects on all of these indices (Table 2 ).

If the values had p < 0.05 was considered significant (*), p < 0.01 was considered very significant (**) and p < 0.001 was considered extremely significant (***).

Statistically significant differences were designated at p < 0.05 and extremely significant at p < 0.01. 4.6.

Data represent the means for three independent experiments, and statistical significance is highlighted with asterisks in the figures as follows: p > 0.05, not significant; p < 0.05 (*), significant; p < 0.01 (**), extremely significant. 4.

They showed extremely significant improvement in static and dynamic balance ability.

At least three p-values for the five symptoms were considered extremely significant.

All data were expressed as mean ±SD, and P < 0.05 was considered significant, while values of P < 0.01 were considered extremely significant. 2.8.

A P -value <0.05 indicated a difference, P -value <0.01 indicated significant difference, and a P -value <0.001 indicated an extremely significant difference.

A P -Value < 0.05 indicated a significant difference, and a P -Value < 0.01 indicated an extremely significant difference.

* p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 indicate statistically significant differences and extremely significant differences, respectively.

Introduction Increased health awareness, effective prevention strategies, and improved access to medical treatment are extremely significant to curb the increasing global burden of breast cancer, particularly in the most affected countries ( 1 ).

An extremely significant positive correlation was found based on two genes encoding for EBV viral proteins.

At 120 hpi, the area of Pst growth, length of hyphae, and number of hyphae branches, haustorial mother cells, and haustorium in TaFBN - and Ta_Pes_BRCT -silenced leaves were all increased, and the difference was extremely significant.

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by a Tukey post hoc range test was used to determine differences among treatments with p < 0.05 being significant and P < 0.01 extremely significant.

According to the analysis of the significant difference, all pretreatment groups expressed significant or extremely significant differences.

In order to verify the effectiveness of these features, we first selected the features with P < 0.001 (with extremely significant statistical significance) by comparing the P values of t-test, and then performed unsupervised clustering on these features.

A p value less than 0.05 is considered as statistically significant (marked as *); a p value less than 0.01 is considered as extremely significant (marked as **).

According to the results of the ANOSIM analysis, R = 0.985 indicates a significant difference between groups, and p = 0.001 < 0.01 is extremely significant. 3.6.

Factors with a P -value < 0.1 had significant effect, and those with a P -value < 0.05 were extremely significant 42 , 45 .

Conversely, preincubation with DTT is the unique condition boosting the activity of cleaved toxin ( Figure 6 B), as exemplified by the extremely significant difference (~140 fold) in the IC 50 obtained with trypsin-treated Stx2a in the presence of protein G treated-serum under non-reducing and reducing conditions (y-intercept difference, p = 0.0007).

p < 0.05 represented a statistical difference, p < 0.01 represented a significant difference, p < 0.001 represented an extremely significant difference. 3.

In these two articles [ 59 , 60 ] carried out by the same authors, the results indicated how students and university teachers indicated that they had faced difficulties, being extremely significant to the lack of training or the lack of teachers’ digital skills.

p < 0.05 indicated significant difference, and p < 0.01 indicated extremely significant difference.

There is not a clear description about ethical requirements, taking into account the authors catched insects landing on human, but they did not explain or described if there are some permission? in Ethiopia are some requirements? Which institution approved this work? -------------------- Results -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? -Are the results clearly and completely presented? -Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? Reviewer #1: The results of both approaches are complementary and extremely significant.