“extremely significant”

If p < 0.05, there was significant difference; if p < 0.01, the difference was extremely significant; if p > 0.05, there was no significant difference.

The variance was calculated by t test: p < 0.05 indicated a statistical significance, and p < 0.01 indicated an extremely significant difference (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01). 5.

Asterisks indicate significant or extremely significant differences from WT (*0.01≤ p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01) using a one-way ANOVA.

Significant and extremely significant differences were declared at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively.

The results were presented as the means ± SD, and the significant and extremely significant levels were set at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively. 3.

They were significantly or extremely significant different from the other three-way crossbred combinations and Han lambs ( P < 0.05 , P < 0.01 ).

It can be seen in Table 5 that the model had a value of P < 0.001, indicating that the regression model was extremely significant; the lack of the fit item was not significant ( P > 0.05), implying that the quadratic regression model fitted well with the actual situation.

A probability value was considered to be significant or extremely significant at P < 0.05 or P < 0.01, respectively. 3.

Statistical analysis shows significant differences between different treatments, with p < 0.05 indicating significant differences, p < 0.01 indicating extremely significant differences, and p > 0.05 indicating insignificant differences.

Adjusted P-values of P˂0.0001 (****) indicate extremely significant, P˂0.05 (*) significant, and P ≥ 0.05 (ns) not significant results, respectively.

p < 0.01 was regarded as extremely significant, while p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

The p -value < 0.01 indicates extremely significant differences, while the p -value < 0.05 indicates significant differences. 3.

Significant and extremely significant levels were set at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.01, respectively.

If p < 0.05, there was significant difference; if p < 0.01, the difference was extremely significant; if p > 0.05, there was no significant difference. 3.

( 2014 ) mentioned, for the hypothesis to be accepted, t -value should be >2.33 and therefore, p -value should be <0.01, which implies that it is extremely significant, while hypothesis has been accepted in this study by assuming t -value > 1.645 and thus p- value <0.05, which implies that it is significant.

The results display that the extract of Philodendron shootlets (Sample) provided an extremely significant ( p ≤ 0.05) increase in inhibiting the free radical ABTS + and converting it to the more stable ABTS state through the inhibitory activity of the radical of ABTS + and was estimated to be equivalent to Trolox.

p < 0.01 was regarded as extremely significant, while value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

The polynomial model was extremely significant in this experiment, as the p-value for Y is <0.0001 (P > 0.05).

p < 0.05 was considered to indicate a significant difference; p < 0.01 was considered to indicate an extremely significant difference; p > 0.05 indicates no significant difference. 5.

After correction, RIS, CPR, RNU, and CV all showed extremely significant decreases ( p < 0.05), indicating that the eccentricity effect was effectively suppressed and imaging uniformity was greatly improved.

The results were presented as the means ± SD, and the significant and extremely significant levels were set at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively.

Variance analysis revealed that the expression levels of these four genes showed significant differences or extremely significant ( p value < 0.05 or 0.01) between material ‘ZS4’ and ‘NY12’ ( Figure 7 and Table S4 ), suggesting that BnCKX5-1 , 5-2 , 6-1 , and 7-1 might help determine the length and development of siliques.

Statistical significance was evaluated using a t -test ( p < 0.01, extremely significant; 0.01 < p < 0.05, statistically significant).

P < 0.01 indicated that the difference between groups was extremely significant, P < 0.05 indicated that the difference between groups was significant, and P > 0.05 indicated that the difference between groups was not significant.

Besides, the expression of NLRP3 in the LPS group increased after LPS treatment and extremely significant increased at 12 and 24 h ( P < 0.05).