Suggestions(1)
Exact(1)
P-values were determined by a permutation F2-test, in which residuals were shuffled 10000 times globally.
Similar(59)
P-values were determined by a permutation F2 test in which residuals were shuffled 5000 times globally.
This difference in the enhancer was highly significant as assessed both by a Mann–Whitney test (p = 0.003) and by a permutation test (200 permutations, p < 0.005).
The significance of STEM profiles are calculated by comparing the number of proteins assigned the number of proteins expected by a permutation test (50 being the default value) and the profiles p-value.
The LOD threshold for a Type I error P < 0.05 value was calculated by a permutation test [ 60] implemented in Windows QTL Cartographer with 1,000 permutations independently for each trait.
The threshold for genome-wide significance was set by a permutation test using 100,000 permutations.
The number of identified highly conserved elements were compared to random expectation by a permutation test with 10,000 iterations (random permutations of the regions conserved with human for each species and each histone mark independently), counting the number of randomly expected promoters and enhancers conserved across at least all ten high-quality genomes.
RK-gag was 70% higher than the codon optimized AD-gag, with a p-value <0.00001 calculated by a permutation test (see Figure 1).
Indeed, the p value can be estimated by a permutation test and is <3 × 10−4.
If one defines a significant association using P<0.05, then selection-candidate genes associate with traits in 4.69% of tests, while random genes associate with traits in 5.04% of tests (Figure 2), a difference that is not statistically significant by a permutation test (P = 0.0850).
If one defines a significant association using P<0.01, then selection-candidate genes associate with traits in 1.07% of tests, while random genes associate in 1.01% of tests (Figure 2), a difference that is also not statistically significant by a permutation test (P = 0.5469).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com