After P6, the estimated densities were very close to the real values, indicating that the cell loss occurred with no relation to the positioning of heterotypic cells.
At P12, the densities estimated from the DRPs at P6 were very similar to the real values, indicating that the loss of 17.7% of the cells that took place almost randomly between P6 and P12 is the main change during this period.
None of the shuffled values came close to the real values, indicating a p-value smaller than 0.01 for each matrix.
Therefore, the objective function simulated value for the energy total cost is equal to the real plant value, indicating the model coherency and accuracy.
Thus, this effect at higher shaking frequencies, leads to DOT signals closer to the real DOT values indicated by the OTR values measured under oxygen-limited conditions.
Before stimulation, both groups showed positive slope values indicating a lack of habituation in response to visual (N1 P1: real tDCS = +0.112, sham tDCS = +0.059; P1–N2: real tDCS = +0.055, sham tDCS = +0.039) and somatosensory (real tDCS = +0.448, sham tDCS = +0.234) repetitive stimulations.
Model 3, which incorporates the real uncertainty in parameter values, indicates that eliminating bycatch is much more likely to yield a recovering population than enhancing breeding success through terrestrial mitigation (Figure 5B).
If the phase ambiguity is estimated at a higher value than the real value, a negative PPR value could also indicate a phase delay.
So, even though the P-value indicated that the real r was significantly larger than our null-model, the indicated tendency could have been stronger, given the basic constraints of the null-model.
