Barely Significant

Excerpts

5,163 sentences · 1 filter applied

highly significantP =0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Data from six animals revealed mean peak MRI signal changes of 5.3±0.9% during wtCGRP injection, compared with changes of 1.2±0.1% during injection of aCSF alone; the difference between wtCGRP and vehicle was highly significant ( t -test P =0.001).
Molecular imaging with engineered physiology.
Nat Commun · 2016 · PMC5146284
highly significantp value <0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The normalization procedure yields a statistically highly significant correlation (adjusted R 2 = 0.68 with p value <0.001), thus supporting our hypothesized exponential relationship between MAR at a certain location in the fjord, relative to both the core location’s distance to the margin of the most productive glacier and to the surface runoff from the glacier catc
highly significantp = 0.00110.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Although no parity history was available on these publicly available cases, upon applying our PPBC gene signature to this YWBC cohort ( n = 311 patients with both ER+ and ER− disease) we observed a highly significant decrease in 15-year overall survival in breast cancer patients with a PPBC Hi signature score (HR 2.134, p = 0.0011) compared with those with a low score (PPBC Lo, Fig. 5f ).
highly significantP = 0.0020.0× alphaqualifiedgold
2a ), leading to highly significant two pairs of negative correlations between SALL4 and miR-200c ( P = 0.002, R = -0.3157, Pearson’s correlation coefficients) or miR-200c and PD-L1 ( P = 0.0007, R = -0.3469, Pearson’s correlation coefficients), accompanied with a positive correlation between SALL4 and PD-L1 expression ( P < 0.0001, R = 0.3773, Pearson’s correlation coefficients) (Fig. 2b ); however, no statistical correlation among these molecules was identified in peritumor regions ( P = 0.2441, R = 0.0771; P = 0.2927, R = 0.0604; P = 0.3921, R = 0.0292, Pearson’s correlation coefficients) (Fig. 2c, d ).
highly significantp = 0.0020.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Correlation analysis showed that among mice that reached the learning criterion in the cue discrimination task, there was a highly significant ( p = 0.002) correlation, when data from centromedial and centrolateral sites were combined, between learning index and the difference in area under the curve (AUC) of the dopamine responses to reward-predicting and non-reward-predicting cues (Fig. 5c ).