Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp = 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
For the absolute peak area values, the treatment was highly significant (PERMANOVA; pseudo- F = 30.019, p = 0.001), with a component of variation of 4.6922 (square root = 2.1662) and a clear separation between the treatment groups along PCO1, which explained 77.3% of the total variation ( Figure A).
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The analysis revealed a highly significant main effect of copper sulfate concentration on development time (F(4, 39) = 14.97, p < 0.001, partial η 2 = 0.606), demonstrating that increasing copper concentrations significantly delayed development.
highly significantP <.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
This is seen in the relationship between excessive daytime sleepiness and nonrestorative sleep, where the relationship is closer and more direct in middle age compared to young age or those >55 years old (eg, the P value was highly significant between the 18-30– and >55-year groups; P <.001).
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Similarly, effort expectancy (EE) was found to have a direct significant relationship with BI, showing a highly significant path coefficient (β = 0.783, t = 19.126, p < 0.001) and supporting H3, but failed to show a significant relationship with AIAT adoption (β = 0.045, t = 0.469, p = 0.639), rejecting H4.
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
This evidence was further confirmed by PERMANOVA ( Table 2 ), that indicated on the overall dataset (including both KO and WT mice, Table 2 a) highly significant R 2 values for P. aeruginosa infected compared to control mice in lung ( p < 0.001, R 2 = 0.099) and more mild differences for stool ( p < 0.05, R 2 = 0.03) and gut ( p < 0.05, R 2 = 0.04).
highly significantP -value < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Distribution of CADD scores between genomic regions Analysis of CADD score distributions per region revealed highly significant differences between benign and pathogenic variants for most genomic regions considered (Mann–Whitney U test, Benjamini–Hochberg FDR corrected P -value < 0.001), moderately significance for intergenic regions (adjusted P -value = .002), and no significant difference (adjusted P -value = 0.1554) for downstream regions, presumably because of the low number of pathogenic variants reported in this category ( n = 5).
borderline significantP<0.0010.0× alphagold
The pairwise comparison revealed that there was no significant difference between the adolescent group and the youth group (P = 0.711), the youth group > the middle-aged group (P < 0.04), and the middle-aged group > the old-aged group (P = 0.005); neutrophils H(3) = 16.854, p < 0.001, the difference between the four groups was statistically significant, pairwise comparisons revealed that the adolescent group <youth group (P=0.006), no significant difference between the youth group and middle-aged group (P=0.844), and the middle-aged group <elderly group (P=0.050) was borderline significant; monocyte H(3) =17.489, P<0.001, the difference between the four groups was statistically significant, and pairwise comparisons revealed that the elderly group >middle-aged group (P<0.001), the elderly group > the youth group (P = 0.017), the adolescent group > the middle-aged group (P = 0.005).