Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Analysis of variance revealed that in 2022, except for the location effect, genotype, treatment, and their interactions (genotype × location and location × treatment), all had highly significant effects ( p < 0.001), and genotype and environmental factors (location + treatment) accounted for 56.09% and 17.74% of overall variance, respectively.
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
6B that the fluorescence intensity in the SMMC-7721 cells (155.66 ± 7.06) and HepG2 cells (41.58 ± 3.19) was higher than that of L02 cells (0.001 ± 0.0) incubated with FA-PEG-QDs for 2 h and there was a highly significant difference ( p < 0.001) in fluorescence intensity between L02 cells and the hepatocarcinoma cells (HepG2 and SMMC-7721), confirming that FA-PEG-QDs can target more easily cancer cells than normal cells.
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Hypothesis H2 proposed that "General self-efficacy has a significant positive impact on comprehensive literacy perceived improvement." Path analysis showed that the path coefficient from general self-efficacy to comprehensive literacy perceived improvement was 0.532, with a critical ratio of 7.456, highly significant at the p < 0.001 level.
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
There were highly significant power suppressions during motor imagery compared to baseline, both in the alpha band (Figure 2 A -left panel; 8–12 Hz, [0 1] s after stimulus onset: p < 0.001; [−1 0] s before response: p < 0.001) and in the beta band (Figure 3 A -left panel; 16–24 Hz, [0 1] s after stimulus onset: p < 0.001; [−1 0] s before response: p < 0.001).
showed a trendp < 0.0010.0× alpha
In 2013, the site showed a trend similar to Lecciona, with significant differences among belts ( F = 25.277, p < 0.001) and mean abundances ranging from 0.29 ± 0.08 in B1 to 0.46 ± 0.08 in B2 and 1.18 ± 0.10 in B3, corresponding to 14, 37, and 66 individuals, respectively.
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The overall model was highly significant ( P < 0.001), that is, our model explained the development of CVD better than the null model (model with no explanatory variables), and provided the following cutoff points: optimal , 10 (square root = 0.343); discard , 7 (negative likelihood ratio = 0.07); and confirmation , 14 (positive likelihood ratio = 10.56).