Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The statistical analysis ( Table 1 ) confirms that the sex of the interaction partner is a highly significant ( p < 0.001) predictor of shifts in trust; the negative B -value indicates that male interaction partners induce a decrease in trust (in comparison to the anonymous setting), while female interaction partners induce an increase in trust, both in male and female participants.
extremely significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualified
The p -value of this experimental model is much less than 0.01, indicating that this model has a high degree of significance (significant at p < 0.05, extremely significant at p < 0.001), and the lack of fit p = 0.077 < 0.05 indicates that the experimental processes are nearly not affected by other unknown factors.
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The mutation rate was threefold elevated in RAD54 −/− mutants compared to the wild type, and the increase in mutation rate was highly significant in all seven mutants when compared to the wild type ( p < 0.001, χ 2 test on the summed counts with Bonferroni’s correction for multiple comparison).
a decreasing trendp < 0.0010.0× alphagold
All‐cause 30‐day mortality due to BM The overall 30‐day mortality of BM was 9% (981/10,771); it was 3% in children and 14% in adults, with a decreasing trend since 1987 in adults, particularly among the elderly (annual change −2%, CI95% −4 to −1, p < 0.001), but also among nonvaccinated adults (annual change −3%, CI95% −5 to −2, p < 0.001) (Fig.
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
This could be explained by the highly significant linear relationship (χ 2 = 130.73, p < 0.001) between SIMD and maternal age, with maternal age increasing as SIMD increased: SIMD 1 and SIMD 2 have more younger mothers with a pregnancy with DS (18%, 15%, respectively) compared to SIMD 4 and SIMD 5 (5% and 2%, respectively) ( Appendix 1 , Table S8 ).
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The results of the study indicate that the intervention had a highly significant and substantial effect on agility performance; the high level of significance of the group × time interaction ( p < 0.001) and large effect size (η p 2 = 0.512) clearly demonstrate the intervention-specific effect of the marked reduction in IA duration observed in the experimental group (F = 23.056, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.512).