Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp = 0.00210.0× alphaqualifiedgold
However, comparing methylation frequency among newborns to adults (control population of n = 3602 with the addition of a separate group of 292 young females reported in our study), the difference in methylation frequency between newborns and adults was highly significant (Fisher’s exact test; p = 0.0021).
highly significantp < 0.00210.0× alphaqualifiedgold
A highly significant linear regression equation for the observed data ( p < 0.0021; R 2 = 0.9958) further confirmed a smooth geometric progression in the larval instars of D. helophoroides , validating the geometrical development of head capsule widths across successive instars as proposed by Brooks–Dyar’s Law.
highly significantp = 0.00210.0× alphaqualifiedgold
After FDR correction across the two pre-specified correlations, the THBS1–AMH correlation remained significant (Pearson r = 0.351, raw p = 0.036, p _FDR = 0.036; Bonferroni p _corr = 0.072) and the THBS1–LH correlation remained highly significant (Pearson r = 0.496, raw p = 0.0021, p _FDR = p _Bonf = 0.0042).
highly significantp = 0.00214830.0× alphaqualifiedgold
In addition, the differences between RTs for both phase ranges were highly significant (monkey B: 45.0 ms, n = 16, p = 0.0021483, t = 3.3579; monkey T: 48.9 ms, n = 18, p = 0.011919, t = 2.6571; paired Student’s t -tests, two-sided) and this effect was equally strong for RTs following the reappearance of the initial shape at the end of MCs 2 and 3 (Supplementary Fig. 5 ).
a decreasing trendp = 2.17 × 10 –30.0× alphagold
Calcifications vary by pathological stage Both lattice parameters (‘a’ and ‘c’ axes) for HAP showed a decreasing trend with increasing pathological stage, with a significant weak negative correlation between the ‘c’ axis and pathological stage (r τ = − 0.284, p = 2.17 × 10 –3 ) (Fig. 4 a,b).
highly significantp = 0.00220.0× alphaqualifiedgold
In a positive/negative thresholded analysis, without taking into account expression level in the positive patients, channel expression did not add predictive value over age alone in the elderly and mid-age patients (older than 65 and 17.28 to 65 years; p = 0.59 and 0.44), but was still highly significant as a bad prognostic factor in young patients (p = 0.0022).