Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp < 10 −70.0× alphaqualifiedgold
These changes could reflect changes in the training of those who name species, as more species are named by scientists who are not classically trained taxonomists or who have less familiarity with Latin and Greek; however, these hypotheses would be difficult to test. A notable feature of the etymological patterns in table 2 is that they vary among the surveyed taxa (and this variation is highly significant: p < 10 −7 ).
highly significantP < 10 −70.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Indeed, intersecting the positively correlated genes with all genes that encode for chromatin binding proteins, or epifactors ( https://epifactors.autosome.ru/ ), showed highly significant enrichment (Fig 4B , green, 44 genes, fold‐enrichment = 2.33, P < 10 −7 , Fisher's exact test).
highly significantP=0. 00000010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
We found very strong evidence of association of multiple SNPs at TTC12 and ANKK1 in two different populations, EAs and AAs (minimal P=0.0007 in AAs and minimal P=0.00009 in EAs), and highly significant association of a single haplotype (set of markers) spanning TTC12 and ANKK1 to ND in the pooled sample (P=0. 0000001).
Genetics of drug dependence.
Dialogues Clin Neurosci · 2010 · PMC3181942
highly significantP <10 −70.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Statistical analysis carried out on the timing errors, pooled over all subjects after averaging over all repetitions of each condition (four-way ANOVA, 3 [viewing distance] x 5 [ball descent duration] x 2 [figure type] x 6 [character type]), showed highly significant effects of character type ( F 5,1168 = 113.188, P <10 −7 ) and figure type ( static versus dynamic , F 1,1168 = 25.180, P <10 −6 ), less significant effects of viewing distance ( F 2,1168 = 3.602, P <0.05) and of the interaction between character type and figure type ( F 5,1168 = 2.569, P <0.05).
highly significantp<.00000010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
A 2-way ANOVA on proportion of correct recalls revealed no main effect of group (F(1,34) = 3.51, p = .065, r = .25), but a highly significant effect of type of Encoding (F(1,34) = 44.45, p<.0000001, r = .75), and a significant interaction between Group and type of Encoding (F(1,34) = 9.14, p<.005, r = .46).
nominally significantp < 1.0 × 10 − 70.0× alphagold
Polygenic risk score (PRS) computation SNPs of PRS include: 1) SNPs that are statistically significant or nominally significant per GWAS threshold ( p < 1.0 × 10 − 7 and p < 1.0 × 10 − 6 , respectively) and exome sequencing analysis ( p < 9.2 × 10 − 7 and p < 9.2 × 10 − 6 , respectively) [ 14 ]; 2) Index SNPs or Proxy SNPs in 1 Mb region that were statistically significantly and nominally significantly associated with bone health ( p < p value threshold and p < 0.05, respectively).
highly significantP < 1 × 10 −70.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Interestingly, of these 117 genes a clear degradation effect was observed with 94 genes displaying preferential loss of a 3′ probeset and only 23 genes showing loss of a 5′ probeset suggesting highly significant (P < 1 × 10 −7 , repeat random sampling) 3′ degradation.
highly significantp < 1 × 10 −70.0× alphaqualifiedgold
ANCOVA with post-intervention VASs as the dependent variable and baseline VASa as covariate showed that the group effect remained highly significant after adjustment (F = 40.36, p < 1 × 10 −7 , η 2 = 0.25), confirming that the intervention effect is not explained by baseline differences the same applied for VASs (F(1,46) = 22.45, p = 2.1 × 10 −5 , η 2 = 0.12).