Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp ≤ 0.010.2× alphaqualifiedgold
Statistical differences were designated as significant if p -values were less than 0.05 (* p ≤ 0.05), and highly significant if p -values were less than 0.01 (** p ≤ 0.01), less than 0.001 (*** p ≤ 0.001) or less than 0.0001 (**** p ≤ 0.0001). 3.
extremely significantp < 0.010.2× alphaqualified
The self-agglutination rate of strain S584Δ galU was 3.47 times faster than that of strain S584, and the difference was extremely significant ( p < 0.01), but there was no significant difference between the self-agglutination rate of S584 and S584Δ galU R strains ( p > 0.05; Figure 2 ).
highly significantp < 0.010.2× alphaqualifiedgold
Interestingly, we observed that nuclear genetic distance was strongly correlated with mitochondrial distance (r = 0.581, p < 0.01; Table 2 and Figure S2 ), and this relationship remained highly significant after controlling any other variables ( p < 0.01; Table 2 ), suggesting a pattern of isolation by colonization.
extremely significantp < 0.010.2× alphaqualified
Changes in TPC and TFC of the extracts were influenced by the combined effects of dietary supplements and the phases of in vitro digestion, and the effects were considered extremely significant ( p < 0.01).
extremely significantp < 0.010.2× alphaqualified
Germination Test and Seedling Growth Test According to a comparative analysis of the physiological indices of ten seeds from the 24 maize hybrid seed lots of eight cultivars, the indices of three seed lots of the same cultivar all exhibited the same trend in change: 2023 seed lot > 2022 seed lot > 2021 seed lot; the differences in the vigour indices (such as the GI and VI) among the three seed lots of the same cultivar were significant ( p < 0.05) or extremely significant ( p < 0.01).
markedly significantP < 0.010.2× alphaqualified
The variation in shivering was markedly significant at 30, 45, and 60 min among group I and group III ( P < 0.01) [ Table 4 ], while at 5, 10, 15, and 90 min the variation in shivering was statistically insignificant ( P < 0.05).
a positive trendp = .0100.2× alphagold
a negative trendp = .67113.4× alphagold
The direction of the simple slopes for each condition suggests a pro-inflammatory phenotype had a positive trend on stress recovery in the nature condition (SNS: β = -0.335, 95% CI [-0.586, -0.083], p = .010; RMSSD: β = 0.134, 95% CI [-0.117, 0.385], p = .290; PNS: β = 0.186, 95% CI [-0.043, 0.414], p = 0.110) but a negative trend on stress recovery in the office condition (SNS: β = 0.055, 95% CI [-0.202, 0.311], p = .671; RMSSD: β = -0.248, 95% CI [-0.502, 0.007], p = .056; PNS: β = -0.148, 95% CI [-0.381, 0.084], p = .206), although these trends were modest and mostly non-significant.