Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

marginal significancep < 1 × 10 −50.0× alphagold
Four SNPs showed associations with post-RT pain at the marginal significance level of p < 1 × 10 −5 ; rs16970540 in ring finger and FYVE-like domain containing E3 ubiquitin protein ligase ( RFFL) or near to DNA ligase 3 ( LIG3 ) gene ( p = 1.7 × 10 −6 ), rs4584690, and rs7335912 in ATP-binding cassette, sub-family A, member 4 ( ABCC4)/ multidrug resistance protein 4 (MRP4) gene ( p = 5.5 × 10 −6 and p = 7.8 × 10 −6 , respectively), and rs73633565 in epidermal growth factor-like protein 6 ( EGFL6 ) gene ( p = 8.1 × 10 −6 ).
markedly significantP < 0.000010.0× alphaqualified
We found that the cure rate and the effective rate of the combination therapy was much higher than that of NB-UVB alone (the between-group difference was markedly significant (OR = 3.34, 95% CI: 2.04–5.48, and P < 0.00001 and OR = 5.04, 95% CI: 2.65–9.57, and P < 0.00001, resp.).
highly significantp <0.000010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Besides, we use the Pearson Chi-Square test to evaluate the distribution of FIGO stages I, II, III, IV among expansile and infiltrative tumors, and found there was a highly significant association between tumor type and FIGO staging (Pearson chi2(3) = 110.9206, p <0.00001) Figure 4D . 3.3.4 Publication bias Publication bias was investigated by Begg’s funnel plots.
showed a trendp = 0.000010.0× alpha
Age showed a trend for association with individuals with both diseases (p = 0.00001; OR = 3.6, 95% C.I. 0.9-10.7) and chronic periodontitis alone (p = 0.002; OR = 3.0; 95% C.I. 0.8-10.52), suggesting that the difference in the distribution of BRINP3 alleles between healthy and individuals affected by peri-implantitis is confounded by the difference in the age of both groups (healthy individuals were on average 8 years younger than the affected individuals; Table 1 ).
highly significantP<0.000010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
This superiority of RBZ and RBZ + Laser compared to laser treatment in terms of a positive effect on BCVA were highly significant (WMD = 5.65, 95% CI, 4.44–6.87, P<0.00001 and WMD = 5.02, 95% CI, 3.83–6.20, P<0.00001, respectively), with no heterogeneity identified ( Fig. 2A and 2B ).
highly significantp=0.000010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
There was very highly significant difference in the marital status of the two groups of study p=0.00001; HIV+ve had more divorcees and widows than HIV-ve (8.6% vs 1.9%), (25.7% vs3.8%) respectively and 88.9% (n=24/27) of the HIV+ve widows testified that their husbands died of HIV infections.
highly significantp < 10 -50.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Simple (paired t -) tests showed for the comparison of Fabrics 1 and 2 (the least and second least liked) a highly significant difference (t = -6.8, p < 10 -5 ), whereas Fabrics 3 and 4 (the second most and the most liked fabrics) were not significantly different ( t = -1.0, p > 0.1) and ratings for Fabrics 2 and 4 were just significantly different ( t = -2.3, p < 0.05).
highly significantP < .000010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Estimation of the SNP effect from the haplotype effect Under the hypothesis that one SNP of each haplotype was expected to have a major effect on the recorded trait, direct observation of those haplotype alleles that showed a highly significant effect (P < .00001) on one trait allowed to select one SNP where the two alleles showed opposite effects on that trait.
highly significantP < .000010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Table 2 shows the intergroup and intragroup comparisons between Group A and Group D using one-way analysis of variance wherein a significant difference was observed between all four groups when intergroup and intragroup comparisons were made, while the results were found to be statistically highly significant ( P < .00001).
highly significantp < 0.000010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
fairly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Similarly, Table 3 shows the multiple comparison using Dunn’s multiple comparison test with the results being fairly significant ( p < 0.001) for the Watch–Access pair, very highly significant ( p < 0.00001) for the Watch anti-TB without duplicates pair, and highly significant ( p < 0.0001) for the Watch anti-TB (all) pair.
showed a trendp<0.000010.0× alpha
Subgroup analysis of six studies with higher cumulative dose of statin use, defined as statin use over 180 cumulative defined daily doses (cDDDs) or 0.5 years (cumulative duration), showed a trend towards more risk reduction of liver cancer (RR=0.53, 0.36 to 0.79), but with a high degree of heterogeneity (I 2 =90%, p<0.00001; see online supplementary figure S7).