Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Fitting the Mathematical Models Highly significant second-order polynomial models ( p < 0.0001) with an insignificant lack-of-fit were satisfactorily fitted to predict the independent variables based on the multiple linear regression analysis of the experimental data ( Table 2 ).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Consequently, the AHRU group showed higher scores in all three scoring systems, with a highly significant difference (all p < 0.0001) in comparison to the non-AHRU group (CHAMPS: 2.5 (2, 4) vs. 1 (0, 2); NOBLADS: 4 (3, 5) vs. 3 (2, 4); ABC: 3.5 (2, 7) vs. 2 (1, 4)), suggesting that AHRU was potentially associated with worse clinical outcomes.
highly significantP < .00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The mean anesthesia time was significantly shorter in the WALANT group, averaging 3.6 ± 0.5 minutes (95% CI 3.44-3.76), compared with 8.4 ± 2.0 minutes in the LRA group (95% CI 7.61-9.19), demonstrating a highly significant difference ( P < .0001).
highly significantP -value < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
No significant differences in the prognostic value are noted between iPET-2 and i-PET-4 with both showing highly significant differences in EFS between the CMR and nCMR patients ( P -value < 0.0001): patients with iPET-2-CMR and iPET-2-nCMR had 3-y-EFS’s of 93.1% and 45.5%, respectively while the respective values for patients with iPET-4-CMR and iPET-4-nCMR were 89.5 and 39.4%.
a significant trendP < 0.00010.0× alphagold
According to data published by the Companion Animal Parasite Council website ( www.capcvet.org ), the percentage of Ohio dogs tested positive for exposure to the Lyme disease spirochete by the SNAP 4Dx Plus Test was 0.39% (218 of 54,963) for 2011, 0.55% (250 of 45,376) for 2012, 0.56% for 2013 (543 of 96,016), and 0.62% (102 of 16,343) for 2014 as of April 23, 2014, showing a significant trend of increase ( P < 0.0001, Chi-square test for trend).
highly significantp<<0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Thermal Detection Thresholds ANCOVA with age as a covariate (partialing out the highly significant age-related effects) revealed a highly significant effect of group (F 2,113 = 30.04, p<<0.0001), body side (ipsilateral vs. contralateral: F 1,113 = 12.39, p<0.001) and group x side interaction (F 2,113 = 4.65, p<0.05) for the cold detection threshold (CDT).