Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantP<0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
DystromiRs All three dystromiRs were markedly elevated in DE50-MD serum ( Figure 5 ): under linear mixed model analysis, genotype was highly significant (P<0.0001) for all three miRs, while the effect of time was not significant for any (though a modest interaction of genotype and time was detected).
highly significantp < 1.00E-040.0× alphaqualifiedgold
a trend towards significancep = 0.071.4× alpha
There was a small (median differences = 0.01-0.04) but highly significant increase of DNA methylation in females compared to males in FBXL5 and CACYBP (p < 1.00E-04) and a trend towards significance for SCMH1 (p = 0.07), in the diabetes study where samples of both sexes were included [ 27 ] (Figure 6 ).
highly significantP < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
However, the strength of the association between water source (private well or regulated water utility) and blood Pb concentration is highly significant ( Z = 8.13, P < 0.0001) even when controlling for other variables that may indicate other exposure sources (such as household age, an indicator of the risk of exposure from dust and soil containing remnants of Pb paint).
highly significantp = 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The difference between the two averages of the peak heart rate was highly significant ( p = 0.0001; Wilcoxon signed-rank test, W = −225, n s/ r = 21, z = −3.9).
Heart Rate Behavior in Speed Climbing.
Front Psychol · 2020 · PMC7358187
highly significantP < .00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Results: Patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma exhibited significantly elevated levels of epithelial membrane antigen and cytokeratin-1 compared to non-hepatocellular carcinoma patients, with a highly significant statistical difference ( P < .0001).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
SREBQ ‐change in Self‐regulating Eating Behaviour Questionnaire Scores (Level of self‐regulatory eating skills) was highly significant across the study, chi‐square p < 0.0001, with 44% rating low at baseline versus 0% at week 12; 44% rating medium at baseline and vs. 40% at 12 weeks and 12% rating high baseline at baseline vs. 60% at 12 weeks, ( n = 16).