Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
By metaphase, statistically highly significant EBV-IS ( p < 0.0001) were located on 13q21 (33 metaphases); 19q13 and 22q12 (16 metaphases); 1p35, 2p23, 2q31, 7p22, and 13p11 (15 metaphases); 3q26 and 7q21 (13 metaphases); 2q21, 4q21, and 4q34 (12 metaphases); 15q14, and 17q25 (11 metaphases); as well as 1q31 and 12q21 (eight metaphases).
highly significantp ≤ 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
When comparisons of the relative proportions of each tick species within area were performed, highly significant differences (χ2 (3) = 1435.36; p ≤ 0.0001) were found for each of the two major tick species (individual components of χ2 (1) ≤ 93 for R. pusillus and H. lusitanicum ), indicating a strong association with area.
extremely significantP < 0.00010.0× alphaqualified
Interestingly, our two-way ANOVA revealed that this increment is only owing to the extremely significant effect of tramadol treatment ( F [1, 30] = 21.34, P < 0.0001), since no statistically significant effect was seen for the time of tramadol administration ( F [2, 30] = 1.926, P=0.1633) or for the time-treatment interaction ( F [2, 30] = 1.557, P = 0.2274).
highly significantp <0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Relationship to the clinical manifestations C.albicans was found in four (eight percent) of the fifty cases, which were the only cases with apical radiolucency. Apical radiolucency and the presence of C.albicans were found to have a highly significant correlation ( p <0.0001), according to the statistical analysis.
highly significantp < .00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Fig 1A shows that this pattern of massive difference occurred in the raw data at all three Ages, and the 95% confidence intervals make clear that the differences were highly significant (at all three Ages, p < .0001) with extremely large effect sizes (Cohen’s d = 2.7, 3.0 and 2.7 at the three Ages respectively).
showed a trendP = 0.00010.0× alpha
The levels of IL-6, NF-κB, iNOS, and NGAL were significantly altered or showed a trend towards being altered by chronic noise and APP/PS1 overexpression (Fig. 5 a–d, ANOVA output: IL-6: exposure F (1,18) = 24.27, P = 0.0001, genotype F (1,18) = 0.5591, P = 0.4643, interaction F (1,18) = 0.005064, P = 0.9441, post hoc WT CON vs WT NOISE P = 0.0080 , WT CON vs APP/PS1 CON P = 0.9629 ,
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Under 200 mg/kg of Cd 2+ , the Cd 2+ contamination in the shoots and roots of transgenic plants was 24.6−30.5% and 45.5−51.3% higher than that of the WT, respectively ( Figure 4 c,d), and all of the transgenic lines showed a highly significant difference compared with the WT ( p < 0.0001).