Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp < .0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Using dichotomous (breast-fed or not) outcomes, we found highly significant associations between how they had been fed and future intentions for Scottish (χ 2 (1) =52.3, p < .001); Nordic (χ 2 (1) = 24.6, p < .001); and USA (χ 2 (1) = 19.4, p < .001) participants.
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Linkage between sampling, data collection, and analysis methods Pearson’s chi-squared tests revealed highly significant associations between sampling strategies and data collection methods (χ 2 = 540.49, df = 220, p < 0.001), sampling strategies and data analysis methods (χ 2 = 198.87, df = 66, p < 0.001), as well as between data collection and data analysis methods (χ 2 = 386.26, df = 120, p < 0.001), indicating strong interdependencies among these methodological choices.
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
In Penno et al.’s study, subjects with eGDR < 4.14 had a hypertension prevalence of 99.5%, subjects with eGDR value between 4.15 and 5.34 also had a hypertension prevalence of 98.7%, and subjects with eGDR ≥ 5.34 had a hypertension prevalence of 52.8% [ 11 ]; In their work, they also used euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp test to exam the correlation between eGDR and the level of measured glucose disposal rate, the results demonstrated that the correlation of eGDR with measured glucose disposal rate was highly significant (r = 0.624, P < 0.001).
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
An ANOVA comparing the impact of these parameters with biological variation in both species revealed that although all effects are highly significant (Table S1, P < 0.001), the sensitivity parameters explain only a minor component of the total variation in oROM in both species (Table S1, effect size: sums of squares; Fig. 8 ).
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Structure–function correlation When comparing correlations between fiber counts and functional connectivity strength between groups, we found that both groups exhibited moderate, yet highly significant (all subjects p < 0.001), levels of structural–functional connectivity correlations (TD: r = 0.32 +/− 0.03, ASD: r = 0.32 +/− 0.04, p = 0.77 for the group difference).