Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
In both experiments, running it this way resulted in highly significant negative effects of ΔCue and ΔTarget (both p < 0.001), but positive effects of ΔCue*ΔTarget ( p < 0.001), presumably because after accounting for the negative independent predictions of both ΔCue and ΔTarget, ΔCue*ΔTarget values actually were better than expected.
highly significantP<0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
With pollen from plants with S 1 S 3 haplotypes, SI induced strong inhibition of pollen tube length (22.1%, P<0.001 ***, n=300) and addition of as- PrpS 1 -ODNs gave a highly significant recovery of SI-treated tubes (58.3% increase in length compared to SI-treated; P<0.001, ***, n=150), and incompatible pollen responded in a bimodal manner, consistent with only S 1 pollen being affected ( Supplemental Fig 4 ).
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
In OFT, reduced locomotor activity/exploratory behavior was evidenced by a highly significant decrease in the number of rearings ( p < 0.001; Figure 7B ), line crossings ( p < 0.001; Figure 7A ), and time spent in inner squares ( p < 0.01; Figure 7C ) in the infected group as compared to the control group.
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The wealth index remained a strong predictor: compared to the poorest quintile, children in the richer quintiles had 56% lower odds of stunting in column 5 (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.33–0.56), attenuating to 46% (95% CI = 0.39–0.73) in the fully adjusted model, though both effects remained highly significant, p < 0.001.
a significant trendP<0.0010.0× alphagold
The group switched to oral β-blockers showed a significant trend towards a lower LVEF (P<0.001) and was more likely to have a heart rate >140 beats/min (P=0.003) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) >120 mmHg (P<0.001) at the time of landiolol initiation.
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Previous studies have demonstrated highly significant correlations ( p < 0.001) between mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy in the quantification of blood levels of metabolites [ 36 ] For total BCAAs levels, a previously published large-scale UK Biobank study that used Nightingale NMR profiling listed a % coefficient of variation (%CV) of approximately 5–6% [ 37 ]. 2.5.
highly significantP<0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Quantification of the area under the curve indicated that nivolumab did not have a particularly prominent tumor suppressive effect on the PDO in co-culture ( Figure 3D ); however, our analysis of organoid tumor activity in co-culture indicated a highly significant reduction in PDO cell viability (P<0.001) after treatment with a high concentration of nivolumab compared to that in the control ( Figure 3E ).
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Moreover, codeine consumption in the first, second and third months after surgery was significantly lower in the dexamethasone group than in the control group, with highly significant time*group interactions; P < 0.001, F = 31 and df = 1.7 (Fig. 5 ).
highly significantp=0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
However, when the data were analyzed along the lines of gender a highly significant difference was observed between the genotype distribution of the male POAG and control samples (χ 2 =13.2 [p=0.001]; Table 1 ), while no significant difference was observed in the case of the females (χ 2 =2.93 [p>0.05]; Table 1 ).
highly significantP <0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The cytoplasmic scores for Bag-1 intensity were not significantly different between the normal tissue samples and the SCC samples ( P =0.272; Figure 2H ), whereas there was a highly significant difference in nuclear Bag-1 staining between the normal samples and SCC samples ( P <0.001; Figure 2G ).
highly significantp value < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Mean and standard deviation values are listed in Table 1 . Statistical analysis for comparison among the two groups concerning mean values of primary stability showed a significant difference between them, p value = 0.014 and upon comparing the mean values of secondary stability between the two groups, a highly significant difference was found, p value < 0.001.