Barely Significant
← all phrases

“highly significant”

132,143 sentences · 132,143 papers · 160,126 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.09

Listed by Hankins (2013)

In the literature

highly significantP = .00190.0× alphaqualifiedgold
In a multivariate logistic regression model, Asian American race and lower educational attainment were associated with significantly lower odds (adjusted OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.26-0.69; and adjusted OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.98, respectively) of annual adherence with LCS after adjustment for age, sex, smoking status, and COPD ( e-Table 3 , Table 4 ) The likelihood ratio statistic is 26.20 and is highly significant ( P = .0019), thus refuting the null hypothesis that all coefficients are simultaneously insignificant and supporting that variables included in the model are important determinants of LCS adherence ( Table 4 ).
highly significantp = 0.00190.0× alphaqualifiedgold
In LIS, we found a highly significant difference in salinity between restricted vs. reference sites (p = 0.0019; t 40 = 3.33), but not for temperature (p = 0.1588; t 40 = −1.44) or dissolved oxygen (p = 0.3821; t 40 = −0.88), which also mirrored results in the GOM (salinity: p<0.0001, t 40 = 11.89; temperature: p = 0.1409, t 40 = −1.50; dissolved oxygen: p = 0.2253, t 40 = −1.23; Table 2 ).
highly significantP = 1.9 × 10 −30.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Further, methylation differences between old and young ages were highly significant, with methylation at most elements decreased in old age ( t -test P = 1.9 × 10 −3 for H strand and 1.4 × 10 −4 for L strand) ( Fig. 3 B). mtDNA methylation negatively correlates with mitochondrial gene expression Although mtDNA is transcribed in a polycistronic fashion, mRNA levels of individual genes differ substantially, reflecting differences in processing, stability, or turnover of each mRNA ( Supplemental Fig.
highly significantp < 0.00190.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Group differences Multivariate statistical analyses of the relative proportion of each substance sampled from the 15 family groups revealed highly significant differences in chemical profiles of temporal (ANOSIM, global R = 0.45, p < 0.0019), genital (ANOSIM, global R = 0.45, p < 0.0001) and buccal (ANOSIM, global R = 0.39, p < 0.0001) secretions between groups (Table 2 ).