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 <0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
A highly significant decrease in the VAS digestive symptom score was observed in the Marsh stage 1 group (pre = 47.5 vs . post = 33.2, P <0.0001), whereas the change in the Marsh stage 0 group (pre = 45.9 vs . post = 44.0) was not significant.
highly significantP<0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
However, in the animals exposed at 115 dB SPL, the increases in ASR amplitude were highly significant at all stimulus levels from 105–120 dB SPL ( Fig. 4D ) (F 3,80 = 38.57, P<0.0001) and followed an initial period when startle responses were decreased below control levels ( Fig. 4C ).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Most of all there was a highly significant (p < 0.0001) decrease of LVEF (Figure 2 ), systolic anterior velocity (Figure 3 and 4 ) as well as an increase of LVEDD. 2-D-strain decreased particularly in the anteroseptal, anterior and lateral areas but not at all in the inferior segment (Figure 5 and 6 ).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
5 E) levels in the tumor tissues of the PAC treatment group compared to the control group, with both lipid peroxidation and Fe 2+ levels exhibiting an increase of over 10 times that of the control group, indicating a highly significant statistical distinction between the two groups (p < 0.0001).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Two-way ANOVA revealed highly significant main effects of both cell type (F 1,14 = 89.42, p < 0.0001) and ZnO concentration (F 3,14 = 11.00, p < 0.001), with no significant interaction effect (F 3,14 = 1.25, p = 0.326), indicating that the differential sensitivity pattern remains consistent across all tested concentrations.
highly significantP < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The 1st study null hypothesis was comparatively rejected concerning the material factor as the obtained results showed a highly significant difference in marginal adaptation (evaluated from the marginal gap distance mean values) [F (1,36) = 35.80, P < 0.0001] and the fracture resistance mean values [F (1,36) = 641.2, P < 0.0001] between G1 “Nanoksa G-PLUS” and G2 “VITA ENAMIC” endocrown restorative materials; (Tables 2 and 3 ; Figs. 8 and 9 ).