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=0.00040.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Intriguingly, however, we observed a modest, yet highly significant positive correlation between FBXW7 and MYC expression, exclusively in the Luminal A-subtype of breast cancers (rho=0.28, p=0.0004) (Figure 4A ).
MYC is a critical target of FBXW7.
Oncotarget · 2015 · PMC4413654
highly significantp = 0.00040.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Subsequent PCR- based HPV typing using type - specific primers revealed 32% were infected with HPV type 16 whereas 6% were found to be positive for HPV type 18, while in BPH controls only 5% of the BPH controls were infected with HPV 16 and this difference was highly significant (p = 0.0004).
highly significantp = 0.00040.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Group × time interactions were highly significant for LV dimensions, both LVIDd (F (4,40) = 6.57, p = 0.0004) and LVIDs (F (4,40) = 6.76, p = 0.0003), reflecting progressive dilatation in the MI-only group and attenuated increases in chamber size in the MI + HIIT group, with minimal changes in non-infarcted groups.
highly significantp =0.00040.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Precisely, PAL was more correlated with the non-reducing sugars ( R 2 =0.9767, p =0.0002) than reducing and total soluble sugars, while anthocyanin exhibited a highly significant correlation with non-reducing sugars ( R 2 =0.969, p =0.0004) and total soluble sugars ( R 2 =0.9686, p =0.0004) compared to the reducing sugars.
highly significantP < 0.00040.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Outcomes Symptom Scores Improved by Healing Pre- and post-treatment scores are summarized as median (interquartile ranges) in Table 2 , which shows changes that were highly significant statistically (all P < 0.0004) towards improvement during the study period.
highly significantP = 0.00040.0× alphaqualifiedgold
There was no difference in the slopes ( P = 0.58), but the difference in elevation was highly significant ( P = 0.0004), indicating that WT and M/Mt-CK −/− hearts do not share the same relationship for d P /d t max versus heart rate, but instead run in parallel (i.e. for any given heart rate, d P /d t max is lower in M/Mt-CK −/− hearts).