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 < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
In both subgroups of participants, with two or only one MVA vaccination, and younger than 50 years, we found an increasing OPXV ATI-N antibody prevalence with increasing number of partners (combining the two subgroups we tested the association with partner numbers in a Chi2 test, which was highly significant p < 0.001), suggesting that undiagnosed Mpox infections may have contributed to the OPXV antibody prevalence (see Table 4 ).
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Comparison of Gingival Bleeding within Substance Abusers Within the subgroups of substance abusers, the mean score of gingival bleeding was a maximum of 14.36 for alcohol and a minimum of 5.56 for tobacco smoking that showed statistically highly significant difference ( P < 0.001) ( Table 3 ). 3.2.7.
highly significantp < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
We found a highly significant effect of electrode site on saccade direction (p ≪ 0.001, F = 84.14, d.f. = 3, see Fig. 2 ), but also the stimulation current impacted the direction (p < 0.001, F = 16.39, d.f. = 1) as well as the interaction of current and electrode (p < 0.001, F = 6.94, d.f. = 3), indicating that the rotational change induced by a higher current was not consistent across electrodes.
highly significantp<0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
For example, differences in mean scores relating to ‘Cleanliness and Facilities’, ‘Open and Friendliness’ and ‘Compassion and Kindness’ were highly significant (p<0.001), with women with disabilities rating these as better than women without disabilities.
highly significantP < 0.0010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
marginally nonsignificantP = 0.0621.2× alphagold
The within-population variation among gut samples ( n = 8 to 12 individuals per population) was marginally nonsignificant (SS = 0.527; pseudo- F = 1.4396, P = 0.062), while the variance between fish populations from different rivers was highly significant (SS = 9.566; pseudo- F = 2.9037, P < 0.001).