Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

highly significantp<0.010.2× alphaqualifiedgold
When PS+ patients were further stratified into subgroups with moderate (+) and severe (++) pathology, there was a highly significant difference in NF-IR between PS+ patients with severe pathology (++) and the control group (p<0.01), and furthermore significant differences were apparent between the severe pathology group and those with absent (0) and moderate (+) pathology (p<0.05) ( figure 2D ).
highly significantp = 0.010.2× alphaqualifiedgold
In agreement with the outcomes of attribute weighting algorithms, ANOVA showed that that in respect to different HA subtypes (as dependent variable), differences between important structural features including Non-reduced cysteines Extinction, Count of Isoleucine, Freq of Cysteine, Freq of Aspartic Acid, Freq of Glutamic Acid, Freq of Glutamine, Freq of Arginine, Freq of Tyrosine, Percentage of Histidine, Percentage of Methionine, Percentage of Tryptophan, Percentage of Tyrosine, Count of Phe-Met, Freq of Pro-Gly, and Freq of Trp-Leu are highly significant (p = 0.01) ( Table S3 ).
highly significantp<.010.2× alphaqualifiedgold
approached significancep = .061.2× alpha
Both groups showed a positive relationship between these variables in each test session: this relationship approached significance in the first test session, r = .52 for Caf-PAL rats and r = .56 for Chow-CHOW rats, larger t (10) = 2.12, p = .06, and was highly significant in the final test session, r = .74 for Caf-PAL rats and r = .71 for Chow-CHOW rats, smaller t (10) = 3.21, p<.01.
highly significantP<0.010.2× alphaqualifiedgold
Results Total sugar, organic acid content and sugar-acid ratio There was no significant difference in the soluble sugar content among the different temperature and drought stress in the stages of white ripening (S1) and fruit coloration (S2), but both elevated temperature and drought had significant (P<0.05) and highly significant (P<0.01) effects on soluble sugar content in S3 ( Table 2 ).
marginally significantp = .010.2× alphagold
The ANOVA testing for differences in the magnitude of these effects was marginally significant ( F (2,22) = 5.187, p = .01), with post-hoc tests indicating that subjects reported equivalent responses to AMP and ALC, but liked both drugs more than THC (see Fig 3 and S1 Table ).