Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

highly significantp < 0.00050.0× alphaqualifiedgold
When we included latitude as a predictor in the model it explained additional variance to the temperature effect and both temperature, temperature 2 and latitude were highly significant independent predictors (e.g. for the January temperature effect the explained variance by temperature and temperature 2 was 16.8% (F 2,2648 = 268.0, p < 0.0005) and when latitude was included the explained variation increased to 20.1% (F 3,2647 = 221.98, p < 0.0005).
highly significantP < 0.00050.0× alphaqualifiedgold
A highly significant binomial GLMM (χ 2 ML = 33.24, N obs = 196, P < 0.0005; Table 1 ) revealed that, while controlling for the potentially confounding effects of age, sex, group size, the number of zoos a subject had lived in, and task identity, Sumatran subjects were significantly more likely to solve a task than their Bornean congeners (B = 1.934, SE = 0.74, z = 2.63, P < 0.01, Fig. 1 , Table 1 ).
highly significantp = 6.50E-040.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Using this approach, we found that a highly significant overrepresented upregulated pathway (p = 6.50E-04) was the Hsf1 ( heat shock factor 1 )-dependent transactivation pathway, with the following twenty upregulated transcripts supporting this pathway enrichment, including: Akt1s1 , Rptor , Tnfrsf21 , Serpinh1 , Hspa1b , Hspa1a , Col4a6 , Fkbp4 , Cryab , Mtor , Camk2b , Hsf1 , Ubb , Mlst8 , Hspb8 , Hspb1 , Hspb2 , Slc29a1 , Hspa2 , Dedd2 .
highly significantP = 0.00070.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Quantitative analyses confirmed that the Mrp2 immunogold labelling density in Wortmannin-inhibited samples remained as high as in controls despite insulin stimulation, while insulin also in the new media conditions with DMSO still led to a highly significant ( P = 0.0007 vs. control and P < 0.0001 vs. insulin + Wortmannin-treated cells) decline of Mrp2 levels at the plasma membrane (Fig. 5 h).
When the RAR was converted to a quartile variable, participants in the Q2 had a 1.18-fold increased risk of developing osteoarthritis compared to the Q1 (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.57, P = 0.2492), but did not reach statistical significance; participants in Q3 had a 1.65-fold increased risk (OR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.24, 2.20, P = 0.0007), which was statistically significant; and participants in Q4 had a 1.97-fold increased risk (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.42, 2.73, P < 0.0001).