Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

highly significantp = 2.2 × 10 −160.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Moreover, the relationship between the two methods of load estimation was highly significant (F 1,72 = 2420, p = 2.2 × 10 −16 ), and the slope was not significantly different from 1 (0.96, 95% CI [0.97, 1.05]), supporting the hypothesis that only Wolbachia w Sc1 and w Sc2 circulate in the S. cleopatrae flea populations.
highly significantp < 2.2 × 10 −160.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Based on the comparison of intact to degraded cartilage, the log-fold-changes in RNA expression and the differences in mean promoter region methylation values demonstrated a small but highly significant correlation (Pearson’s r = −0.08, p < 2.2 × 10 −16 , Fig. 2b , Supplementary Table S7 ).
highly significantp < 2.2 × 10 –160.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Indeed, pit-diggers performed ~ 15x more CNN-predicted scoops versus spits within daily bower ROIs and this pattern was highly significant within each subject (CV: 273 scoops vs. 20 spits, χ 2 = 311.35, p < 2.2 × 10 –16 ; TI subject 1: 339 scoops vs. 16 spits, χ 2 = 127.2, p < 2.2 × 10 –16 ; TI subject 2: 602 scoops vs. 60 spits, χ 2 = 377.28, p < 2.2 × 10 –16 ).
highly significantP < 2.2 × 10 −160.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The overlap between EgrNAC26-OX and EgrNAC61-OX datasets was highly significant ( P < 2.2 × 10 −16 ), only one transcript was alternately up- or down-regulated across time points, and DEGs common to EgrNAC26-OX and EgrNAC61-OX datasets were all up- or down-regulated concordantly, demonstrating robust and consistent activation of a subset of shared genes.
highly significantp -value = 2.22 × 10 −160.0× alphaqualifiedgold
In this study, highly significant Pearson’s correlations ( p -value = 2.22 × 10 −16 ) among the mRNA expression of these genes were obtained (r ELOVL5-ELOVL6 = 0.90; r ELOVL5-SCD = 0.84; r ELOVL6-SCD = 0.86), supporting the involvement of common elements regulating their mRNA expression.
highly significantp = 4.4 ×10 −160.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The summary data showed that the association with the concurrent presence of the three antibodies was highly significant (Fig. 1C , 3 Ab vs . 0 Ab: OR = 2.00, p = 4.4 ×10 −16 , I 2 = 17%), and significantly stronger than the observed with the patients carrying two antibodies when directly compared (3 Ab vs . 2 Ab: OR = 1.54, 95% CI 1.29–1.84, p = 1.4 ×10 −6 , I 2 = 12%).