Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp = 4.5 × 10 −50.0× alphaqualifiedgold
For the plastic bag-samples, a highly significant difference between the reference material and the two obtained samples (plastic bag-metal and plastic bag-no metal) was observed (1-way ANOVA, F = 12.9, p = 4.5 × 10 −5 ), while the means of the two plastic samples showed no significant difference (post-ANOVA Tukey-test, p adjusted = 0.11).
highly significantP value = 4.6 × 10 -50.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The results are shown in Figure 2 , with the probability of belonging to the Dent and the Flint groups for each parental line (Figure 2 A) and the highly significant correlation ( P value = 4.6 × 10 -5 ) observed between the GWRR in a population and the average 'flintness' of its parents (Figure 2 B).
highly significantp = 0.0000470.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Further examination of the tumor tissue sections after anti-PD-1 therapy revealed the co-localization of mast cells and FOXP3 + Treg cells, which was consistently observed and highly significant ( p = 0.000047) when compared to control-treated tumors (Fig. 4e ) and this may be associated with downmodulation of HLA class I on tumor cells (Fig. 3g, h, f ).
clearly significantP = 4.8E-50.0× alphaqualified
These analyses demonstrated for example a clearly significant enrichment for ESRRA binding motifs (∼2-fold, P = 4.8E-5) ( Supplementary Data Sheet 1 ), suggesting that the transactivation activity of ESRRA may depend on the DNA methylation status of its binding motif.
highly significantp = 4.9 × 10 −50.0× alphaqualifiedgold
As expected, we observe stronger average absolute correlation in the ISO-treated cohort ( R = 0.174 vs 0.111), and that while the control cohort’s correlations of the adrenergic signalling pathways with Serpina3n were not significantly higher than expected ( p = 0.728), the correlation of Serpina3n expression with the ISO cohort was highly significant ( p = 4.9 × 10 −5 ).
highly significantp value = 0.000050.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The results presented in Table 3 showed a highly significant ( p value = 0.00005, detection limit of the method being approximately 1 log CFU, CI-95%, 1.85, 2.77) log reduction (2.31) in microbial load after wiping the meat surface with the developed DW (count before treatment—5.48 log CFU/cm 2 ; after treatment—3.17 CFU/cm 2 ).