Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The above results were subsequently analyzed using Design-Expert software, yielding the following second-order polynomial regression equation: Y = −28.06537 + 1.35037A + 1.55369B + 0.066144C − 0.007187AB + 0.00075AC + 0.000141BC − 0.169750A 2 − 0.028281B 2 − 0.000218C 2 ANOVA-based statistical validation demonstrated that the model was highly significant (F = 210.21, p < 0.0001) and exhibited strong predictive capability, with an adjusted R 2 of 0.9916, indicating good model fit.
highly significantP < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
The relationship between this calculated projected area (PA) and the true leaf area should diminish over time, as plant architecture and leaf self-shading cannot be corrected from a single photo; however, correlations between average PA and average biomass remained highly significant on day 14 ( r = 0.67; P < 0.0001).
highly significantp < .00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Second, all the model statistics were highly significant ( p < .0001), excepted for the inferior lateral ventricle model for AD which was only significant ( p < .05). 3.3 Classification based on multiple lifespan models To evaluate the classification performance of HAVAs on testing datasets, we performed a comparison with the three most discriminant structures.
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
As shown in Figure 4 B, PMA treatment induced a robust and highly significant increase in PKC activity ( p < 0.0001), validating that functional PKC is present and responsive in our membrane fractions.
a near-significant trendp < 0.00010.0× alphagold
Therefore, the interaction effect of genotype and feeding regimen reached statistical significance for latency time (F(1, 25) = 45.90, p < 0.0001 and F(1, 25) = 10.47, p = 0.0034, respectively), whereas a near-significant trend was evident for the number of buried marbles (F(1, 22) = 33.06, p < 0.0001 and F(1, 22) = 3.943, p = 0.05970, respectively).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
➣ Subgrouping of vaccinated cases according to used vaccine revealed three groups: Group 1: Pts received viral vector-based vaccines with adverse events Group 2: Pts received mRNA-based vaccines with adverse events Group 3: Pts received inactivated virus vaccines with adverse events Comparing each two groups as regards adverse events done and revealed the following results Comparing group 1 to group 2 Viral vector-based vaccine group (group 1) showed highly significant increase in cases of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura/cerebral venous thrombosis/pulmonary embolism with p < 0.0001 In the same context, group 1 had statistically significant increase in cases of DIC ( P = 0.0316), GBS ( P = 0.0036) and ATM ( P = 0.0089).