Barely Significant

Excerpts

514,629 sentences

highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Moreover, a highly significant positive correlation was found between miR-424 and each of miR-199a, miR-183, and miR-224 (rho = 0.555, 0.364, and 0.359, respectively, p < 0.0001), and between miR-215 with miR-217 (0.529, p < 0.0001), in addition to the correlation between miR-199a and miR224 (rho = 0.515, p < 0.0001), and between miR-183 and miR-215 (rho = 0.361, p < 0.0001).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
3.5 Impedance drop AI was found to have a highly significant but weak correlation with impedance drop that was similar in the protected group and the control group ( ρ = 0.16 – 0.25, p < 0.0001; Figure 4 ). 3.6 Lesion‐to‐lesion progression There was a closer spatial relationship between consecutive lesions (not necessarily adjacent lesions) in the protected group in the posterior part of the PV encircling lesion set but with no statistically significant difference (5.4 [IQR = 3.6 – 9] mm vs. 5.5 [IQR = 3.7 – 9.3] mm, p = 0.051).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
With regard to the AHI, highly significant differences were found between the four groups (Chi2 = 22, df = 3, p < 0.0001), with lower values in the LTG group compared to the POAG group (Hodges–Lehmann = −13.8, 95% CI (−18.6–−8.8; p < 0.0001) and the control group (Hodges–Lehmann = 12.1; 95% CI −19.9–−2.4; p < 0.02).
highly significantp-value = 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Shown in Supplementary Figure 4 , gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) of differentially expressed genes (fold change > 3 and q-value <0.05) between WFA treatment and DMSO groups revealed a highly significant enrichment in expression of apoptosis-related genes by WFA at both 6 h (false discovery rate (FDR) q-value = 0.0001; family-wise error rate (FWER) p-value = 0.0001) and 12 h (FDR q-value = 0.0001; FWER = 0.008).
markedly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualified
Equation (3), which reveals the coded factor terms of the quadratic model, was generated by the software. (3) Y 3 (entrapment efficiency) = 59.92 + 8.08 X 1 − 5.47 X 2 + 5.01 X 3 − 4.56 X 4 + 2.02 X 1 X 2 − 1.94 X 1 X 3 + 1.66 X 1 X 4 − 0.89 X 2 X 3 − 0.047 X 2 X 4 + 0.34 X 3 X 4 − 1.59 X 1 2 + 1.48 X 2 2 + 1.52 X 3 2 − 1.98 X 4 2 ANOVA results revealed that all the linear terms and the quadratic terms corresponding to the four investigated variables exhibited a markedly significant impact on entrapment efficiency ( p < 0.0001 for all linear terms; p = 0.0192, 0.0160, 0.0314, and 0.0053 for X 1 2 , X 2 2 , X 3 2 , and X 4 2 , respectively).