Barely Significant
← all phrases

“highly significant”

132,143 sentences · 132,143 papers · 160,126 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.09

Listed by Hankins (2013)

In the literature

highly significantp = 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
All three analyses showed highly significant interactions between PST and light ( p = 0.0001, p = 0.0002, p = 0.0009, for PST content, production, and C fraction, respectively), a significant interaction between lytic toxicity and whether the strains contained PST ( p = 0.0157 for PST content), and significant effects of lytic toxicity on growth ( p = 0.0125, p = 0.0175, for PST production and C fraction, respectively).
highly significantP ‐value of <0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
When the same cohort was stratified by CAB, the results showed a higher difference in DMFS (10.84%) between the low‐ and high‐risk categories with a highly significant P ‐value of <0.0001 (Figure 2 A) suggesting that CAB is a better prognostic predictor in comparison to node status.
highly significantp<0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) with two factors (delay time and perturbation frequency) revealed a highly significant interaction (n = 8 subjects, F 4,70 =110.2, p<0.0001), confirming the interdependence of feedback delays and frequencies of constructive/destructive interference.
highly significantp < 10 −40.0× alphaqualifiedgold
Strong and highly significant negative mean intrinsic correlations were found between SENT_CORE and SENT_MEM ( R = − 0.27; 92.03% of the participants showed a negative correlation, p < 10 −4 ), and a positive correlation was present between SENT_MEM and SENT_VISU ( R = 0.058, 62.32% of the participants showed a positive correlation, p = 0.0024), while there was no significant correlation between SENT_CORE and SENT_VISU ( R = − 0.037; 56.52% of the participants showed a positive correlation, p = 0.074).
highly significantp < 0.00010.0× alphaqualifiedgold
For BPA doses, however, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated highly significant among-group differences ( F = 7.87 ; p < 0.0001 ), and subsequent Bonferroni post hoc comparisons indicated significant differences between placebo and each exposure ( t = 3.2 , p < 0.01 for 2 ng / g ; t = 2.8 , p < 0.01 for 20 ng / g ; t = 4.0 , p < 0.0001 for 100 ng / g ; and t = 5.4 , p < 0.0001 for 500 ng / g ).