“weakly significant”

There was a weakly significant negative correlation between desire and all items of the MRS (psychological [ r = −0.26, P = .000], somatic [ r = −0.21, P = .000], and urogenital [ r = −0.19, P = .001]), between arousal and all items of the MRS (psychological [ r = −0.26, P = .000], somatic [ r = −0.30, P = .000], and urogenital

The results summarized in Table 7 indicate that there is a weakly significant inverse relationship between the min pressure and vegetation height r (61) = − 0.39, n = 62, p << 0.00*.

Mean annual precipitation shows a very weakly significant primary linear correlation with erosion rate (R 2 = 0.017 and p-value = 0.000001; Fig 3 ).

We considered four thresholds of decreasing stringency: a highly significant set (HS - p ≤ 5 × 10 -7 ), a Medium highly significant set (MHS - p ≤ 10 -5 ), a Medium weakly significant set (MWS - p ≤ 10 -4 ), and a weakly significant set (WS - p ≤ 10 -3 ).

In the remaining three tissues, we found weak evidence of colocalization between the GWAS and ATP11A- eQTL signals (PP4 < 0.408; Table S9 ), likely because of weakly significant eQTL p values in the locus ( p values >10 −4 ).

In previously-infected individuals, moderate and weakly significant correlations were reported between Wuhan S-specific ACE2 inhibition and IgG (r=0.5642, p<0.0001) ( Supplementary Figure 9B ), as well as IgA responses (r=0.4545, p=0.0001) ( Supplementary Figure 9C ), respectively.

However, some weakly significant correlations were seen between the T cell response and the IgG2 response, with one highly significant correlation at week 8 (r 2 = 0.14, p < 0.0001).

A highly significant increase of both anti-al34k2 IgG1 and IgG4 levels was observed in PD2 by pairwise comparisons between paired samples ( n = 68, p < 0.0001; Figure 4B ); instead, only IgG4 levels showed a weakly significant increase after summer when all samples were considered ( p = 0.0326, Figure 4A ).

For instance, for OXY1, the enrichment was 35% versus 19% and the medians 0.38 versus 0.27, while for TUBE early, the enrichment was comparatively weakly significant, 27 versus 24% ( P = 0.0004), and the medians, 0.53 versus 0.44.

In all figures, we marked the permutation test results as follows: If the number of failures was, for example, 1 in 10,000 ( p = 0.0001) or less, it was marked as highly significant (***), 5 in 10,000 ( p = 0.0005) or less, as significant (**), and 10 in 10,000 ( p = 0.001) or less, as weakly significant (*).

In a multivariate analysis using a Cox regression hazard model, s-apelin was a weakly significant predictor of decompensation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.002; p<0.001) and mortality (HR, 1.003; p<0.001).

While, the fungal communities in the rhizosphere soil of the green manure crops showed weakly significant differences from those in the fallow treatments (ANOSIM: R = 0.208, p = 0.001), so was located among the three fertilizer types (ANOSIM: R = 0.120, p = 0.009; Figure 3B ). 3.1.4.

However, only weakly significant relationships were observed between general practitioners’ age their years of practice, and their attitudes toward autism (r = 0.271**, p < 0.001; r = 0.105*, p = 0.046, respectively).

Predictors that were selected consistently [at least weakly significant ( p < 0.05) in two out of three selection processes and at least highly significant ( p < 0.001) in one] were used for consecutive analyses.

The study also identified weakly significant correlations between GPs' age and their attitudes toward autism ( r = 0.271⁣ ∗∗ , p < 0.001) and between years of practice and attitudes ( r = 0.105⁣ ∗ , p =0.046).

Results were interpreted as highly significant*** (p<0.001), significant** (p<0.01), weakly significant* (p<0.05) or not significant ns (p>0.05).

We specifically addressed these two issues in our reanalysis of this noisy data by - (a) Considering a series of four thresholds of decreasing stringency, starting with the highly significant threshold used in the original study, and decreasing to weakly significant(WS - p ≤ 10 -3 ).

Spearman correlation test showed a weakly significant relationship between body satisfaction and attempt to lose weight during the past two years (r = –0.22, P = 0.001) and a significant relationship between body satisfaction and the desire to lose weight (r = 0.45, P = 0.001) and Appearance Evaluation (r = –0.57, P = 0.001).

As a result of the analysis, a weakly significant correlation was detected between the two values (r=0.185, p<0.001).

Results were interpreted as highly significant*** (p < 0.001), significant** (p < 0.01), weakly significant* (p < 0.05) or not significant ns (p > 0.05).

PAPP-A value and free hCG have a positive and statistically weakly significant connection (r=0.246, p=0.001), as do PAPP-A value and Apgar 5 th minute score (r=0.159, p=0.001).

p -values were considered weakly significant if p < 0.05 (*), significant if p < 0.01 (**), and highly significant if p < 0.001 (***).

This revealed 3 genes that were highly significant differentially expressed (p > 0.001), 2 genes significant differentially expressed (p > 0.01) and 5 genes weakly significant differentially expressed (p > 0.05) ( Table 2 ) after multiple testing correction.

As a result of the analysis, it was found that there was a weakly significant negative relationship between these two variables ( r = –0.29, p < 0.001).

CPP showed weakly significant correlation with SMI ( r = 0.492; p = 0.001), and no significant correlation with CVMI ( r = 0.150; p = 0.105).