Barely Significant

Excerpts

4,910 sentences · 1 filter applied

highly significantp < 0.051.0× alphaqualifiedgold
As shown in Figure 3 A, the 20 M-HP group crossed the platform the most times, 6.39 ± 0.46, which was a significant increase of 47.15% compared with the 20 M-C group of 4.32 ± 0.56 ( p < 0.05); the 16 M-HP group crossed the platform the most times, 5.31 ± 0.78, which was a highly significant increase compared with the 16 M-C group of 2.06 ± 0.34 ( p < 0.05), 157.77% ( p < 0.01); and the 9 M-HP group traversed the platform 4.95 ± 0.89 times with a highly significant improvement of 150% ( p < 0.01) over that of 9 M-C of 1.98 ± 0.14.
nominally significantp < 0.051.0× alphagold
After false discovery rate ( FDR ) correction, pathway enrichment analyses for genes harboring nominally significant ( p < 0.05) probes identified 44 significant pathways ( q < 0.05), and 5 pathways were related to lipid metabolism.
borderline significancep = 0.051.0× alpha
Maternal iron supplementation in pregnancy was associated with increased offspring weight ( p = 0.005), head circumference ( p = 0.02), BMI ( p = 0.01), and skinfold thicknesses in three of the four sites ( p = 0.03–0.003) (the fourth having a borderline significance of p = 0.05) ( Table 3 ).
showed a trendp < 0.051.0× alpha
Accordingly, the analysis of the glucagon/insulin ratio in all groups tested showed a trend to increase with respect to the corresponding ratio observed at 0 min; this increase was statistically significant after 60 min ( p < 0.05) of 100 mg/Kg D-Pinitol ( Figure 2 A) dose, and after 120 min ( p < 0.05) of 500 mg/Kg dose of D-Pinitol ( Figure 2 B).
In a 12-month, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial (VIDOMA trial), we previously found evidence for a greater improvement with omega-3 LCPUFA with or without vitamin D in social interaction in children with ASD compared with placebo but the difference did not reach statistical significance ( P < 0.05) for most comparisons.
almost significantp -value = 0.051.0× alphagold
There were no significant differences either in the estimated 14-MEDAS scores between the different age ranges (18–24 years, 6.25 ± 1.73; 25–34 years, 6.09 ± 1.97; 35–44 years, 6.16 ± 2.03; 45–54 years, 6.72 ± 2.18; 55–64 years, 6.14 ± 2.24; 65–81 years, 5.89 ± 2.09; p -value = 0.418) although we detected a small and almost significant negative correlation between age and 14-MEDAS ( r = −0.1, p -value = 0.05).