Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

Three-factor RM-ANOVA (target size x target location x luminance type) for BSRs showed a marginally statistically significant main effect of only target location [F(4,240) = 3.94, p = 0.04, η p 2 = 0.01)], while target size [F(1,240) = 2.13, p = 0.07, η p 2 = 0.03)] and stimulus luminance [F(1,240) = 20, p = 0.77, η p 2 ≤0.01)] were not statistically significant ( Fig 6 ).
nominally significantp = 0.040.8× alphagold
At rs1477798 in 15q22.31 which showed evidence of linkage in clinic-based, larger families, a nominally significant case-control association was observed (OR 1.16, p = 0.04) which was modestly strengthened for cases with CRC family history (OR 1.24, p = 0.03); however, no significant difference in risk by family history was observed and associations were far from genome-wide significant.
nominally significantp = 0.040.8× alphagold
Correlation of MS admissions with smoking prevalence There was a nominally significant inverse correlation with smoking but this was lost in the weighted regression ( figure 2a ; overall – r = −0.55, p = 0.04, r sw = −0.49, p = 0.08; r pw = −0.25, p = 0.39; figure 2b ; males – r = −0.52, p = 0.06, r sw = −0.47, p = 0.09; r pw = −0.21, p = 0.47; females – r = −0.56, p = 0.04; r sw = −0.49, p = 0.08; r pw = −0.25, p = 0.38).
nominally significantP=0.040.8× alphagold
and X2 P=0.02 respectively).” “However, analyzing each variant separately revealed that the p.V443I variant occurred at higher frequency in AHM cases (4.44%) compared to PM cases (1.57%), BNMS controls (0.84%), or the MGRB (1.09%) (combined control comparison X2 P=.01), with comparison of any case nominally significant (X2 unadjusted P=0.04).” “Most significantly, the rs7174027*A SNP flanking the OCA2 gene promoter region/transcription start site was absent in AHM patients, compared to a frequency of 7.1% in the PM group (X2 unadjusted P=0.0005) and 9.43% frequency in the BNMS control group (X2 unadjusted P=8x10-5).” Supplementary materials have track changes and highlight marks that need to be removed.
only marginally significantp = 0.040.8× alphagold
Sighted controls’ error when the sound ended 25 cm to the right was only marginally significant (one sample, 2-tailed t-tests with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparison, t (7) = 2.44, p = 0.04).
Intercepting a sound without vision.
PLoS One · 2017 · PMC5421809
moderately significantp = .040.8× alphaqualifiedgold
While the change in performance across the five days was highly significant for the congruent group (F(4,24) = 14.158, p<.0001, one-way repeated-measure ANOVA), the performance change was only moderately significant for the unisensory group (F(4,24) = 2.938, p = .04) and marginally significant for the incongruent group (F(4,24) = 2.937, p = .053).
nominally significantp = 0.040.8× alphagold
Phyla-level phylogenetic binning of 16S rRNA data revealed a nominally significant correlation between the Bacteroidetes:Firmicutes ratio and age- and sex- adjusted BMI (r = 0.116; p = 0.04), but no significant correlation with metabolic syndrome traits [fasting glucose (r = 0.075; p = 0.19), systolic or diastolic blood pressure (r = 0.016; p = 0.78 and (r = 0.043; p = 0.45), respectively), fasting triglycerides (r = 0.078; p = 0.17), HDL-cholesterol (r = −0.052; p = 0.36); all adjusted for age and sex) Results from unweighted UniFrac analysis [16] also did not distinguish among the subjects based on BMI ( Figure S5 ).
marginally significantp = 0.040.8× alphagold
Hypsodonty shows no relationship with time in either clade ( Table S4 , Dataset S2 ), but ANCOVA shows the observed difference in the intercepts is marginally significant ( p = 0.04, Figure S5 , Table S3 ), meaning that Karnimata species have higher tooth crowns than the “ Progonomys clade”.
close to significancep = 0.040.8× alpha
The DysRSP was activated in mice using the sequential egocentric strategy, its recruitment being also close to significance in allocentric mice (Kruskal-Wallis, p = 0.04, sequential egocentric versus swimming controls Mann-Whitney U , p = 0.02, allocentric versus swimming controls Mann-Whitney U , p = 0.06 for DysRSP; Fig. 2I ).
marginally significantp = .040.8× alphagold
Interestingly, post-hoc simple comparisons of each phase of the menstrual cycle also revealed that emotional word advantage was significantly greater in LVF than RVF during the menstruation phase ( F (1, 9) = 7.8611, p = .02), marginally significant during the follicular phase (F(1, 9) = 5.8, p = .04) and not significant during the early, mid- and late luteal phases ( p >.05).