Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

showed a trendp = 0.0561.1× alpha
Response to IFN Beta Therapy The SNP rs20576 in exon 5 in TRAILR-1, which showed a trend in the original cohort (recessive model: p = 0.056, OR = 0.41), was significantly associated in the validation cohort (recessive model: p = 4.83×10 −3 , OR = 0.19) and it reached the Bonferroni level of significance in the joint analysis (recessive model: p = 8.88×10 −4 , pc = 0.048, OR = 0.30) ( Table 2 ).
borderline significantP = 0.0561.1× alphagold
A borderline significant sex-EPA interaction was seen in the MetS score (P = 0.056) and when the analysis was conducted sex-specifically it showed a negative association between EPA and the MetS score in girls [β = −1.42 (95% CI −2.65; −0.19)] (P = 0.024, n = 340) and no association in boys [β = 0.01 (95% CI −0.97; 0.99)] (P = 0.99, n = 366).
only marginally significantP = 0.0561.1× alphagold
Trade-off at the inter-specific level In both communities, we found that species with heavier seeds had fewer seeds per fruit/infructescence than those with lighter seeds ( Fig 2 ), although in the lowland community the relationship was only marginally significant ( F 1, 22 = 4.06, P = 0.056 and F 1, 16 = 19.03, P < 0.0001, for Ryghsetra and Finse respectively; Fig 2A and 2B ). λ was very close to 1 in both models (0.98 and 1.13 for the lowland and the alpine communities, respectively), suggesting that these traits covary in direct proportion to their shared evolutionary history.
marginally significantp = 0.0561.1× alphagold
The second word (generally the verb, on over 80% of trials) showed an effect of coherence [F(1,25) = 5.5, p = 0.027], which was qualified by a marginally significant interaction between coherence and group [F(1,25) = 4.02, p = 0.056], whereby only the high imagers showed a speedup in reading times on this second word for sequentially coherent compared to sequentially incoherent pairs (Bonferroni: p < 0.05).
marginally significantp = 0.0561.1× alphagold
For the remote association task, the main effects were not significant (all F-values < 1.55, all p-values > 0.100), but the interaction was marginally significant (F(1,98) = 1.64, partial η 2 = 0.041, p = 0.056), and the simple main effect test showed that the number of correct responses decreased with contingent-pay only in the laboratory condition (t(89) = 2.47, d = 0.93, p = 0.015) (see Fig 2(A)) .
marginal significanceP = 0.0561.1× alphagold
Through multivariate analysis, overexpression of erbB2 and/or NFκB was identified as an independent risk factor for bladder cancer death with marginal significance (hazard ratio 21.5, P = 0.056) along with chemoradiation resistance ( P = 0.003) and hydronephrosis ( P = 0.018).
approached significancep = 0.0561.1× alpha
In the second year a significant effect of the type of response was observed before the “ram effect” (p<0.03) and paired comparison showed that oestradiol concentration at -16h before the “ram effect” was significantly greater in the “precocious” group ( Fig 2C ; 2.61±1.27 versus 0.82±0.16 pg/mL; p<0.03) and approached significance at -8h (3.02±0.81 versus 1.30±0.35 pg/mL; p = 0.056).
marginally significantp = 0.0561.1× alphagold
Subgroup analysis showed that Ad-CMV-hsFlt-1-e15a led to a significant increase in albumin/creatinine ratio on PPD8 (3-fold, p = 0.003); Ad-RGD-CMV-hsFlt-1-e15a led to significant increase in albumin/creatinine ratio on GD18 (2.4-fold, p = 0.04); while Ad-RGD-CYP-hsFlt-1-e15a led to a marginally significant increase in albumin/creatinine ratio on GD18 (2.4-fold, p = 0.056) and a significant increase on PPD8 (1.8-fold, p = 0.04) ( Figure 7B ).