Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

near-significantP=0.0561.1× alphagold
(2011 ) found near-significant differences in N 2 content (P=0.056) between samples transported in the passenger cabin of a commercial jet aircraft and control samples, and recommended transporting samples inside a pressure resistant vessel to ensure that no changes in gas composition would occur during aircraft transportation [ 12 ].
marginally significantP = 0.0561.1× alphagold
The χ 2 test indicated that the staining score of HPSE protein was significantly correlated with tumor grade ( P = 0.012, Table 2 ), and that the correlation between HPSE protein expression and recurrence status was marginally significant as well ( P = 0.056, Table 2 ), which suggests that HPSE expression might be significantly correlated with recurrence if the sample size was big enough.
nearly significantp = 0.0561.1× alphagold
d) Effects of toxoplasmosis on rated pleasantness of odors Repeated measure ANCOVA with attributed pleasantness of six odors (including the neutral sample) as repeated measures and toxoplasmosis, sex, Rh, intensity of smoking and age as an independent variables revealed only significant effects of sex (p = 0.009, η 2 = 0.059), type of odor (p < 0.0005, η 2 = 0.056), sex-type of odor interaction (p < 0.0005, η 2 = 0.060), and a nearly significant effect of smoking (p = 0.056, η 2 = 0.032), Fig 3 .
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).
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)) .
marginally significantp = .0561.1× alphagold
healthy controls) of the time needed until the first target was cancelled revealed a significant main effect of the factor ‘column’ (F(3, 144) = 6.545, p < .001), a significant main effect of the factor ‘group’ (F(1, 48) = 5.093, p = .029), and a marginally significant main effect of the factor ‘condition’ (F(3, 144) = 2.573, p = .056).