Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

almost reached significancep = 0.0631.3× alpha
There was no significant difference between the other experimental conditions although two other comparisons almost reached significance: subjects tended to be slower to gesture in the Body Away than in the Eyes Closed condition (p = 0.063) and in the Head Away than in the Eyes Open condition (p = 0.054).
near-significantp = 0.0631.3× alphagold
The linear regressions to test whether spraint densities are good indicators for otter densities revealed a near-significant relationship between yearly spraint densities (numbers of genotyped samples per ha) and yearly numbers of distinct genotypes per ha (R 2 = 0.62, df = 4, p = 0.063, Fig 3 ), whereas there was no relationship between yearly spraint densities and yearly estimated individuals per ha (R 2 = 0.24, df = 4, p = 0.33, Fig 3 ).
approached significancep = 0.0631.3× alpha
A within-subjects ANOVA with a between-subjects factor (group) conducted on beta weight values extracted from these ROI showed a significant decrease in activation for Post- as compared to Pre-exposure in the S1 (F = 6.8, p < 0.05, main effect), and the cerebellum (F = 6.8, p < 0.05, main effect), while the activation decrease in the AC approached significance (F = 4.85, p = 0.063).
a clear trendp = 0.0631.3× alphagold
However, after correcting by age, length of infection, co-infection with hepatitis viruses and transmission route, variables that presented significant differences between INR and IR groups ( Table 1 ), the multivariate logistic analysis showed that CCR2 rs1799864 AG genotype was significantly and independently associated to INR status (OR: 1.80 [1.04–3.11]; p = 0.036) and CXCL12 rs1801157 TT genotype showed a clear trend (OR: 2.47 [0.96–6.13]; p = 0.063) ( Table 3 ).
borderline significantp = 0.0631.3× alphagold
Post hoc Dunnett tests comparing the experimental groups with the control group indicated a significant nocebo effect in the conditioning with verbal suggestion group ( p = 0.020), a borderline significant nocebo effect in the verbal suggestion group ( p = 0.063), and no significant nocebo effect in the conditioning group when compared with the control group (See Fig. 3 .).
near-significantp = 0.0631.3× alphagold
DeKay and colleagues [ 20 ] identified a near-significant ( p = 0.063) decrease in distortion when they altered the wording of their separate response scales: distortion (averaged across proleader and antitrailer) was lower when the separate scales encouraged absolute evaluation of an option (“very unappealing” to “very appealing” for option A [B]) rather than relative evaluation of an option (“strongly disfavors” to “strongly favors” for option A [B]).
marginally significantp = 0.0631.3× alphagold
We retained two RDA models (out of 8) for statistical significance: the model using sea surface predictors was marginally significant at the full model level (ANOVA, p = 0.063) and for the first axis (ANOVA, p = 0.052), and the model using temperature and current velocity predictors (at sea surface or near-bottom) was significant at the full model level (ANOVA, p = 0.034) and for the first axis (ANOVA, p = 0.035).
marginally significantp = 0.0631.3× alphagold
There was a marginally significant association between adequate knowledge and centers with increased HIV testing rates (OR 1.51; CI 95% 0.98–2.34; p = 0.063), as well as a statistically significant association between a strong knowledge base and centers with greater new HIV diagnosis rates (OR 1.61; CI 95% 1.04–2.49; p = 0.032).
an overall trendp = 0.0631.3× alphagold
highly significantqualifiedgold
We observed an overall trend for preferring the Hollow stimulus (Mann-Whitney test: V = 27016.5, df = 1, p = 0.063), that turned out highly significant when considering only the chicks never exposed to filled stimuli, namely chicks imprinted on the Occluded and Hollow objects (Mann-Whitney test: V = 10721.5, df = 1, p = 0.009), see Fig 4B .
Naïve Chicks Prefer Hollow Objects.
PLoS One · 2016 · PMC5112871