Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

marginally statistically significantp = 0.0631.3× alphagold
The odds of receipt of the recommended 4 or more ANC visits (at time of study) also increased from baseline to endline although this change was only marginally statistically significant (aOR: 1.45, p = 0.063).
marginally significantP = 0.0631.3× alphagold
Taking the low baseline RDW group as the reference, in Model 1, the mortality risk of the Q2 group (HR = 2.478, 95% CI: 1.697–3.619, P < 0.001) and Q3 group (HR = 5.595, 95% CI: 3.949–7.927, P < 0.001) was significantly increased; in Model 2, the HR of the two groups was 2.254 (95% CI: 1.539–3.300, P < 0.001) and 5.032 (95% CI: 3.537–7.159, P < 0.001) respectively; in Model 3, the association of the Q2 group was weakened to marginally significant (HR = 1.442, 95% CI: 0.981–2.121, P = 0.063), while the Q3 group still significantly increased the mortality risk (HR = 2.666, 95% CI: 1.854–3.834, P < 0.001).
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 non-significantp = 0.0631.3× alpha
Cross-country comparison to track campaign’s effect on Daily active devices The Poisson GLMM (AIC = 9613.3, logLik = −4792.7) indicated a significant immediate increase in daily active devices (DADs) in Cameroon following the campaign (β = 3.133, SE = 0.111, p < 0.001), with a marginally non-significant negative post-intervention slope change (β = −0.001, SE = 0.001, p = 0.063).
almost significantp = 0.0631.3× alphagold
Small intestine The HFD significantly induced the production of most of the cytokines analysed in the gut including TNF-α, MCP-1, IP-10, IL-18, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10 and IL-17A and the increases were also almost significant for IFN-γ ( p = 0.063; Table 2 ).
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
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).
near to significanceP = 0.0631.3× alpha
There were also no male holding behaviors observed during the first month of pregnancy, but a comparison of the pre-conceptive period versus the second month of pregnancy revealed an effect near to significance (LRT: X 2 = 3.45, Δdf = 3, P = 0.063, see Table C in S1 File for further details), with the probability of observing males performing holding behaviors significantly decreasing during the second month of pregnancy (GLMM: z = -2.00, P = 0.045, see Table D in S1 File for further details).
a strong trendp = .0631.3× alphagold
Interestingly, a highly dissociative pattern was obtained for the two-way interaction effects: PD Diagnosis showed a strong trend for an interaction with Goal Ambiguity ( F (1,56) = 3.61, p = .063) but not with Search Depth ( F (1,56) = .03, p = .868), whereas SD Impairment showed a significant interaction with Search Depth ( F (1,56) = 20.74, p <.001) but not with Goal Ambiguity ( F (1,56) = .18, p = .672).
borderline significantP-value = 0.0631.3× alphagold
In the Dutch study group, but not in the Texan study group we found a significant association between the risk of having an NTD and DNA methylation levels of MTHFR (absolute decrease in methylation of −0.33% in cases, P-value = 0.001), and LEKR/CCNL (absolute increase in methylation: 1.36% in cases, P-value = 0.048), and a borderline significant association for VANGL (absolute increase in methylation: 0.17% in cases, P-value = 0.063).