Barely Significant

Excerpts

33,758 sentences · 1 filter applied

Fasting plasma glucose and insulin measured at the start of glucose tolerance testing (GTT) did not differ between genotypes ( Figure 4C ), although there was a strong trend for increased fasting plasma insulin concentrations in CD1d −/− mice, consistent with a trend to increased insulin resistance.
Impact of CD1d deficiency on metabolism.
PLoS One · 2011 · PMC3183002
While ALS patients were not significantly impaired on tasks involving humorous cartoons and stories with mental and physical scenarios [25] , they were impaired on the Judgement of Preference task, showed a trend towards significantly lower RME accuracy scores [26] and were impaired in their ability to understand behaviour in social situations using the Faux Pas task [27] .
highly significantqualifiedgold
Likelihood ratio testing of the VNTR three-allele system versus the two-allele system showed highly significant evidence of improved fits from the three-allele system ( Figure 4 ), indicating that LD structure with nearby SNPs was better explained by considering the 6.3 and 6.4 kb alleles as separate alleles, rather than as the same allele (as in Figure 3 , where both alleles are grouped as “short”).
Interestingly, hGSTP1 + mGstp1/2 −/− mice exhibited an intermediate level of sensitivity to acetaminophen relative to the wildtype and mGstp1/2 −/− mice – elevations of AST and ALT at 24 hours in hGSTP1+mGstp1/2−/− mice were significantly greater than those in mGstp1/2−/− mice but showed a trend to be lower than those seen in wildtype mice ( Figure 6A–B ).
by height, and there might be significant clustering tendency with respect to height, but such a grouping is likely meaningless for MCI prognosis; 2) A classifier trained based on these class definitions should generalize well on test data (not used for training the classifier) – this quantifies how accurately we can discriminate the classes that we have defined.
In support of this, the same pattern was evident in first-pass regressions out, t1(25) = 2.02, d = .30, p = .05; t2(23) = 1.22, d = .33, p = .24, significant by participants but not by items, and in second-pass reading times, t1(25) = 1.85, d = .42, p = .08; t2(23) = 2.72, d = .62, p<.05, significant by items and approaching significance by participants.