Barely Significant

Excerpts

27,100 sentences · 1 filter applied

a trend towards significancep = 0.0631.3× alpha
While no significant differences were detected between No D-NEC (spheres) and D-NEC piglets (stars), there was a trend towards significance (PERMANOVA, 999 permutations; p = 0.063) and a pattern wherein piglets with D-NEC in the NEC + Lr -DM-maltose group clustered away from piglets with D-NEC in the NEC + Saline group (Fig. 4 b).
a trend toward significancep = .0631.3× alpha
Positive trials were rated higher than both the neutral and the negative; however, Conover post-hoc tests revealed only a trend toward significance ( p = .063) after Bonferroni and Holm adjustments, despite medium effect sizes for positive-neutral and positive-negative comparisons (r rb = -0.549 and r rb = -0.562, respectively).
nearly significantp = .0631.3× alphagold
As in the main experiment, the ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of Congruence [F(1,20) = 20.09, MSE = 1792.32, p < .0003, η p 2 = .50], reflecting a higher percentage of antisaccades in the incongruent trials (10.56 ± 1.64%) compared to the congruent trials (6.03 ± 1.26%), and a nearly significant effect of SOA [F(1,20) = 20.09, MSE = 513.23, p = .063, η p 2 = .16], reflecting a higher percentage of antisaccades when the distracting gaze preceded (9.51 ± 1.81%) the instruction cue onset, rather than followed it (7.08 ± 1.13%).
near significanceP = 0.0631.3× alphagold
For the group in Saudi Arabia, a single 7-day cosine model approximates these average relative daily rhythm-adjusted mean value (Midline Estimating Statistic of Rhythm, MESOR) with near significance ( P = 0.063), while a two-component model including the 3.5-day term reaches significance ( P = 0.045).
nearing significancep = .0631.3× alphagold
These results showed a significant overall interaction across stimulus types, F(2,52) = 3.616, p = .034, η 2 p = 0.122, such that the CS+ previously paired with the safety signal elicited significantly higher SCR than the CS-, t(26) = 2.502, p = .019, 95% CI[0.007,0.721], indicating a fear response was reinstated, while the CS+ previously paired with the social support reminder did not, t(26)=-0.633, p = .532, 95% CI[-0.210,0.397], indicating no reinstated fear response.Additionally, the CS+ previously paired with the safety signal elicited SCR marginally higher (but nearing significance) compared to the CS+ previously paired with the social support reminder, t(26) = 1.943, p = .063, 95% CI[-0.018,0.623] (see Fig. 5 c).
nearly significantP = 0.06391.3× alphagold
After adjusting for confounding factors, the overall effect in the NIHSS score model remained significant (adjusted OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.40, P = 0.0361), and the overall effect in the GCS model was nearly significant (adjusted OR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.29, P = 0.0639), with the direction of the effect consistently suggesting an increased risk (Table 3 ).
There was an overall trend for an interaction of sex and generation (‘Sex*Generation’: F 2,794 = 2.761, p = 0.064) that did not reach statistical significance, and we did not detect any effect of sex or the interaction between line and sex on the time individuals spent leading.