“a numerical trend”

As can be seen in Fig 5B , participants indeed showed a numerical trend to switch faster in the formerly volatile versus formerly stable casino, a difference that turned out to be significant in the third (χ 2 = 4.551, p = .033) and fourth (χ 2 = 4.01, p = .045) trial after the first reward contingency switch.

A post-hoc analysis was conducted and showed a numerical trend to more severe TEAEs in the PEG group versus the OSS group [OR 0.52 (0.28–0.98), P = 0.0485], and severe related TEAEs [OR 0.49 (0.26–0.94), P = 0.0310].

The probability level that denotes significance is P < 0.05; a numerical trend is P > 0.05 and P < 0.10.

While a numerical trend suggested less deterioration in the intervention group compared to the control group, the differences did not reach statistical significance ( P > 0.05).

Efficacy Primary outcome The primary efficacy end point of the time to recovery from Day 1 through Day 28 was not met, despite a numerical trend towards higher recovery rates in both enpatoran groups (50 mg b.i.d. n = 48, 88.9%, p = 0.054; 100 mg b.i.d. n = 42, 91.3%, p = 0.107) compared with the placebo group ( n = 37, 75.5%).

In the univariate analysis, higher blood white blood cell (WBC) counts showed a numerical trend towards a higher probability of being associated with historical peritonitis (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.000, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 1.000–1.001, p = 0.056).

While there was a numerical trend towards improved PFS in the GemOx + cetuximab KRAS-wild type arm, this was not significant (mPFS 7.1 months [GemOx + cetuximab] vs 5.6 months [GemOx]; p = 0.06) [ 118 ].

When the data were stratified by autoantibody positivity (RF, ACPA) ( online supplemental table S1–S2 ), high PM 10 exposure showed a numerical trend towards a positive association with RA-ILD mortality in the RF (+) (HR 1.54; 95% CI 0.98 to 2.42; p=0.060) and ACPA (+) (HR 1.58; 95% CI 0.99 to 2.51; p=0.054) groups; but with marginal significance.

For unrelated pairs, there was a numerical trend, but no significant differences, t (23) = 2.81, d = 0.57, p = .06.

There was no difference of CAM use between the US born (68.77%) and the immigrants (63.98%, P = .199) as a whole; however, comparing with the US born (66.50%), Asian-born immigrants had lower CAM use (53.77%, P = .0161), whereas Latin-American born had a numerical trend toward higher CAM use (74.83%, P = .0608).

LumB tumors showed a numerical trend to better PFS with low CCNE1 (median PFS 12.02 vs. 7.06 months, HR = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.97–2.56; P value = 0.0631).

There was a numerical trend towards increased Cannabis use by CD compared to UC patients (CD: 42, 37.8% vs UC:21 25.6%, P = 0.073).

Although this association showed a numerical trend ( p = 0.076), it did not reach statistical significance at the predefined threshold.

However, predicting acute scores was more accurate than predicting chronic scores for the within-group training ( z = 2.07, P < 0.0192) with a numerical trend for the between-group training ( z = 1.76, P < 0.0784).

TAPSE/PASP <0.32 showed a numerical trend toward higher mortality compared to the normal ratio (32.1% vs. 15.8%, p=0.0785), but this was not statistically significant, while moderate impairment (0.32-0.419) was comparable to normal level (18.9% vs. 15.8%, p=0.7727).

In contrast, although the pCR group showed a numerical trend toward improved RFS (p=0.088), this difference did not reach statistical significance.

Follow-up post hoc did not find any significant differences, although there was a numerical trend of post-training increase in the PMC tDCS group [ t (11) = 1.86, p = 0.09] but not in other two groups [both p s > 0.22].

Nonetheless, at 1 year, a numerical trend towards a higher incidence of target lesion revascularizations was noted in the DCB group (22.1% vs. 13.5%; p = 0.09) [ 49 ].

An unexpected finding was the statistically nonsignificant difference in root resorption between groups, despite a numerical trend favoring MARPE ( P = 0.09), suggesting potentially similar mild effects or a need for larger sample sizes to detect subtle differences.

Although extracranial metastases were similarly distributed between groups, there was a numerical trend suggesting a higher prevalence among excluded patients (excluded patients: n = 93, 89.4%; included patients: n = 147, 81.2%; p = 0.091).

Operative duration demonstrated a numerical trend favoring the TLA group (85.38 ± 38.71 min vs. 97.33 ± 36.88 min, P = 0.091).

No significant differences were found in baseline characteristics between the intervention group (n = 161) and the control group (n = 160), but there was a numerical trend toward more participants with previous vascular events in the control group (p = 0.092).

However, a numerical trend in favor of the combination was observed in the PD-L1 positive subgroup (HR for PFS 0.60; 95% CI 0.32–1.11; p = 0.099).

We observed a numerical trend towards higher FAAVI rate with increasing patients number (p=0.10).

However, early relapses (within the first 2 months of adjuvant treatment, n = 17) proved particularly difficult, with a significant reduction in the second PFS (PFS2, HR 1.83, p = 0.029) ( Figure 4 C) and a numerical trend for reduced OS2 (HR 1.77, p = 0.12), compared to relapses that had occurred after 2 months (n = 124).