Barely Significant
← all phrases

a numerical trend

338 sentences · 338 papers · 1,651 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.09

Listed by Hankins (2013) · Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

There was also a numerical trend evident for the three groups independently (Table 2 ) with 5.13% versus 2.38% for severe CRS (relative risk 1.679; 95% CI 0.947–2.583), 5.77% versus 4.28% for severe CRS and NT (relative risk 1.247; 95% CI 0.6874–2.004), and 9.62% versus 5.94% for severe NT (relative risk 1.428; 95% CI 0.9038–2.085) although not reaching statistical significance.
Regulatory Measures to Improve the Safety of CAR-T-Cell Treatment.
Transfus Med Hemother · 2023 · PMC10331154
Association Between Weight Reduction and PROs Although statistical tests were not conducted, results of these additional exploratory post hoc analyses showed that there was a numerical trend towards improved SF-36v2 Physical and Mental Component Summary scores in participants treated with tirzepatide achieving greater percentage reductions in weight, with participants achieving ≥ 15% weight reduction reporting the greatest improvements in component summary scores (after adjustment for baseline PRO scores) (Fig. 5 a).
For the subset of patients where the method's assessment is in disagreement with the final IRC response, we observe a numerical trend where the OS survival rates of patients assessed as CMR by the model and non-CMR by the final IRC response are numerically better than the survival rates of non-CMR patients by the model and CMR by the final IRC response (Data Supplement, Fig S12).
8 In another phase 3 study ( NCT00337103 ), eribulin-treated patients did not have a significant improvement in OS as compared to patients treated with capecitabine in the first, second, or third line of chemotherapy in the metastatic setting, although a numerical trend favoring eribulin was demonstrated. 9 Interestingly, in a subsequent pooled analysis of both of these trials, eribulin was seen to have a significant improvement in OS, as compared to the control arm.
Although statistically significant prognostic comparisons were limited by the small sample size in our internal cohort and MYC status was only evaluable at the time of recurrence, there did appear to be a numerical trend towards worse median survival with MYC amplification, as well as higher rates of recurrence, despite the majority of patients ultimately receiving immunotherapy in addition to chemoradiotherapy, conforming with previous observations 36 .
DRSS improvement Rates of at least 2-step DRSS improvement were largely consistent across treatment arms and between the YOSEMITE Japan subgroup and the pooled YOSEMITE/RHINE cohort at weeks 52 and 96, although there was a numerical trend for higher proportions in the faricimab arms versus the aflibercept arm in the YOSEMITE Japan subgroup (Fig. 5 ).
In female patients assigned to mGPS category 1 or 2, a numerical trend towards longer OS was also observed in Arm A compared to Arm B, however, with statistical testing not revealing a significant survival difference between treatment arms (24.6 versus 16.7 months; P = 0.15) ( Supplementary Table S1 , available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103374 , Figure 4 A and B).
This long-term, prospective, randomised, head-to-head trial demonstrated a numerical trend for increased risk of MACE and VTE (only the 10 mg dose), among other serious adverse events, for the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib compared with TNF inhibitor therapy in a population enriched for CV risk (patients who were aged ≥50 years with at least one CV risk factor). 16 The increased relative ris
15 Final OS results show a numerical trend favoring ipatasertib–paclitaxel (median OS 23.1 vs 18.4 months in ipatasertib vs placebo arm, stratified HR 0.62 [95% CI, 0.37-1.05]). 33 However, the Phase III IPATunity130 cohort A failed to show PFS benefit from the addition of ipatasertib to paclitaxel in patients with mTNBC harboring PIK3CA/AK
Nonetheless, those patients who had ≥12 months of PFS during prior palbociclib‐based therapy only had a numerical trend towards PFS improvement compared with those patients who had less than 12 months of PFS during prior palbociclib‐based therapy (median PFS: 7.0 vs. 5.0 months, log‐rank p = 0.931).