Barely Significant
← all phrases

a suggestive trend

53 sentences · 53 papers · 298 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.06

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

In the literature

a suggestive trendp = 0.0521.0× alphagold
Indeed, in control conditions there is a suggestive trend for a decline in sociability over time (effect of trial = −65.03 ± 31.45, F 1,19 = 4.28, p = 0.052) whereas fish measured under the risk context exhibit no such habituation (effect of trial = −37.8 ± 32.6, F 1,19 = 1.34, p = 0.26).
a suggestive trendp = 0.061.2× alphagold
However, we noticed that systemic MDA concentrations were significantly decreased following SCO administration in LOS pre-treated mice, as compared to the control group ( Figure 5 a, LOS + SCO versus Control, p = 0.043), and had a suggestive trend as compared to the injury-positive control (LOS + SCO versus SCO, p = 0.06), leading to the assumption that the angiotensin II receptors blockage could prevent SCO-induced lipid peroxidation traceable from the blood sera.
a suggestive trendP = 0.061.2× alphagold
Furthermore, histomorphological assessment of plaques from the Athero-Express study cohort, encompassing parameters such as macrophage content, SMC content, collagen content, and calcification, revealed a suggestive trend towards heightened CCN2 expression in plaques exhibiting elevated levels of ACTA2 + SMC content ( P = 0.06), albeit not with other parameters ( Figure 7 E ).
a suggestive trendP=0.0681.4× alphagold
However, Neflamapimod treatment led to significantly reduced cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) levels compared to placebo, particularly in T-tau [difference (95% CI): -18.8 (-35.8, -1.8); P=0.031] and p-tau181 [-2.0 (-3.6, -0.5); P=0.012], with a suggestive trend for neurogranin [-21.0 (-43.6, 1.6); P=0.068].
On the other hand, there was a suggestive trend indicating that patients with high methylation levels of NKX6-1 might have an increased risk of developing MGL compared to those with lower methylation levels ( p = 0.062, Fig. 3 B), corresponding to a 1.7-fold increase in risk (HR = 1.73, 95% CI 0.80–3.75, p = 0.162, Table 2 ), which reached statistical significance considering the optimal cutoff value ( p = 0.021, Fig. 3 C, aHR = 2.01, 95% CI 0.93–4.33, p = 0.074, Table 2 ).