Barely Significant
← all phrases

“clearly significant”

628 sentences · 628 papers · 1,820 search hits before verification

In the literature

clearly significantp = 0.0390.8× alphaqualified
Normality could not be assumed in general, as the Shapiro–Wilk test was clearly significant for the measurement of the SWV in neurofibromatosis patients (W = 0.847, p = 0.039) and in healthy controls (W = 0.836, p = 0.028), so we continued using non-parametrical tests.
Shear-Wave-Elastography in Neurofibromatosis Type I.
Diagnostics (Basel) · 2022 · PMC8871512
clearly significantp < 0.051.0× alphaqualified
Expression level of HKGs in 2nd bud showed in Figure 6 and Figure 7 was significantly ( p < 0.05) decreased gradually after one and two days treated of bare roots condition which showed lower vitality of buds, and clearly significant ( p < 0.05) decreased after three-days of treatment which exposed lower survival of the seedlings.
clearly significantp < 0.051.0× alphaqualified
However, in the case of EC-MT-EM, the area showed a comparable behavior, but the overall circularity was significantly lower than EC-MT-CM ( p = 0.000), and these differences were clearly significant from 1 to 28 days of EVD ( p < 0.05, Figure 2 ), confirming the microscopic findings described above.
clearly significantp = 0.0511.0× alphaqualified
For men, two-way ANOVA analysis did not show clearly significant results between PRE and POST salivary OXT level, in either the “social positive” vs “social negative” sample [ F (1, 7) = 5.564, p = 0.051] ( Supplementary Figure S5B ), or in the “social positive” vs “non-social” sample [ F (1, 21) = 0.029, p = 0.865] ( Supplementary Figure S5D ).
near-significantp = 0.061.2× alphagold
Most findings were either clearly significant or non-significant, and there were few of the borderline and near-significant results that can result from underpowering, with the exception of the 0.3 correlation ( p = 0.06) between Arithmetic Scaled Score and Backward Digit Span, However, it is still possible that some potentially significant associations were not found due to the relatively small sample size and that this may partially explain the limited number of independent predictors found.