Barely Significant
← all phrases

close to being significant

65 sentences · 65 papers · 340 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Sighted at

p=0.06

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

In the literature

close to being significantP = 0.0531.1× alphagold
Regarding regional differences within groups, we found an increase in K v 4.2 (KCND2 gene) expression in the RV of MetS animals ( U = 56, z = 2.522, P = 0.010, r = 0.631) and very close to being significant increase in controls ( U = 40, z = 1.98, P = 0.053, r = 0.530).
close to being significantp = 0.0631.3× alphagold
In this sense, the control group did not show statistically significant differences in any of the variables between the pre-test and the post-test; only personal responsibility was close to being significant ( p = 0.063), and all values of the d-Cohen effect were <0.2.
close to being significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
Somewhat consistent with these findings, non‐atherosclerotic Pfn1 +/−(EC) mice also exhibited a sign of elevated circulating B cells relative to Pfn1 +/+ mice with the p ‐value close to being significant ( p = 0.07); however, a reverse trend was found when splenic B cell content was compared between the two groups of animals in non‐atherosclerosis setting (Figure S2 ).
close to being significantp = 0.071.4× alphagold
ii) Patients who took the medication more than 24 months had the OR of 10.91 (95% CI: 0.83–144.02) of developing MRONJ, and the association was close to being significant ( p = 0.07). iii) Patients who were on multiple combined drugs had 0.17 times the likelihood of developing MRONJ [OR 0.17(95% CI: 0.01–2.36), p = 0.19]. iv) The odds ratio was similar between having a dental extraction and no dental extraction in association with MRONJ [OR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.21–6.43), p = 0.88].
close to being significantp < 0.12.0× alphagold
If a model showed a statistically significant effect on the Group or if the Group was close to being significant ( p < 0.1), we performed an unplanned multiple comparison test (Tukey HSD) to figure out which of the three groups differed ( p < 0.05) or showed a trend of difference ( p < 0.1).
Importantly, the change in the ratios between the neuroprotective metabolites of KYN (xanthurenic acid and picolinic acid) and the neurotoxic metabolites (KYN + 3-hydroxyanthranilic acid), which can penetrate the blood–brain barrier, was close to being significant, confirming the potential neuroprotective effect of the intervention.