Barely Significant
← all phrases

“close-to-significant”

172 sentences · 172 papers · 2,316 search hits before verification · confirmed specimen

Listed by Otte et al. (2022)

In the literature

For adult populations, our meta-analyses showed a close-to-significant favorable effect for mental distress, M(SMD)=0.33, 95% CI [–0.03, 0.69], which was significant when analyses were limited to high-quality studies.
Individual papers
Eur J Psychotraumatol · 2023 · PMC10269405
For the ROI of ocular bias voxels (to analyze binocular responses), we first identified two ocular bias clusters in each LGN with significant or close-to-significant DE-NDE activations in the ocular bias localizer (see Supplementary Fig. 2 shows the ocular bias clusters for all LGNs). 15 voxels with the strongest ocular bias in each cluster were selected as the ocular bias voxels for the analysis of binocular responses.
Stratification by level of physical activity showed a 22% decreased risk of mortality (OR 0.78, 95CI 0.64–0.94) for people with a low level of physical activity, a close-to-significant 36% decreased risk (OR 0.64, 95CI 0.28–1.01) for those with a moderate level of physical activity, and a 27% decreased risk (OR 0.63, 95CI 0.33–0.94) for those with a high level of physical activity.
On the other hand, a visual inspection of the forest plot presented in Figure 3(d) reveals that two of these three IPPs whose pooled effects were calculated using multiple estimations (IPP 2 = 4 studies; IPP 3 = 3 studies) and extensive cohorts of athletes (>4000 participants) were the ones that showed statistically significant or close-to-significant knee injury risk mitigation effects.
As expected, PrP Sc immunostaining was absent in healthy animals and markedly increased in all CNS regions of clinical sheep, with significant accumulation already evident in the preclinical stage, particularly in the obex, cerebellum, hippocampus and frontal cortex, and a close-to-significant increase also observed in the thalamus of preclinical scrapie-affected sheep.
Although coefficients for the interaction were not significant, with b = −0.070 ( P = 0.062) for alcohol consumption and OR = 0.94 (CI = 0.87–1.01) for harmful alcohol use, the close-to-significant interaction effects led us to conduct stratified analyses on one group lower than the median on conduct problems and one group higher than median.