Barely Significant
← all phrases

“did not achieve significance”

1,398 sentences · 1,398 papers · 1,644 search hits before verification

In the literature

did not achieve significancep < 0.051.0× alpha
Incomplete recanalization (TICI 2a or 2b) was associated with a higher coherence and a higher gain, i.e., worse autoregulation (significant differences were observed in the VLF band and a trend that did not achieve significance was observed in the LF band) ( Figure 1 ; VLF coherence group effect p < 0.05, time effect p < 0.01, interaction p > 0.10; LF coherence group effect p > 0.1, time effect p < 0.01, interaction p > 0.1; VLF gain group effect p = 0.06, time effect p < 0.01, interaction p > 0.1; LF gain group p > 0.1, time effect p < 0.01, interaction effect p > 0.10; VLF phase group effect, time effect, and interaction p > 0.1; LF phase group and time effect p > 0.10, interaction p < 0.05).
did not achieve significanceP = 0.051.0× alpha
Distant metastasis-free survival, overall survival, and local recurrence-free survival Breast cancer patients with FGFR1 amplification had a poorer DMFS than patients without amplification ( P = 0.04, unadjusted analysis); however, this difference in DMFS outcome did not achieve significance in the adjusted analysis ( P = 0.05).
did not achieve significanceP < 0.051.0× alpha
After the 2-week treatment period, there was some clustering based on treatment arm which did not achieve significance at P < 0.05 (unweighted, permutational multivariate ANOVA [PERMANOVA] P = 0.08; weighted, PERMANOVA P = 0.07) (see Supplementary Figure 3, Supplementary Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/CTG/A460 ).
The odds of ED diagnosis were also higher among individuals assigned a female sex at birth relative to those assigned a male sex at birth, although these results did not achieve significance at the p <0.05 level; this suggests that, consistent with our original model, the prevalence of ED diagnosis by a health professional may be higher in FBGNC individuals than in other gender identity subgroups.
Regarding response latency, the three-way interaction with the covariate actual result × prediction × verbal prediction costs did not achieve significance, but showed a trend for a different interaction depending on the size of performance loss in the prediction condition, i.e. the level of verbal prediction costs ( F (1, 28) = 5.50, p = .07, ɳ p 2 = .11).