Barely Significant
← all phrases

did not reach statistical significance

111,028 sentences · 111,028 papers · 0 search hits before verification

In the literature

As shown in Figure 1 A–C, the expression levels of Acta2 and Col1a1 were significantly elevated in the CKD group compared with those in the Normal group ( p < 0.001), whereas Tgf-β1 expression showed an increasing trend but did not reach statistical significance.
≥12 months) showed a trend toward association with OS, although this did not reach statistical significance [HR: 0.63 (95% CI: 0.33-1.21); p = 0.16], as shown in Figure S1A-D (see online supplementary material for a color version of this figure).
did not reach statistical significancep = 0.0541.1× alphaplainly factual
Considering all experiments with Cs + , in those cells in which a resonant profile was resolved at subthreshold depolarized potentials without action potential discharges (∼−65 mV; 4 cells), resonance strength showed a trend to decrease in Cs + , though the difference did not reach statistical significance (Q = 1.27±0.15 for Control and 1.03±0.03 for Cs + ; p = 0.054; paired t-test).
did not reach statistical significanceP > 0.051.0× alphaplainly factual
Although the CAF + AM group (test group 2) demonstrated clinical improvements comparable to the other two groups across all parameters, including PPD, CAL, RD, KTW, and GT, the differences did not reach statistical significance ( P > 0.05), suggesting a positive trend without conclusive evidence of superiority.
The expansion of activated memory B cells observed at M2 negatively correlated with CD4 T-cell frequency (p = 0.022), positively correlated with CD8 T-cell activation (HLA-DR+CD38+ cells, p = 0.033), and showed a positive trend with VL that did not reach statistical significance.
did not reach statistical significanceP = 0.0721.4× alphaplainly factual
Although the association in the elevated glucose group (FPG≥5.6 mmol/L) did not reach statistical significance ( P = 0.072), possibly due to a relatively smaller sample size, the higher point estimate (OR=1.46) suggests a possible trend toward a stronger association.
In the unadjusted crude model, both the Pre-frail group (OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.0–2.6; P = 0.061) and the Frail group (OR = 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9–3.1; P = 0.088) showed a trend toward increased odds of infection compared to the Robust reference group, although these associations did not reach statistical significance.